Quick 2 question video! You'll be shocked.

Just take a moment and answer the two proposed questions. It will tell you if you are right or wrong. Very interesting indeed.

vid

Interesting find OP. It just proves that you can't judge a book by the cover, or a politician by his actions.

The second one was a good twist, though the odds were long on that "homerun".

And I actually guessed the third one.

I saved that link. I really like that, though I ought to see if it's true, and I will check it out before I ever use it somewhere.

Thanks.

lol. i had to break out the screen magnifier on the second question. i am truly surprised at those statistics. wait... no i'm not

I passed!

I said no b/c there were two kids unaccounted for among the eight.
I said A b/c B was more of a drunk and C was a war "hero" aka monger.
And I guessed that it was congress on the last question!

I killed Beethoven and voted for Adolf Hitler.


Once again, another subject that plays off the obvious cut and dry. There's an overwhelming amount of variables that SHOULD be taken into consideration instead of just "2 easy questions!"

Nothing more irritating than little stupid things like that. What kind of obvious reality are you trying to get around? It's like the nerdy kid in school who asks you a question so cleverly put together, there's no correct way to answer it..

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I think these questions were supported by facts related to the people in the answers.

the Beethoven question is a myth...

his mother had 7 children, 4 died in infancy
he was the oldest of the 3 children that made it past infancy... he practically raised the younger ones due to his father's alcoholism

it's such a common myth

here's a bit of background (sure, it's just a wiki article, but it's ok for now)

en.wikipedia.org...

a little bit of knowledge goes a long way

reply to post by Techsnow


The question blatantly sets you up for failure if you're thinking with any rationale what so ever.

Who would vote for a known alcoholic in a presidential election? Nobody, right?

Who would vote for someone who is unfaithful to the one they're supposed to love the most? Nobody, right?

Who would vote for someone who is absolutely faithful to his wife and completely sober, considering the first two options you were just given?

Everybody, right?


The question is cleverly worded, with an ulterior motive of which is setting you up to look like an idiot, when infact you're just using common reasoning.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Hahah sorry DeadFlag sounds like it got you mad. I know what you mean completely, and that's why I posted it.

It is very intriguing to me that depending on perspective, and the information given we could be supporting the holocaust and never know it until it's too late! Not that we should be afraid of our own opinion by any means, but the amount of information given is crucial to making the correct conclusion! This is how FOX news can make us all sheep, providing the half of the story that sways our opinion just enough to let the evil doers do as they please.



[edit on 26-10-2007 by blowfishdl]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

Very good post DeadFlagBlues! I agree completely with you. This reminds me of how witty attorneys get guilty clients off.

How the question is framed dictates the answer.

We have freedom, so go and vote for a candidate that can only win with corporate media support, and after being approved by party officials, and getting on the ballot.

Give the people a choice, they will be happy, even if it is not a real choice and is only choosing which side of the paddle do they want to get hit with.

Interesting.

Kinda reminds me of current politics, and the evening news; nothing beats "cherry-picking" the information they choose to share, and then asking the public to make an "informed decision".

A clever lesson regarding the dangers of "truthful propaganda".

[edit on 11/6/07 by redmage]

eh....

due to the format, it's a bit too matter-of-fact in delivery.

reply to post by scientist


I think that's kinda the point.

Politicians, and news agencies, don't need to lie in order to get most people to "support Hitler" (or any other atrocity).

Selective distribution of facts/intelligence, and thoroughly demonizing the alternatives, can be quite effective in swaying the support of a populace.

[edit on 11/6/07 by redmage]

I said no on the first question, because it’s not a basis for abortion. Prostitutes, immature mothers, and rape victims are basis for abortion. I don’t want to get mugged by any of their kids, and they don‘t want to have them. It looks like a question by pro-life people who don’t quite understand the meaning of choice.

I really didn’t like any of my choices based on the info given for the second so I would’ve abstained. They didn’t say a word on politics. That’s the kind of character politics Bush got elected on.

The last one I knew was going to the government, crooked bastards.

It’s a perfect example of how limited information can be used to guide someone’s decisions. It‘s a good video for that reason I guess.

i think it just goes to show that you cant make assumptions based on what has happened so far. and for the hitler thing, i dont think there is anyone to blame for that because he did wat every other leader did, he just took it to the extreme and manipulated many people. he was a great leader if you take away the whole holocaust thing and i dont think anyone in german at the time would ever think that he'd turn out the way he did. george bush is like a young hitler, except that bush screwed up before he could implamint anything to drastic. hope we get ron paul in to help this country

honestly, the description of hitler (and other descriptions) were very selective. I mean, if you pick the best parts about anyone and compare them to the worst of others, of course it's completely skewed.

Just saying, the video didn't prove any kind of point to me, although it was amusing.