Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Roast Beef Pecs on February 29, 2020, 09:04:24 PM
-
(https://i.redd.it/wlptik891fl31.jpg)
-
Trump whispering sweet nothings into Epsteins ear while he gets a hand job
-
Trump whispering sweet nothings into Epsteins ear while he gets a hand job
7th grade level joke
-
Weinstein has dolphin teeth
-
(https://i.redd.it/wlptik891fl31.jpg)
looks like he licking epstein's ear. nice delicate hands and wrist on the other dude though. very fragile and ladylike looking.
-
Gummy-smiled Joker mouth with pellets for teeth...
-
I remember getbiggers defending trump, saying, "there is no evidence that he slept with underage girls just because he knew epstein."
If Trump was not a politician, let alone the President, and he was just a businessman, the same getbiggers would say, "of course this billionaire slept with underage girls." However, because one social label changed (businessman to politician), people's cognitive framework of him changed.
Social Psychologists have done tons of studies on this interesting phenomena. If you change ONE variable about a person's social identify, someone's opinion of them drastically changes
Trump:
Business owner only: "Of course he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
President of the USA as a Republican: "There is no evidence he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
Even further, if you changed Trump's label from Republican to Democrat President, getbiggers response would be, "Of course Trump--the president--slept with underage girls."
-
Love the Dance at 0:26
-
I remember getbiggers defending trump, saying, "there is no evidence that he slept with underage girls just because he knew epstein."
If Trump was not a politician, let alone the President, and he was just a businessman, the same getbiggers would say, "of course this billionaire slept with underage girls." However, because one social label changed (businessman to politician), people's cognitive framework of him changed.
Social Psychologists have done tons of studies on this interesting phenomena. If you change ONE variable about a person's social identify, someone's opinion of them drastically changes
Trump:
Business owner only: "Of course he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
President of the USA as a Republican: "There is no evidence he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
Even further, if you changed Trump's label from Republican to Democrat President, getbiggers response would be, "Of course Trump--the president--slept with underage girls."
Maybe I missed something but has Trump ever been accused of having sex with underage girls?
-
Maybe I missed something but has Trump ever been accused of having sex with underage girls?
You missed my point.
-
You missed my point.
Then please educate me. What was your point?
And even if it's not the point, I'll ask as a separate topic, has there been any accusation or even implication that Trump had sex with underage girls.
-
Then please educate me. What was your point?
And even if it's not the point, I'll ask as a separate topic, has there been any accusation or even implication that Trump had sex with underage girls.
The research wasn’t measuring the validity of an opinion based on actual facts.
The research was aiming to understand how people form opinions based on another persons attributes, physical characteristics, social status—attribution theory. We engage in this sort of attribution making all the time, irrespective of actual evidence.
My post had zero to do with discussing actual evidence for or against trump.
-
The research wasn’t measuring the validity of an opinion based on actual facts.
The research was aiming to understand how people form opinions based on another persons attributes, physical characteristics, social status—attribution theory. We engage in this sort of attribution making all the time, irrespective of actual evidence.
My post had zero to do with discussing actual evidence for or against trump.
OK, I understand that. Thanks for the clarification.
-
I remember getbiggers defending trump, saying, "there is no evidence that he slept with underage girls just because he knew epstein."
If Trump was not a politician, let alone the President, and he was just a businessman, the same getbiggers would say, "of course this billionaire slept with underage girls." However, because one social label changed (businessman to politician), people's cognitive framework of him changed.
Social Psychologists have done tons of studies on this interesting phenomena. If you change ONE variable about a person's social identify, someone's opinion of them drastically changes
Trump:
Business owner only: "Of course he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
President of the USA as a Republican: "There is no evidence he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
Even further, if you changed Trump's label from Republican to Democrat President, getbiggers response would be, "Of course Trump--the president--slept with underage girls."
This is good information and something to ponder. Other than the possibility of them being underage, I don't give a rat's ass who Trump sleeps with, regardless if it was when he was just a businessman or now when he's a politician and a businessman....monkey business, that is.
-
OK, I understand that. Thanks for the clarification.
No problem.
To further elucidate my statement is a well known theory called "Fundamental Attribution Theory."
"In social psychology, fundamental attribution error, also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations for their behavior."
So, if you're driving down the road, and someone cuts you off, you say "that guy is an asshole." That statement is making an assumption based on dispositional-personality based factors, that is, the guy is an asshole. However, the guy could simply be cutting you off because he has to get home to his child who is sick (situational explanation). We have no evidence of that guy in the car, whether hes really an asshole or hes driving fast to get home to his sick kid. Yet, we automatically assume hes inherently an asshole without taking into consideration external reasons for why he may be driving fast (e.g., sick child, wife pregnant, etc).
Another example is how central traits, such as warm and cold traits, drastically change our perception of others. Ash conducted a study where he presented two people with similar characteristics, except he assigned one with a "warm" vs "cold" trait:
Brad is industrious, critical, warm, practical, and determined.
Phil is industrious, critical, cold, practical, and determined.
"As you can see, the descriptions are identical except for the presence of “warm” and “cold.” In a classic study, Solomon Asch (1946) found that people described with these two sets of traits were perceived very differently—the “warm” person very positively and the “cold” person very negatively."
The fact that Brad was "warm" and Phil "cold" drastically changed people's opinions of them, despite all other traits being equal. Similarly, our opinions of Trump would be different if he was a democrat vs republican or businessman vs politician.
This often plays out in other ways. For example, many gettbiggers say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is physically ugly. However, if she was a gun-lovin, bible totin', hardcore republican, the same people would say she is "hot and gorgeous."
I have never been interested in politics. In fact, Ive never voted. I dont care that Trump is president. My current interest lies in the psychology behind politics and tribalism. Two good books to read: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" and "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them."
Or, any book by Vamik Volkan: "Bloodlines," "Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts," and "Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror"
-
This is good information and something to ponder. Other than the possibility of them being underage, I don't give a rat's ass who Trump sleeps with, regardless if it was when he was just a businessman or now when he's a politician and a businessman....monkey business, that is.
Yes, I don't give a shit who Trump has sex with as long as it's legal and consensual.
But, as I stated above, my post wasn't actually about that.
-
No problem.
To further elucidate my statement is a well known theory called "Fundamental Attribution Theory."
"In social psychology, fundamental attribution error, also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations for their behavior."
So, if you're driving down the road, and someone cuts you off, you say "that guy is an asshole." That statement is making an assumption based on dispositional-personality based factors, that is, the guy is an asshole. However, the guy could simply be cutting you off because he has to get home to his child who is such (situational explanation). We have no evidence of that guy in the car, whether hes really an asshole or hes driving fast to get home to his sick kid. Yet, we automatically assume hes inherently an asshole without taking into consideration external reasons for why he may be driving fast (e.g., sick child, wife pregnant, etc).
Another example is how central traits, such as warm and cold traits, drastically change our perception of others. Ash conducted a study where he presented two people with similar characteristics, except he assigned one with a "warm" vs "cold" trait:
Brad is industrious, critical, warm, practical, and determined.
Phil is industrious, critical, cold, practical, and determined.
"As you can see, the descriptions are identical except for the presence of “warm” and “cold.” In a classic study, Solomon Asch (1946) found that people described with these two sets of traits were perceived very differently—the “warm” person very positively and the “cold” person very negatively."
The fact that Brad was "warm" and Phil "cold" drastically changed people's opinions of them, despite all other traits being equal. Similarly, our opinions of opinions of Trump would be different if he was a democrat vs republican or businessman vs politician.
This often plays out in other ways. For example, many gettbiggers say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is physically ugly. However, if she was a gun-lovin, bible totin', hardcore republican, the same people would say she is "hot and gorgeous."
I have never been interested in politics. In fact, Ive never voted. I dont care that Trump is president. My current interest lies in the psychology behind politics and tribalism. Two good books to read: "he Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" and "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them."
Or, any book by Vamik Volkan: "Bloodlines," "Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts," and "Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror"
Yes, I see that all the time. Like for instance, just because I fight with everybody, call people some of the most abhorrent and disgusting names, threaten violence at the slightest provocation, and think chaos is an awesome moderator, people think I am
a complete asshole and jerk. In reality, I am a very mellow, easy-going, peace-loving,
gentle man. It's just that I usually am watching the news when on GetBig and, that, along with my heel spurs, brings out the worse in me.
-
Yes, I see that all the time. Like for instance, just because I fight with everybody, call people some of the most abhorrent and disgusting names, threaten violence at the slightest provocation, and think chaos is an awesome moderator, people think I am
a complete asshole and jerk. In reality, I am a very mellow, easy-going, peace-loving,
gentle man. It's just that I usually am watching the news when on GetBig and, that, along with my heel spurs, brings out the worse in me.
People are assigning you a specific attribute without actually really knowing you--are you really an asshole (dispositional quality) or you an asshole because of external factors?
If you read any of the books I recommend, you wouldn't likely spend so much time arguing about politics.
This is another good book:
"Broke and Patriotic: Why Poor Americans Love Their Country (Studies in Social Inequality)"
Interestingly enough, much of the research shows that many republicans are only against being helped by the government because they think the benefits won't trickle down to them--that is, they will be the unforgotten group. However, when these people were posed with a research question 9(thought experiment) about the government undoubtedly helping them, practically every participant said they would be okay with free handouts from the government--all of a sudden there values about "no government helped" seemed to fall by the wayside. In fact, many republicans who are against government handouts clearly change their opinion if offered something by the government.
-
People are assigning you a specific attribute without actually really knowing you--are you really an asshole (dispositional quality) or you an asshole because of external factors?
If you read any of the books I recommend, you wouldn't likely spend so much time arguing about politics.
This is another good book:
"Broke and Patriotic: Why Poor Americans Love Their Country (Studies in Social Inequality)"
Interestingly enough, much of the research shows that many republicans are only against being helped by the government because they think the benefits won't trickle down to them--that is, they will be the unforgotten group. However, when these people were posed with a research question 9(thought experiment) about the government undoubtedly helping them, practically every participant said they would be okay with free handouts from the government--all of a sudden there values about "no government helped" seemed to fall by the wayside. In fact, many republicans who are against government handouts clearly change their opinion if offered something by the government.
I like arguing about politics. I like arguing/debating period. It helps me clarify my own views and also be exposed to other people's perspectives. I doubt that I know everything but it's only when my views are challenged can I determine it's validity.
My thinking of many issues has been changed when hearing an argument I could not counter. For instance, I was convinced by economist Walter Williams and even John Stossel that price gouging during a disaster is actually a good thing and laws (again government involvement) against it only makes things worse. This has come up because of the face mask issue due to the Corona virus.
-
I like arguing about politics. I like arguing/debating period. It helps me clarify my own views and also be exposed to other people's perspectives. I doubt that I know everything but it's only when my views are challenged can I determine it's validity.
My thinking of many issues has been changed when hearing an argument I could not counter. For instance, I was convinced by economist Walter Williams and even John Stossel that price gouging during a disaster is actually a good thing and laws (again government involvement) against it only makes things worse. This has come up because of the face mask issue due to the Corona virus.
I’ll rephrase:
Reading those books may help you temper your anger, which is not good for anyone (yourself or others).
-
People are assigning you a specific attribute without actually really knowing you--are you really an asshole (dispositional quality) or you an asshole because of external factors?
If you read any of the books I recommend, you wouldn't likely spend so much time arguing about politics.
This is another good book:
"Broke and Patriotic: Why Poor Americans Love Their Country (Studies in Social Inequality)"
Interestingly enough, much of the research shows that many republicans are only against being helped by the government because they think the benefits won't trickle down to them--that is, they will be the unforgotten group. However, when these people were posed with a research question 9(thought experiment) about the government undoubtedly helping them, practically every participant said they would be okay with free handouts from the government--all of a sudden there values about "no government helped" seemed to fall by the wayside. In fact, many republicans who are against government handouts clearly change their opinion if offered something by the government.
I personally know a couple of people who claim to hate anything liberal and who have no problem accepting government handouts or for that matter scamming the system in order to get more handouts. The say they abhor government healthcare benefits and yet they are covered under the Oregon Health Plan which is Medicaid. Hypocrites!
-
I've met, spoken to, and been photographed with Mike Tyson.
In 2020 this means I am also guilty of sexually assaulting Desiree Washington.
-
I've met, spoken to, and been photographed with Mike Tyson.
In 2020 this means I am also guilty of sexually assaulting Desiree Washington.
tyson wasnt your associate
-
tyson wasnt your associate
So everyone who has ever associated with Mike Tyson are now rapists?
-
I remember getbiggers defending trump, saying, "there is no evidence that he slept with underage girls just because he knew epstein."
If Trump was not a politician, let alone the President, and he was just a businessman, the same getbiggers would say, "of course this billionaire slept with underage girls." However, because one social label changed (businessman to politician), people's cognitive framework of him changed.
Social Psychologists have done tons of studies on this interesting phenomena. If you change ONE variable about a person's social identify, someone's opinion of them drastically changes
Trump:
Business owner only: "Of course he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
President of the USA as a Republican: "There is no evidence he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
Even further, if you changed Trump's label from Republican to Democrat President, getbiggers response would be, "Of course Trump--the president--slept with underage girls."
I suppose this explains why this thread is about Epstein and Trump instead of Epstein and Bill Clinton.
-
I've met, spoken to, and been photographed with Mike Tyson.
In 2020 this means I am also guilty of sexually assaulting Desiree Washington.
Did you have the same reaction to the insinuations of a nefarious friendship between Clinton and Epstein?
-
I’ll rephrase:
Reading those books may help you temper your anger, which is not good for anyone (yourself or others).
I am always in complete control.
What is your exact location and is your property protected by dogs?
-
I am always in complete control.
What is your exact location and is your property protected by dogs?
None of your business and yes it is protected by three (extremely vicious) dogs. :)
-
Did you have the same reaction to the insinuations of a nefarious friendship between Clinton and Epstein?
My reaction to those insinuations was influenced by seemingly credible reports of Clinton travelling several times to Epstein's Peedo Island (sometimes even ditching his secret service detail beforehand).
-
My reaction to those insinuations was influenced by seemingly credible reports of Clinton travelling several times to Epstein's Peedo Island (sometimes even ditching his secret service detail beforehand).
-
seemingly
So it is your position that these reports are false?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/flight-manifests-reveal-bill-clinton-traveled-with-epstein-six-times-not-the-four-times-he-admitted
-
None of your business and yes it is protected by three (extremely vicious) dogs. :)
I wasn't talking to you phaggot. Pay attention you senile soggy old repulsive queer.
You have any more lessons in Christianity you can share with us? Plagiarized from Google.
-
Did you have the same reaction to the insinuations of a nefarious friendship between Clinton and Epstein?
Supposedly, there is evidence that he flew to his island. What happened once he got there is unknown.
But, I think it’s likely, not definitively, that he slept with underage girls.
-
Why else would you fly to Epsteins Pedo-Island?
-
Clinton, Trump, Bloomberg and every other powerful, ultra wealthy individual is probably into some seriously fucked up shit. Political allegiances have nothing to do with this. When you're that rich, normal earthly pleasures become the new normal and you have to do some majorly depraved shit to feel anything.
The only logical stance, IMO, is to seize and redistribute personal assets totalling >$50m
-
Maybe I missed something but has Trump ever been accused of having sex with underage girls?
Yes.
(http://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/06/Donald_Trump_Lawsuit_.jpg?w=806)
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ (https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/)
"1"
-
Why else would you fly to Epsteins Pedo-Island?
We know why, but in terms of evidence, there is no direct evidence that he slept with girls on his island.
But there is strong reason to believe he did but still cannot say definitively.
-
This thread has a lot of bullshit in it.
Trump looking like a fun charismatic guy to gang out with here....
As for Epstein. So trump had a conversation with Epstein at a party in 1992, of course there is no debate trump is a sex offender ::)..... Makes total sense.
-
If anybody's the pedo, it's the main man pervert Clinton.
-
I am always in complete control.
What is your exact location and is your property protected by dogs?
Vince Goodrums mobile home.
-
No problem.
To further elucidate my statement is a well known theory called "Fundamental Attribution Theory."
"In social psychology, fundamental attribution error, also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations for their behavior."
So, if you're driving down the road, and someone cuts you off, you say "that guy is an asshole." That statement is making an assumption based on dispositional-personality based factors, that is, the guy is an asshole. However, the guy could simply be cutting you off because he has to get home to his child who is sick (situational explanation). We have no evidence of that guy in the car, whether hes really an asshole or hes driving fast to get home to his sick kid. Yet, we automatically assume hes inherently an asshole without taking into consideration external reasons for why he may be driving fast (e.g., sick child, wife pregnant, etc).
Another example is how central traits, such as warm and cold traits, drastically change our perception of others. Ash conducted a study where he presented two people with similar characteristics, except he assigned one with a "warm" vs "cold" trait:
Brad is industrious, critical, warm, practical, and determined.
Phil is industrious, critical, cold, practical, and determined.
"As you can see, the descriptions are identical except for the presence of “warm” and “cold.” In a classic study, Solomon Asch (1946) found that people described with these two sets of traits were perceived very differently—the “warm” person very positively and the “cold” person very negatively."
The fact that Brad was "warm" and Phil "cold" drastically changed people's opinions of them, despite all other traits being equal. Similarly, our opinions of Trump would be different if he was a democrat vs republican or businessman vs politician.
This often plays out in other ways. For example, many gettbiggers say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is physically ugly. However, if she was a gun-lovin, bible totin', hardcore republican, the same people would say she is "hot and gorgeous."
I have never been interested in politics. In fact, Ive never voted. I dont care that Trump is president. My current interest lies in the psychology behind politics and tribalism. Two good books to read: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" and "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them."
Or, any book by Vamik Volkan: "Bloodlines," "Killing in the Name of Identity: A Study of Bloody Conflicts," and "Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror"
Whenever I think about fundamental attribution error, I think of Alex Trebec, and how many people think he’s brilliant because he has answers on his q cards.
-
Whenever I think about fundamental attribution error, I think of Alex Trebec, and how many people think he’s brilliant because he has answers on his q cards.
Great example, Iron Grip! Very true! 👍👍
-
I remember getbiggers defending trump, saying, "there is no evidence that he slept with underage girls just because he knew epstein."
If Trump was not a politician, let alone the President, and he was just a businessman, the same getbiggers would say, "of course this billionaire slept with underage girls." However, because one social label changed (businessman to politician), people's cognitive framework of him changed.
Social Psychologists have done tons of studies on this interesting phenomena. If you change ONE variable about a person's social identify, someone's opinion of them drastically changes
Trump:
Business owner only: "Of course he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
President of the USA as a Republican: "There is no evidence he slept with underage girls." Getbiggers
Even further, if you changed Trump's label from Republican to Democrat President, getbiggers response would be, "Of course Trump--the president--slept with underage girls."
Makes sense.
-
Yes.
(http://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/06/Donald_Trump_Lawsuit_.jpg?w=806)
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ (https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/)
"1"
From the article.
A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.
If there was the tiniest shred of credibility to this the media would have been relentlessly hammering Trump about it since 2016. The bottom lin eis that records tie Clinton to Epstein's island, there are no records of Trump being there.
-
I've done my part
I can't do anything more to protect Clinton
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/4eee5efc91c4b526ec76cfab27895a32/feba93dea8eb25c0-e3/s500x750/e27525847883e60db152d3cca527b5579249aa9c.jpg)
-
Maybe I missed something but has Trump ever been accused of having sex with underage girls?
is 13 years considered underage, if so than yes.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
-
So everyone who has ever associated with Mike Tyson are now rapists?
if tyson had stated the following it would make you wonder
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
-
Clinton, Trump, Bloomberg and every other powerful, ultra wealthy individual is probably into some seriously fucked up shit. Political allegiances have nothing to do with this. When you're that rich, normal earthly pleasures become the new normal and you have to do some majorly depraved shit to feel anything.
The only logical stance, IMO, is to seize and redistribute personal assets totalling >$50m
Exactly.Billionaires live by different rules and they all do bad shit.
-
Supposedly, there is evidence that he flew to his island. What happened once he got there is unknown.
But, I think it’s likely, not definitively, that he slept with underage girls.
A logical conclusion, considering his history.