Europe may actually ban neonicanoids

We're about to find out if Europe is run by corporations or people. The bee die off continues...

More likely find out which corporations it's run by.

Wiki'd for people like me who aren't so bright at times:

Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine. The development of this class of insecticides began with work in the 1980s by Shell and the 1990s by Bayer.[1] The neonicotinoids were developed in large part because they show reduced toxicity compared to previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Most neonicotinoids show much lower toxicity in mammals than insects, but some breakdown products are toxic.[2] Neonicotinoids are the first new class of insecticides introduced in the last 50 years, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.[3]

Recently, the use of some members of this class has been restricted in some countries due to evidence of a connection to honey-bee colony collapse disorder.[4][5] In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority stated that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied may be flawed.

In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.[6] Also in March 2013, the US EPA was sued by a coalition of beekeepers, conservation and sustainable agriculture advocates who accused the agency of performing inadequate toxicity evaluations and allowing the pesticides' registration to stand on insufficient industry studies.[7]

I don't know why, but my brain translated the title as: Europe may actually ban necromancy...

Well, it can't possibly fuck with the human population if it's related to nicotine.

We all know nicotine is harmless to humans.

So now we can all avoid the noid.

What is that from? For some reason, I'm thinking it had to do with cold pizzas being delivered.

Yes, an old Dominos ad: the Noid trying to thwart the 30 minutes or less delivery promise (that no longer exists due to safety and other issues.)

It was discussed previously (in 2007) in:
Colony Collapse Disorder
Could not find it but recall citing a study that was performed in cooperation with an Army chemical lab. That study identified a fungus as complicit in this bee colony collapse.

How would that family of insecticides correspond to this fungus?

Of course, another unanswered question is whether the neonicotinoids industry is subverting research to protect profits. Only corrupt (communist) organizations protect profits at the expense of customers and society. Because that is what the business schools teach.

I suspect neonicanoids are a factor in colony collapse, but I suspect it is a multi-factor thing.

Banning these chemicals will probably help, but it creates a new problem ... how are we going to get all those tiny nicotine patches onto all those bees?

Scholars of evolutionary biology have long noted that evolution is not a steady-pace thing. There are times of stasis, where many if not most species stay pretty much the same for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. Then bam, there's this relatively instantaneous moment where tons of rapid die-off and genetic mutation and radical change occur in the fossil record, across multiple species, and though there must be a reason it is usually not discernible to us.

Think about how much has changed in our environment in the last 100 years, even the last 50 years. Maybe I'm depressed and nihilistic, but I think it's too late and we're already beyond fucked.

Clod has it right.
Our fingers will wither and we will be left with a thumb and a 1-fingered mitt
that we use to click a mouse and type on our smart touch-screen smart phones.

From the NY Times of 2 May 2013:

Study Finds No Single Cause of Honeybee Deaths
The devastation of American honeybee colonies is the result of a complex stew of factors, including pesticides, parasites, poor nutrition and a lack of genetic diversity, according to a comprehensive federal study published on Thursday.
... European officials took steps toward banning a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, derived from nicotine,

Coincidentally, tobacco companies are selling an electronic cigarette. They claim is it only vapor. The vapor is actually derived also from nicotine - an insecticide. How many teenagers will suffer similar symptoms?

Symptoms like being too lazy to pollinate? I bet most parents would consider that a bonus feature. :)

So, if someone complies with the ban, does that make them do bees or don't bees?

Do bees or not do bees: That is the question.

hahaha...nice one Griff. lol I don't see you crack too many funnies, so that one was especially good. hehe

tw;863743 wrote:

From the NY Times of 2 May 2013: Coincidentally, tobacco companies are selling an electronic cigarette. They claim is it only vapor. The vapor is actually derived also from nicotine - an insecticide. How many teenagers will suffer similar symptoms?

Actually i don't know how many of them are suffering, but as i know and want to say tobacco cigarette and e-cigs both of them are cigarette and we should avoid it. Cigarettes can never be a good thing.

Degived;891088 wrote:

Actually i don't know how many of them are suffering, but as i know and want to say tobacco cigarette and e-cigs both of them are cigarette and we should avoid it. Cigarettes can never be a good thing.

it's weird that after many years of no tobacco advertising at all e-cigarettes are now being advertised on TV as aspirational products.
personally I'm not dumb enough to fall for advertising, but it seems strange that smoking can be advertised by the back door in this way.

I presume that e-cigs are made by the tobacco giants?

Molasar;891131 wrote:

personally I'm not dumb enough to fall for advertising, but it seems strange that smoking can be advertised by the back door in this way.

Not strange. I lived the experience. Smoke cigarettes to increase your health. At least 60% of Americans 'knew' that. Because brainwashing is that easy. My father wrote those commercials to so easily brainwash a majority.

Most of us are brainwashed. Most believe spin, soundbytes, and advertising. So many so hated the American soldier as to believe the lies about Mission Accomplished. To massacre 5000 for no useful purpose (if you did not learn from that history). Not 'hated' as in thinking logically. 'Hated' as in knowing something emotionally rather than demand numbers and reasons for why. Contempt is when one knows only because we feel it is true; are told what to think. A patriotic American knew "Mission Accomplished" was a lie. For the same reason so many had contempt for seven astronauts as to believe the Challenger was only an accident.

As a kid, I watched my father happily write commercials that proved smoking cigarettes increase health. When the Surgeon General in 1964(?) said cigarettes kill, then our 'Rush Limbaugh' and Tea Party types (of that time) attacked the Surgeon General. Rather than learn how easily they can be brainwashed. The same easily brainwashed majority only s decade ago ago 'hated' non-hetrosexuals. Brainwashing is so easily that Freedom Riders in the 1960 were murdered because they registered blacks (then called negros) to vote.

Most of us are that easily brainwashed. For the same reason (in another thread) so many foolishly buy surge protectors that do not protect from typically destructive surges. That can make surge damage easier. And sometimes create house fires. So many just 'knew' evil communists in Vietnam threatened our lives and security. When facts said something different.

So many are so easily brainwashed as to believe Danon Yogurt increases health using Digitalis Rectalitis (or whatever it is called). Even spend excessively for energy drinks that probably harm health for the same reason that Freud recommended cocaine. Because most of us are that easily brainwashed - using concepts that Hitler described in his book Mein Kampf.

Why did so many follow and believe one of the most 'so called' evil men in history? For the same reason why so many would torture 'prisoners' in Zimbardo's famous Stamford University prisoner experiment. Or loved Guantanamo. A majority will do only what they are told (like a child) rather than demand the 'always required reasons why' that adults require.

George Jr's "Mission Accomplished" war back in 2003 is a classic example of a majority brainwashed by soundbytes and lies. Read posts here (back in 2003) to appreciate facts denied because so many 'feel' rather than demand facts and numbers. Because a lying (or ignorant) president told them how to think. Brainwashing.

I do not disparge my father for one minute. He did good by brainwashing the ignorant and anti-Americans. Unfortuntately so many of us still remain so anti-American as to not learn from that history. As so many were also brainwashed by Richard Nixon in Nam.

Learn from history. Or learn from others who recite rhetoric and soundbytes.

I was recently drinking beer with people I had not seen for over 40 years. One kept reciting the same expressions I knew to be brainwashing. Turns out my close friend from over 40 years ago, his father worked with my father to brainwash less educated (less patriotic) Americans into knowing you 'smoke cigarettes to increase your health'. Good for him and my father. Bad for so many American citizens today who still refuse to learn from history.

There goes 1/81 of my night I'll never get back.....

BigV;891160 wrote:

There goes 1/81 of my night I'll never get back.....

Curious number. Is it based in facts? Or your feelings?

Complete bullshit. Every smoker, and I mean every damn one, knew smoking wasn't good for their health. They didn't need the Surgeon General to tell them that, they could feel it. Anyone who's smoked for a year, or more, knows exactly what I'm talking about, regardless of what they say in court.

xoxoxoBruce;891167 wrote:

Complete bullshit. Every smoker, and I mean every damn one, knew smoking wasn't good for their health.

True because you feel it is true? A classic example of feelings that contradict facts from history. A classic example that explains why so many Germans knew Jews were vermon.

In 1946, RJ Reynolds began a six year advertising campaign that said , “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” A typical advertisement claimed 113597 doctors “from every branch of medicine,” smoked Camels. Camel then cited the T zone (mouth) as proof. Camel claimed their cigarettes tasted better. Because they said so, then many believed a better taste. It increased sales.

Viceroy advertised, "As your Denist, I recommend Viceroys." They quoted Dentists. Lucky Strike claimed a toasting process decreased throat irratation. With Walter Winchell (famous newsman and the voice of The Untouchables) promoting it without public objection.

Phillip Morris claimed that diethylene-glycol made their cigarettes moister and less irritating than other brands. Somehow injections into rabbit eyes proved their products were healthier (as if diethylene-glycol creates health). Camel then claimed their slower burning cigarettes were even healthier. By 1954, L&M filter cigarettes used the famous expression, "Just what the doctor ordered". Then Kent advertised microfilters. More reasons why cigarettes are so safe. All outright lies without any outcry or public denial. Because the majority *knew* smoking increased health. LSMFT - Lucky Strike means fine tobacco. Jack Benny said so. So it was true.

After 1950, Readers Digest (and medical publications in the US and UK) reported cigarettes were dangerous. A temporary sales decrease resulted. Followed in 1954 by strongly increasing sales since a majority routinely believe advertising and propaganda - not science. How can this be since Bruce says "I mean every damn one, knew smoking wasn't good for their health". Well they could have known. They should have known. But a majority are that easily brainwashed - facts be damned.

Yes, facts said tobacco clearly kills. Nobody here disputes that. A 2014 observer would assume everyone *knew* that. 'Assume' rather than learn from history. A 2014 observer forgets a majority are easily brainwashed by advertising, hearsay, myths, and lies. A majority with facts will still often believe myths. Facts say a majority should have known the science; and still believed smoking increases health. Does not matter what they could have know. Relevent here is why so many are so easily brainwashed by lies that contradict facts and numbers.

How many believe a plug-in surge protector myth? Existance of one in your house demonstrates the power of brainwashing (propaganda).

Some today know that must be wrong only because they *know* people could not be that easily manipulated. For the same reason so many knew Saddam did not have WMDs? Or that torture is good and useful? Examples of 'knowledge' based only in emotions - facts be damned. That is brainwashing. It works.

xoxoxoBruce accurately states that many 'should' have known cigarettes are hazardous. Yes, facts said so; without doubt. But his speculation does not prove a fact. So many are emotional; not logical. So many are easily brainwashed by hearsay, advertising, and propaganda; by the first thing they are told. That reality does not change because one dislikes it. Just because everyone should have known does not mean they did. So many will believe spin, myths, and lies rather than facts and numbers. Most knew cigarettes promoted health even though science had said otherwise. What one should know is often trumped by emotions. A majority 'knew' cigarettes increased health.

You always ask for proof of the improvable, but anyone who smoked knows exactly what I'm talking about, and you are moot.

xoxoxoBruce;891217 wrote:

... but anyone who smoked knows exactly what I'm talking about, and you are moot.

If your poorly explained reasoning made sense, then no one would try cigarettes. Then 40% of the under 30 year olds would not be smoking. Despite your feelings, advertising and other forms of brainwashing are that effective.

Denying it because you 'feel' proves nothing. Your 'feelings' cannot explain an increasing number of young adults who now start smoking. Your 'feelings' are contradicted by the overwhelming numbers of 1950s smokers who knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Your denials contradict the evidence. But you know because you 'feel'. And that is the point. You demonstrate why advertising works. It easily manipulates the many who know only from what they feel.

It is only 'improvable' because your denials are contrary to facts, examples, and what professionals knew even in the 1950s. It is only 'improvable' because your knowledge instead comes from emotion. Emotion that explains why brainwashing works.

Keep telling yourself that.

tw wrote:

If your poorly explained reasoning made sense, then no one would try cigarettes. Then 40% of the under 30 year olds would not be smoking.

Most people are not so clinically logical, tw. People make bad choices in life even when they know it's a bad choice. I daresay many people under 30 choose to smoke precisely because they know it hurts them.

Clodfobble;891351 wrote:

I daresay many people under 30 choose to smoke precisely because they know it hurts them.

And that is the point. Many ignore facts; instead entertain their emotions. These people are targetted by advertising. Because these are the easiest to brainwash.

The term 'brainwash' might mean something different to you. However, the under 30s you have described meet the provided definition of brainwashed.

Jews obviously were not vermon. Everybody knew that. Everybody could see that. But the concept described as brainwashing got an overwhelming number to consider Jews as vermon anyway.

Getting one to choose based upon their feelings is how, for example, so many Germans supported someone and some party that was otherwise bad for them. Logic (one part of the brain) was circumvented by emotions (another part of the brain). So they supported what was not good for them.

Why did Zimbardo's test subjects 'torture' others? Because they were told to; could not think for themselves. You are correct. Most people are not clinically logical. And yet those same people will also deny that are so easily manipulated.

Its not so much that 'under 30s' harm themselves intentionally. They harm themselves because they do not realize (and will often deny) how easily they have been manipulated.

Apple's first and famous Superbowl commercial specifically targetted that decision process.

The brainwashed believe it is safe.
The self-destructive know it is not safe.

These are opposites.

You are not grasping the reality of how normal people think (into which category you already know you do not fall.) You think they are brainwashed because you cannot conceive of someone harming themselves intentionally, because it is not logical. But many normal people do harm themselves intentionally, not because they have been convinced it is safe after all, but because they have a (sometimes subconscious, but more often conscious) urge to hurt themselves. Physical pain and suffering have been proven to draw electrical signals away from emotional pain centers in the brain. Those who suffer emotional pain (i.e. normal people, and not you) use physical pain as a substitute. Smokers are not brainwashed, they are behaving exactly the same as someone who cuts on their arms because they are depressed, just to a lesser degree.

Clodfobble;891435 wrote:

You are not grasping the reality of how normal people think (into which category you already know you do not fall.)

People do not make a conscious decision to be destructive. A destructive attitude occurs when higher level (cognitive) intelligence fail to control more primitive brain functions that create emotions. Primitive brain functions are less controlled in children and in lower level species. Since these do not have a fully functional pre-frontal cortex that makes possible cognitive (high level) decisions and controls emotions.

Emotional (impulse) and logical (cognitive) thoughts come from two completely different brain functions. An adult develops a pre-frontal cortex that performs higher level decisions. An adult is responsible for and required by society to control emotions using that pre-frontal cortex. An adult who lets his emotions (primitive brain functions) rule may act contrary to what he would otherwise cognitively want. Two completely different brain functions are at play.

I do not intend to kill someone. But racing down the street recklessly (for a cheap thrill or by being drunk), I kill someone. My intent, due to my actions, was to kill someone. I did not race down the street because my cognitive brain wants to kill. That need (to drive recklessly) comes from a more primitive part. I impede and do not use higher level brain functions. I am held responsible for not using the brain that adults are required to use.

Emotions is 'live for the minute'. Adults control those primitive brain functions by using the cognitive brain.

In responsible adults, a pre-frontal cortex must rule over lower level functions - emotions. The process of becoming an adult is to train and develop a pre-frontal cortex to controls emotions and desires. Otherwise that person is anti-social; entertains impulses such as fear, cheap thrills, or an emotional gratification of smoking. He does not smoke to be destructive. He smokes because the other brain wants that gratification.

Rape is another example. A rapist is not making a cognitive decision to rape and cause harm. A rapist lets his emotions rule. He stops using a part of his brain that adults are required to use. His pre-frontal cortex does not take control of primitive functions - as required by society to be an adult. You may assume he is making a cognitive decision to rape. He is not. He does not control impulses. He chooses to be lazy; not use brain functions that adults are required to use. The cognitive brain defines an adult. And separates an adult from a child.

Why is smoking so common where people drink alcohol - where higher level brain functions are impeded?

Adults must not let primitive brain functions run free. Unfortunately, some adults do that. Let lower level brain functions (emotion, impulse, desires, gratification) manipulate them. May even post a cheap shot as you have done.

Most people do not understand how or why they act. A process of becoming a more responsible adult is to learn how to better control emotions. To ignore anything that creates anger or to suppress that emotion. To not make decisions based on impulses. Destructive behavior is an adult acting like a child - letting primitive brain functions run free. If something makes you angry, then why let childish (primitive) emotions control you? Becoming more adult is to grasp realities while controlling (or even manipulating) primitive emotions.

Now do you understand how fucked up this boy is?

tw wrote:

May even post a cheap shot as you have done.

It wasn't a cheap shot, it was a fact. My son is also not normal; that doesn't make him a bad person, it just makes him different. Have you ever browsed around the Wrong Planet forums? You might find people there who "get" you.

Clodfobble;891493 wrote:

It wasn't a cheap shot, it was a fact.

Then define not normal.

Outside the statistical norm.

You say "people" are a certain way, but every single person here disagrees with you. 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. Your posts above describe how YOU think, not how the majority of people think. You can believe that the majority of people are wrong, but you can't insist they feel the same way you do when the fact is they don't.

Clodfobble;891497 wrote:

You say "people" are a certain way, but every single person here disagrees with you.

Mission Accomplished war was clearly a great American victory. Because the majority - told how to think - said it must be true. If a majority say it is true, then it must be true. That reasoning even justified this world's greatest massacres. After all, 5,000,000 brainwashed Nazis could not be wrong. Your reasoning.

The emotional know because others feel same? That herd mentality is bogus reasoning. Same reasoning also proved cigarettes increase health. A majority said so. It must be true. Your reasoning.

Explained was how people think. Explained was why people become destructive. For example, alcohol inhibits cognitive brain functions; enables primitive actions; permits a primitive brain to act foolishly or destructively. People, not intentionally destructive when in control, act different when a cogntive brain no longer functions. When drunk or seeking revenge, then acting foolishly or destrudtively happens.

Normal is to define underlying reasons why before making a conclusion. Abnormal is to deny logic because a majority must be always right. To know simply because a myth is popular. Denying the cognitive brain implies you knew without first learning the basics. And post denials based in myths of 'majority is always right'.

Turn on a light. A bulb burns out. That proves power cycling is destructive. Yes according to so many who are biased by speculation. The fewer who know better say power cycling does not damage light bulbs. But that means knowledge only after learning facts.

Destructive behavior occurs when a primitive (low level) brain is no longer controlled by upper level functions. Reasons why and plenty of provided examples demonstrate that. However the herd believes what others tell them; rather than learn from what is always necessary to have knowledge.

Herd mentality claimed popular contempt for 5000 American servicemen in Mission Accomplished. Because a majority believed Presidental lies rather than facts that predicted deaths. The fewer learn facts (rather than bias or hearsay) BEFORE reaching a conclusion. Destructive behavior is traceable to a failure of cognitive brain functions. Destrutive behavior is a classic example of decisions traceable to emotions. Herd mentality is people letting others tell them how to thnk.

When the debate is over facts, you are right, the majority can be (and often are) wrong.

When the debate is over feelings, as this one is, each individual person gets to decide how they feel, and no one else can trump that. You cannot tell someone that they feel differently than they do. You cannot tell them that their reasons for self-destructive behavior are due to brainwashing, when they are telling you that they knew what they were doing and deliberately chose to hurt themselves.

tw wrote:

People, not intentionally destructive when in control, act different when a cogntive brain no longer functions. When drunk or seeking revenge, then acting foolishly or destrudtively happens.

This is the key thing you are not getting. People are intentionally destructive when in control, on a regular basis. I agree with you that it is because their cognitive brain is not functioning exclusively, the way you wish it were--but operating out of the emotional brain is not a rare or dramatic thing. It does not require drunkenness, or youthfulness, or a need for revenge. It is how normal (as in, the majority) of people go through everyday life. You are welcome to believe that it is an inferior way of thinking and behaving, but it is nonetheless standard operating procedure for most people.

Clodfobble;891674 wrote:

I agree with you that it is because their cognitive brain is not functioning exclusively, the way you wish it were--but operating out of the emotional brain is not a rare or dramatic thing. It does not require drunkenness, or youthfulness, or a need for revenge. It is how normal (as in, the majority) of people go through everyday life.

At no time does the term 'inferior' apply. Concepts were defined. Now put perspective to those concepts. In some cases, impulses from a primitive (emotional) brain are so strong as to overwhelm cognitivie thinking.

For example, why were tobacco companies marketing nicotene laced candy? Manipulate (chemically brainwash) future customers by filling 5 year old brains with nicotene. Addicting someone sooner to makes smoking more desireable. A 5 year old intentionally addicted to nicotene would need extremely strong cognititive functions to keep primitive impulses in check.

A peer would immediately (subconciously) get his gun when the house went quiet. A reaction from the 'fear' center because silent crickets meant Charlie was about to attack. His cognitive response was to leave a radio on all night.

Sometimes the cognitive brain cannot control impulses without a crutch. The radio, for him, was that crutch. We know increasing cigarettes prices has been quite successful helping cigarette addicts to quit. Another crutch.

A man suddenly became a pedophile. He kept insisting something internally had gone wrong. Eventually doctors took him seriously. Scans discovered a massive brain tumor. When that tumor was removed, pedophile desires disappeared. Some years later, those impuluses returned. He dealt with it cognitively rather than let them control him. Scans discovered the tumor had regrown. A second brain surgery removed that tumor; no more pedophile desires.

Examples of how a cognitive brain might deal with impulses. Sometimes crutches are needed. But we don't always have those tools. Since psychology was (until recently) one step above blood letting. Tools to actually understand how brains work (ie PET scan) have only recently been developed.

Perspective. Understanding why one reacts emotionally does not necessarily result in a solution. Sometimes a primitive brain requires cognitive actions that are beyond that person's ability. We really have only started to understand this organ.

Cigarette smokers may know cigarettes kill. But impulses from the primitive brain can be too powerful (imagine how much stronger had the Attorney Generals not discovered tobacco industry candies). So powerful that destructive behavior is actually desired. A cognitive brain just cannot control those impulses. Perspective.

Appreciate how powerful one must be, cognitively, to stay off heroine. Cognitive tools (crutches) include moving far from venues where heroine was once consumed.

The most adult among us are so much in control as to not use profanity. Profanity is often an indication of one who let's lower level functions rule his actions. Not to be confused with how Craig Furgeson and Lenny Bruce use it for comical effect.

tw wrote:

Cigarette smokers may know cigarettes kill. But impulses from the primitive brain can be too powerful... So powerful that destructive behavior is actually desired.

Correct. They weren't brainwashed by advertisements into believing it was healthy to smoke. They knew that was a lie. They chose, due to what you are calling their "primitive" brain, to smoke even though it hurt them.

Isn't that just about what xoB said? Gee, it's so nice to see tw and xoB in agreement on something.

Clodfobble;891679 wrote:

They chose, due to what you are calling their "primitive" brain, to smoke even though it hurt them.

Those were people chemically addicted. Let us not forget non-addicts.

Pre and early 1950 research soundly demonstrated cigarettes kill. But 1950 non-addicts (and in mass numbers) started smoking because advertising said it was good. Because sexy movie stars smoked. Because advertising showed people doing healthy activities with a butt hanging from their mouth. Because doctors on television (the internet of its time) said smoking makes one healthier. Jack Benny, George Burns, and Humphrey Bogart did it. Many examples of manipulation posted previously.

Early and pre 1950 science simply got ignored. Smoking was cool. Whereas smoking twenty somethings in decades before WWII were about 20%, that number increased to well over 40%. With more than 50% of males smoking in the early 1950s. And increasing to 60% in 1960.

Why would so many start smoking when it smells so bad, when every smoker can (supposidely) feel it is harmful, and research said it was unhealthy? Because a majority are that easily manipulated - brainwashed by advertising. To ignore all else.

If smoking smelled so bad and if everyone could feel harm, then why did smoking numbers increase sharply from 22% to as much as 61%? Advertising preached it as good for health. Why did so many believe advertising and ignore research from JAMA and equivalent UK publications? Because most who are so easily manipulated have no idea how easily they can be manipulated.

Why is it illegal for the Federal government to do research into gun violence? Otherwise people might actually think cognitively. Better is to know only what they feel.

Were people manipulated by advertising? Professionals had numbers that prove they could manpulate many to do what was otherwise harmful. Zimbardo's famous experiment demonstrates same. Because about half the population can be manipulated to acts contrary to what they would do if thinking cognitively.

Hilter had similar tricks. They would output a high frequency sound in the PA system during party rallies. Most were unaware of that sound. When Hitler stepped up, that sound was turned off. The crowd felt better; become robust. A herd mentality would take over. They believed Hitler was a great man because they could feel it. Few had any idea how easily they had been manipulated. Most knew Hitler was good because they felt so.

Large numbers are easily manipulated to ignore facts. Rush Limbaugh, et al got rich because of it. Facts said no reasons exist to believe Saddam had WMDs. Why did so many believe myths and lies? Because so many forget lessons even taught in junior high science. Because many (if not most) 'know' mostly from primitive feelings. So many are that easily manipulated to stop thinking cognitively; especially ignore numbers. The herd mentality.

Only a minority usually learn from and act cognitively. Many only learn to wait and be told. Most don't demand underlying reasons and numbers. By disparaging the bourgeois and intelligencia, Hilter succesfully kept the majority brainwashed, uniformed, devoid of facts, and inspired by primitive feelings.

How many now believe in torture only because they feel it works? Brainwashing works.

Did your father smoke?

sexobon;891687 wrote:

Did your father smoke?

Yes.

Did you ever smoke?

sexobon;891836 wrote:

Did you ever smoke?

No.

do you like gladiator movies?

infinite monkey;891884 wrote:

do you like gladiator movies?

Yes. Especially those that feature Captain Kirk.

What's your favorite movie of all time?

Thank You For Smoking

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/