Sensation Vs Solution-What Does The Nwo Want?

 
Confirmation bias = facts.  Facts of law, the constitution in this case.  You cannot misinterpret, I do not allow it, and I block it with reason.  Is that dishonest?
 

 
I've already done the critical thinking and it is consistent with all three of the founding documents.  It is up to you to try and show where my critical thinking is wrong.  No one even makes a reasonable effort.
 
 

 
Correct, because there is no accountability from cognitive infiltrators.  This does not mean my questions and requests for accountability are forgotten to trade blows with those who only want to distract and mislead with such activity.  NO, I repeat myself.
 
There is only one plan, and it is VERY good.  It only requires that people use their instincts honestly and sincerely and agree, accept what is natural and obvious anyway, IF YOU ARE SINCERE.
 
Do you agree and accept that free speech has the ultimate root purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood?

 

It appears that the cognitive infiltrators with their covert numbers are able to degrade discussion upon solution so completely that sincere people cannot overcome the disorientation and step back into the meme of being entertained by the facts of their own, slow demise.

 

 
Most of what you've said is erroneous.  No cognitive distortions of "generalization" and "all or nothing thinking" for me.
 
The debate on the purpose of free speech is a good example.  Biologically, the purpose is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.  Socially, the intent of the constitution, but factually spread out over three documents, is the same.  However it is expressed as a limit by government against its interfering with the function.
 
Logically it turns out that a certain amount of empowerment of sharing by the people, for constitutional reasons, must occur on the part of government in order for it to serve its function as a republic democratically controlled by constitutional intent KNOWN and defined by the people.
 
After that, our first constitutional right, Article 5, is properly and lawfully used to alter or abolish government abusive to our unalienable rights.

 

1) How does that work with vote fraud and an unlawful government?

2) How can you know that when free speech is abridged? Haven't you been reading the hopelessness in the forum? Oh, you're a coginfil and would never acknowledge anything counter to your agenda.

 

 
 
No, but cognitive infiltrators always work to degrade a thread by asking weird, off topic questions.

 

 

 

 
Hmm, comprehension seem to be suffering.

 

 
Seems that you are trying to say that information which is correct and can be supported is still a confirmation bias.  Which, of course is illogical.
 

Confirmation bias​

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.​

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.​

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.​

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.​

 
 
Notice the word "hypothesis".  In my case, for example, I've stated that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.
 
Biologists and most here agree that animals issue a warning to others of their species when there is danger.
 
The Declaration of Independence does state that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights.  It also states that Americans have the right to alter or abolish government abusive to those rights.
 
Where is the confirmation bias if the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, is interpreted primarily; because of the "alter or abolish" aspect, and life as the prime unalienable right; as having the purpose of assuring information vital to life is shared and understood?
 
Where is the confirmation bias in that?  It seems well beyond "hypothesis". There is logical inference with NO indication of any other intent.
 
How about some rational accountability NativeTongues?

 

Maybe people have noticed that the sensational buzz of threads has dropped off.

Why is that?

Is it because the sensational is no longer sensational for some reason? Or is it because those people posting in them are too busy with something else?

One thing is certain, the unaccountable anonymous social group that hates the idea of using free speech to unify to enable a lawful peaceful revolution of legal process originating with "alter or abolish" from the Declaration of Independence, has found a new member or two for bashing Americans use of prime constitutional rights and they are busy bashing solution as much as they can.

We can even see yuri and vicious letting other agents have a try at it.

Curious how a theme I saw at the dailypaul about a year ago is being revisited here just today. It's a popular but difficult ploy where an agent tries to assert that I am stating free speech is ONLY for assuring that info vital to survival is shared.

Actually using that as basis for distortion to assert that I oppose free speech. Devious manipulations at the least.

They of course do not want it pointed out that IF people knew of the threat to their lives, the people would automatically naturally limit their frivolous discussion to focus on vital information enabling the peoples unity so the people might act in protection of their lives and their own
rights.

Media has been VERY careful to only create domestic complacency OR sensational news that distracts from the infiltration of government. The one thing that is serious in the news is focus on war, to justify military spending and escalate security or secrecy.

I would point out that war with drones is cheaper, for infiltrated government, leaving lots more money for alternative projects. War with drones doesn't cost soldiers lives so families at home are not grieving and wondering why their sons and daughters are dying in foreign lands.

The inundation of Internet forums with useless information that has degrees of sensation has been a standard for at least six years now. In fact one poster here suggested it was robot posting that kept threads fluffed and looking active so real people would think they were participating in actual popular controversy. Actually the suggestion bears merit.

At any rate, real solution is before you in my other two threads, under assault by unaccountable, anonymous people acting in concert without ever discussing such action. All on the same page somehow opposing real solution as if it was obvious that was the thing to do to be cool and show how informed one is. Informed about what, by whom?