Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

I hate to say it but looking back, I can't not laugh at this.  It's just so over the top and silly.  It's like these guys are the South Park of political comics--no way it can be taken seriously.

[Altimadark]

[yt]aaZhI_u5CQ4[/yt]

The video itself is fail for being overly simplistic, but as per the norm, I wanted to direct you to some fail comments, today made by mouthpiece200, who takes the "Who will built the ROADS?" argument to new heights:

Okay, I have some fail, but I'm not sure who it belongs to.

The comments I made to mouthpiece200 on the above video are gone. Given mouthpiece200's comments are still up, in clear opposition to HowTheWorldWorks (the video owner), I presume mouthpiece marked them all as spam. Now, maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I don't think I've even seen a spam-marked message since the recent overhaul, nor can I find an option to make spam-marked messages viewable, which suggests to me that YouTube actually has the larger share of fail in this situation.

Is there anyone willing to share some insight on this situation?

[AnCap Dave]

[MrBogosity]

Warning: many, MANY fails in these comments: https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10152034406070155?comment_id=31064201&ref=notif&notif_t=like

[Travis Retriever]

Warning: many, MANY fails in these comments: https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10152034406070155?comment_id=31064201&ref=notif&notif_t=like

My personal fav: "No, it's worse. At least God/Religion are intended to make the world better, even if they don't exist/fail. Whereas markets are intended to do nothing im terms of social betterment - they are set up purely to ensure that the rich get richer." Yeah, massive fail.

Though your linking to that vid you made on atheism + libertarianism was a huge win...sadly, I think it fell on deaf ears.

[MrBogosity]

My personal fav: "No, it's worse. At least God/Religion are intended to make the world better, even if they don't exist/fail. Whereas markets are intended to do nothing im terms of social betterment - they are set up purely to ensure that the rich get richer." Yeah, massive fail.

Though your linking to that vid you made on atheism + libertarianism was a huge win...sadly, I think it fell on death ears.

I think you mean DEAF ears.

There are some other voices of reason in that thread, but only a few. Sadly, far too few.

[Travis Retriever]

I think you mean DEAF ears.

There are some other voices of reason in that thread, but only a few. Sadly, far too few.

Thanks.  Damn bogons. >_>

And yeah.  Hell, the amount of projection from the statists on that thread is *huge*.

[Travis Retriever]

Also LOL at all of the humorless morons who are telling here there are two Rs in "libary."

In their defense, I don't get that joke either. ^^;

[BlameThe1st]

http://gawker.com/study-the-war-on-poverty-works-1480364346

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark--or rather, this study. Seems dubious to me.

[dallen68]

http://gawker.com/study-the-war-on-poverty-works-1480364346

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark--or rather, this study. Seems dubious to me.

Well, for once they link the actual study - as opposed to just the abstract - and it's free, so that's a good start. That being said, I didn't see anything flawed with the study (that stood out); it just doesn't quite say what gawker says it does. (Well, in a sense it does - but not in the way gawker puts on)

All the authors did was include some resources and expenditures that aren't normally included in poverty studies, and came to the conclusion that overall, poverty has been reduced over the last 40 years. Then it says that various government programs have impacted some of that, which, from the angle being looked at, is true. It doesn't really say how much, though, or how much may have been from other factors. It also didn't look at the impact the *gifts* may or may not have on other segments of the population. Essentially, all it says is "If you give a beggar a dollar, he will be less poor than he was a moment ago."

[MrBogosity]

Well, for once they link the actual study - as opposed to just the abstract - and it's free, so that's a good start. That being said, I didn't see anything flawed with the study (that stood out); it just doesn't quite say what gawker says it does. (Well, in a sense it does - but not in the way gawker puts on)

All the authors did was include some resources and expenditures that aren't normally included in poverty studies, and came to the conclusion that overall, poverty has been reduced over the last 40 years. Then it says that various government programs have impacted some of that, which, from the angle being looked at, is true. It doesn't really say how much, though, or how much may have been from other factors. It also didn't look at the impact the *gifts* may or may not have on other segments of the population. Essentially, all it says is "If you give a beggar a dollar, he will be less poor than he was a moment ago."

Does the PDF stop abruptly at page 25 for anyone else?

[dallen68]

I think that's the end of it.

[MrBogosity]

It stops mid-sentence!

[dallen68]

Oh, so it does. Anyway, it appears that's all there is...maybe they intended to have a link there to the pay wall for the rest?

[Skm1091]

Well, for once they link the actual study - as opposed to just the abstract - and it's free, so that's a good start. That being said, I didn't see anything flawed with the study (that stood out); it just doesn't quite say what gawker says it does. (Well, in a sense it does - but not in the way gawker puts on)

All the authors did was include some resources and expenditures that aren't normally included in poverty studies, and came to the conclusion that overall, poverty has been reduced over the last 40 years. Then it says that various government programs have impacted some of that, which, from the angle being looked at, is true. It doesn't really say how much, though, or how much may have been from other factors. It also didn't look at the impact the *gifts* may or may not have on other segments of the population. Essentially, all it says is "If you give a beggar a dollar, he will be less poor than he was a moment ago."

something tells me this is like that Arthur L Kellerman study