Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

Ugh.  And of course the word/phrase they use is "crony capitalism" which isn't capitalism at all. >_<

Although I do like the portmanteau "crapitalism."

[Dukect45]

[yt]INmtQXUXez8[/yt]

Well I knew it was going to be bad but not this bad

[nilecroc]

buckstarchaser on this video by the onion.
[yt]UNdhFi3MHZQ&lc=6U0XGNsL5wRkp7fZIko5cf1PMZXu3vZS6T7JbRZtMqs[/yt]

Fail in red.
Me in Blue.

Hydraulic Fracturing, also called hydrofracking or fracking... Outside of humor, it contaminates large reserves of groundwater and renders it deadly to humans. One showy side effect of this is that people can often light their tap water on fire as shown in the documentary called Gasland. The gas companies don't own the water rights though so they make a tidy profit from selling water on the side after poisoning the wells... Hence, it makes good soil for sarcastic humor such as this show.

SO you rely on a documentary and not actual scientific papers?

The documentary I listed was for an example of what it looks like to light your tapwater on fire. As far as "scientific papers" go, I'd like to point out that I went to the store today to buy ice cream and ended up with "frozen dairy desert". That's about how much science and "scientific papers" are related to each other. Always remember that anyone who gets paid to do science, by definition, is not a scientist.

[dallen68]

buckstarchaser on this video by the onion.
Fail in red.
Me in Blue.

Hydraulic Fracturing, also called hydrofracking or fracking... Outside of humor, it contaminates large reserves of groundwater and renders it deadly to humans. One showy side effect of this is that people can often light their tap water on fire as shown in the documentary called Gasland. The gas companies don't own the water rights though so they make a tidy profit from selling water on the side after poisoning the wells... Hence, it makes good soil for sarcastic humor such as this show.

SO you rely on a documentary and not actual scientific papers?

The documentary I listed was for an example of what it looks like to light your tapwater on fire. As far as "scientific papers" go, I'd like to point out that I went to the store today to buy ice cream and ended up with "frozen dairy desert". That's about how much science and "scientific papers" are related to each other. Always remember that anyone who gets paid to do science, by definition, is not a scientist.

I bet Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, and Neil Degrasse Tyson will be so thrilled to hear they are not scientists!

If you want your "frozen dairy desert" to be ice cream, as opposed to iced milk, stay away from the soft-serve machine.

If the gas company doesn't own the water, how in blue blazes (actually, the documentary would have been more compelling if there was blue blazes, as opposed to orange ones) does it make a penny selling it "on the side"?

[Travis Retriever]

http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/ChristiansMustSubmit
The only fail (that I've found) in an otherwise awesome wiki.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]wmAZNQb55IA&start=330[/yt]

Start around roughly @5:30 to get past the boring announcements and irrelevant crap.  Basically, he's arguing against anarchy against some dude named Luke12000 or something.  I'll give you a teaser--he brings up the 'who will build the roads' argument and the 'what about the environment' argument.  That is literally all you need to know.  Though still watch it anyways because...ho-re cow...it is epic fail and painful.

EDIT: Fixed.  Thanks for the code for that, Shane!

[MrBogosity]

Start around roughly @5:30 to get past the boring announcements and irrelevant crap.  I would have posted the video to start at that time, but I don't know how.

After the video ID, you put in "&start=" (no quotes) and the number of seconds in you want to start, in this case 330 seconds for 5:30. Like this:

Code Select Expand

[yt]wmAZNQb55IA&start=330[/yt]

[yt]wmAZNQb55IA&start=330[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

After the video ID, you put in "&start=" (no quotes) and the number of seconds in you want to start, in this case 330 seconds for 5:30. Like this:

Code Select Expand

[yt]wmAZNQb55IA&start=330[/yt]

[yt]wmAZNQb55IA&start=330[/yt]

As I said in my original post, thanks for the code, Shane.

As for the video itself--hoo wee! If I recall correctly, the 'arguments' against anarchism are as follows:

1) Shifting the burden of proof: (NO YOU GUYS HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOUR SYSTEM WOULD WORK!  JUST SHOWING HOW THE GOVERNMENT SUCKS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!)
2) Roads: "TO BUY THE LAND IT WOULD COST HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS BUT GOVCO CAN JUST TAKE THE LAND TO USE FOR ROADS THUS CUTTING THE COST!"
3) The environment:  "WHAT'S TO STOP CORPORATIONS FROM DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT?!"
That's the main crux of the video.

The one that always annoyed/trumped me was the bit about roads he makes...but then I heard Shane pointing out easily verifiable examples of private roads and thought "well, I guess TJ is full of shit then".  I mean, if that's true, why not simply extend that to other aspects?  Last I checked, TJ runs a business; but it would cost a lot of money for someone to buy it.  So why not have the state buy and then run it.  No? You aren't for that TJ? Then kindly stfu, and no, this isn't "different!" you speculating and special pleading buffoon.

[dallen68]

1) Shifting the burden of proof: (NO YOU GUYS HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOUR SYSTEM WOULD WORK!  JUST SHOWING HOW THE GOVERNMENT SUCKS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!)

I'm not so sure they don't have a point on that one. Normally, the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. In this case, the positive claim would be "private enterprise can (fill in the blank) better than the government". (And each individual claim would have to be argued separately - i.e. The argument for roads is separate from the argument for education, etc.)

[MrBogosity]

I'm not so sure they don't have a point on that one. Normally, the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. In this case, the positive claim would be "private enterprise can (fill in the blank) better than the government". (And each individual claim would have to be argued separately - i.e. The argument for roads is separate from the argument for education, etc.)

Actually, no, the positive claim is that we need government to do this, since government actively uses force to make everyone do things their way. I explain it in this video:

[yt]anP42zvPPRQ[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

Actually, no, the positive claim is that we need government to do this, since government actively uses force to make everyone do things their way. I explain it in this video:

[yt]anP42zvPPRQ[/yt]

And in the comments on said video.  That is, just because we phrase it differently (e.g. like a positive) does NOT mean it is a positive.

[Travis Retriever]

Ho-Re Cow.

This fail's quite a doozey.

From the comments of Shane's awesome video here:
[yt]S2OsdoAAjsE[/yt]

Every single comment from a dude calling himself Eli Nope is a massive horrifying fail.

A sample:

Shane:  "And the difference between rape and lovemaking IS NOT SUBJECTIVE."

shchpendrop:  "Then how do you tell the difference?" (Oh, did I mention every comment this pillock leaves is a fail?  Because it is.)

Shane: "Wow, REALLY? You're REALLY asking me how to tell the difference between rape and lovemaking?
Thank you once again for showing how statism poisons the mind."

shchpendrop: "The difference is the presence of consent, of course."

Shane:  "Then why did you have to ask?"

Eli Nope:  "because that makes it subjective. it is subject to consent."

That's just the tip of the (fail?)berg.  Check the comments but I suggest heavy alcohol consumption.  This guy is completely out of his mind.  This is what subjectivism/postmodernism does to you.

And another super fail from Eli Nope: "so i reject the claim that libertarianism is a non-positive claim. until further evidence is provided i will consider it another form of statism and government as any other form of government."  (from the comments of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anP42zvPPRQ )  So according to him, the absence of something a form of the non-absence of something?  Then later in the comments he backpedals and starts going into the "justification is subjective" horseshit.

[Travis Retriever]

The blond woman's dialogue in the second panel:



Just...why are there people who think such insane, horrible things.  Why?

[AnCap Dave]

What makes this even funnier is the fact that Being Liberal blocks more people than a Level 9 game of Tetris.

[nilecroc]

So I'm arguing with some idiots on facebook over the ordinance that the San Antonio City Council just passed preventing people from discriminating against gays, and this is the latest post.

"Your original "point" didn't make sense since protection against discrimination isn't special or unique to the LGBT community.

People can be bigots in their own time but if you run a business, there are rules and regulations you must follow when serving the public, or else we allow segregation to return."