Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

From the same video

TJ AKA the Amazing Atheist

Indeed.  I laugh my ass off at Justin Templar and others like him who will argue with a straight face and without relenting that corporations would not also exist in a free market, but ones like Blackwater, BP, etc would be able to function exactly like they are now if they can find willing customers...riiight.  And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a'hopin!

I don't care what Rothbard says on the matter, assuming his quote from him wasn't a quote mine to begin with, it's still appeal to authority which is *not* an argument.  Yes, companies in a free market *could* agree to limited liability with consumers, but that's *not* what it means when a company/person/city/etc incoporates.  It means they make a deal with govco for privileges like immunity (city police anybody?) and a debt shield without the consent of their customers that, by definition, cannot exist in a free market.  Hell, one need only look up the term in a legal dictionary online--something that only takes about 10 seconds--to find refutation for Justin's strange claim.

And here's the thing, even *if* they were free market entities, which they aren't, well...who lets them get away with it? Not the free market, but the government which has claimed a monopoly on police and courts, so I fail to see how those things are a fault of capitalism.

And really? Blackwater?  Um, he does realize their primary customer is the government right? You don't get to use them as an example (or so called 'private' prisons) because they get their money and victims from the state.  Sheesh.  Figures he'd be a Randroid...they, like statheists, think they have a monopoly on reason and logic.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

[yt]mIJhAE85NGE[/yt]
From the comments of the above video,

"Anybody that says a corporation is a creation of the state has never read Man, Economy & State by Murray Rothbard. There's absolutely nothing from stopping a Limited Liability Corporation from existing and abusing people in an anarchistic society.

It should be clear...that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations
Murray Rothbard, in Man, Economy & State

As long as firms like Blackwater, Halliburton, Enron, and Koch can find willing customers they are free to do whatever they like in an an-cap society."--Justin Templer.

Sorry, but as they exist, corporations are, by legal definition, a creation of government.  Deal with it.  Would it kill him to take 5 seconds to check a fucking legal dictionary? My god, man.  And yeah, appeal to authority.  Rothbard was smart and amazing, but if he says corporations are not a creation and legal fiction of the state, he's wrong.  True, it would certainly be possible to have joint ownership in the fom of that (without state favor) in a free market, but that doesn't change the nature of corporations.  And yeah, because of that, it sounds like Rothbard is confusing a corporation with a Trust, much like how he conflated copyright and patents.  And no, you can't use them as examples, as they benefit from state privilege.  So calling them private is like calling public utilities private because you still have to pay the bills for them.  Gimme a fucking break.

Dangerouslytalented just used the french and Russian revolution as evidence that a nearing stateless society would just get taken over.

[Travis Retriever]

Dangerouslytalented just used the french and Russian revolution as evidence that a nearing stateless society would just get taken over.

"It seems your stateless society is built on the fantasy that a state will collapse and that no one will try to form a new government."--Justin Templar in response to your latest...
Good lord, folks, STOP SHIFTING THE FUCKING BURDEN!  It is on them to prove a state is needed.  End of.  They might as well be telling the Wright brothers since a heavier than air aircraft has never been invented, it can't be done.

[Travis Retriever]

From the comments of the following:  http://blamethe1st.deviantart.com/journal/Elliot-Rodger-Is-Leftism-Personified-456574949

Chronorin:  "He wasn't getting any sex, obsessed over the sex lives of others, viewed women as naturally subordinate to men, and yearned to destroy what he could never have.
That... actually sounds more like a conservative's take on sex, really.  It reminds me of every aging preacher who spends 12 hours a day demanding that the young, the gay, and the unmarried stop having all that wonderful hot forbidden sex that they aren't having."

BlameThe1st:  "Um, yeah, sorry, no. Going to have to disagree with you there. This guy was OBSESSED with sex and wanted it so badly that when he was denied it, he decided to go on a shooting spree. Sorry, but when it comes to sex, it's the left that claims that no one should have their sexual urges suppresed. They're the ones encouraging sex at a young age with comprehensive sex ed classes in high school. When you pass out condoms in high school like its candy, you're pretty much forcing sex onto children, and teaching them that they should want it at all cost. We inudate children with sex at a young age through the media and school system. How is this not the logical conclusion to this?"

As Hawkeye told me in AIM: No, it's guaranteeing free goodies from the father that does that BTF.

And seriously? "Giving kids condoms is forcing sex on kids!"
1) They aren't kids, they're sexually mature teens.  2) If he seriously thinks they aren't already having sex, he's delusional.  3) It's called trying to minimize the damage.  We know they're having sex at that age and much earlier.  If they're gonna take the plunge, they might as well know how to do it safely and in a way that won't end up with pregnancies and STDs.
Get over that puritan crap already.

As for the other dude, um, the guy killed 6 men...that is much more in line with feminism and and yes, his sense of entitlement WAS a liberal thing as Cantwell already explained.  Deal with it.
As another poster put it:  http://crimsonfalke.deviantart.com/journal/Feminists-grasping-at-straws-by-JB-456309525
And as I said in the comments:
Wait.  What? Um, the folks saying that stuff do know that the MRA and seduction communities are not affiliated, right?
Really now? So he was AGAINST the seduction community? Well, so much for the feminist claims of him being an MRA or seduction community person...but then since when did facts ever get in their way?

[MrBogosity]

And seriously? "Giving kids condoms is forcing sex on kids!"
1) They aren't kids, they're sexually mature teens.  2) If he seriously thinks they aren't already having sex, he's delusion.  3) It's called trying to minimize the damage.  We know they're having sex at that age and much earlier.  If they're gonna take the pludge, they might as well know how to do it safely and in a way that won't end up with pregnacies and STDs.
Get over that puritan crap already.

Not to mention the fact that, since we've had proper sex education, and in the states that have it and not bullshit like "abstinence only," teenage sex, teenage pregnancy, teenage STDs, and teenage abortions are all DOWN.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

"It seems your stateless society is built on the fantasy that a state will collapse and that no one will try to form a new government."--Justin Templar in response to your latest...
Good lord, folks, STOP SHIFTING THE FUCKING BURDEN!  It is on them to prove a state is needed.  End of.  They might as well be telling the Wright brothers since a heavier than air aircraft has never been invented, it can't be done.

Ya, I read that and just said, "I'm Done!"

[Ibrahim90]

Not to mention the fact that, since we've had proper sex education, and in the states that have it and not bullshit like "abstinence only," teenage sex, teenage pregnancy, teenage STDs, and teenage abortions are all DOWN.

Frankly,what is comes down to is this:

-abstinence (as opposed to the "abstinence-only" policy) does work: no sex=no children.
-however, most people don't wish to abstain, and society in general (at least in the West) has little to no tradition (or desire) of gender-segregation in schools (where most dalliances are made possible for later).
-the best that can be done then, is to educate the children on how to minimize the inevitable consequences of sexual intercourse.

this explains why abstinence only is not a solution. Just the opposite: if people want to have sex, but know of no means of preventing the common consequences of unprotected sex, then we get what we see in parts of the deep south.

[tnu]

you know ths s exactly why crcomcson ssuch a bg thngnt he US. t was speculated that twouldmake sex less pleasurableandt hus deterr it.

[MrBogosity]

-abstinence (as opposed to the "abstinence-only" policy) does work: no sex=no children.

And this is taught in sex education classes, despite the lies the abstinence-only people will tell you.

[Gumba Masta]

As for the other dude, um, the guy killed 6 men...that is much more in line with feminism and and yes, his sense of entitlement WAS a liberal thing as Cantwell already explained.  Deal with it.
As another poster put it:  http://crimsonfalke.deviantart.com/journal/Feminists-grasping-at-straws-by-JB-456309525
And as I said in the comments:
Wait.  What? Um, the folks saying that stuff do know that the MRA and seduction communities are not affiliated, right?
Really now? So he was AGAINST the seduction community? Well, so much for the feminist claims of him being an MRA or seduction community person...but then since when did facts ever get in their way?

You know, when you're preaching to the choir you come across very convincing but how are you going to convince someone who disagrees with you, like me for example? I mean from what I've gathered that shit he wrote down in his manifesto is shit you can hear on a average night out in a local pub. Sure the main difference is that most of those don't go on shooting sprees but it's not a uncommon or even extreme view on how things should be. Even if it's only by virtue of being almost ubiquitus.

[Travis Retriever]

Not to mention the fact that, since we've had proper sex education, and in the states that have it and not bullshit like "abstinence only," teenage sex, teenage pregnancy, teenage STDs, and teenage abortions are all DOWN.

Yup.
And of course, the guy BTF was talking to, said this bit in response which wasn't much better:

Chronorin: ""the left that claims that no one should have their sexual urges suppresed.[sic]"

Wait, wasn't that the issue here?  His inability to have sex led to a life of jealousy, narcissism, and hatred for others.  If conservatives were right, then his utter lack of sexual activity would have made him pure, a Jesus-child untainted by the sins of the flesh.  Yet despite never having it, he desired it and thought about nothing else.  Why?  At no point does he mention free condoms or sex ed class warping his mind, he just rants about the kids around him in school.

"When you pass out condoms in high school like its candy, you're pretty much forcing sex onto children, and teaching them that they should want it at all cost"

Boy, that's counter to my experience.  I remember sex ed in 9th grade (in red state Tennessee, no less.)  Having a 60-year old teacher display clinical graphics of genitalia and lecture about sperm & egg.... made sex seem like something icky and to be avoided.  Luckily, there were lots of Sports Illustrated bikini models to show me the attractive side of the whole affair.

Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to write an unhinged rant that will be titled "Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling are Conservatism Personified."  It will explain how an entire wing of political thought can be dispensed with by associating it with random outliers.

From you!

I learned it from watching you!"
Them butthurt liberals in the comments.

[dallen68]

Frankly,what is comes down to is this:

-however, most people don't wish to abstain, and society in general (at least in the West) has little to no tradition (or desire) of gender-segregation in schools (where most dalliances are made possible for later).
-the best that can be done then, is to educate the children on how to minimize the inevitable consequences of sexual intercourse.

this explains why abstinence only is not a solution. Just the opposite: if people want to have sex, but know of no means of preventing the common consequences of unprotected sex, then we get what we see in parts of the deep south.

Plus, there's those that CAN'T abstain, despite their best intentions. Also, co-ed classes are actually a relatively recent innovation in...well, at least the U.S. (1930's or so) Even in my life time, most classes were "boys on this side, girls on that side" of the room, up until the time I hit high school. Which when I think about it is kinda funny because at the same time, phys. ed. class had always been co-ed... until high school, when it was a segregated class.

All that being said, the abstinence only people are literally asking teenagers to do an unnatural thing. Not that every teen gets sex or anything, but it's unnatural to not want it when the opportunity presents itself. (Providing, of course, your attracted to the prospective partner.)

Not directed at you:

The idea that they're passing condoms out "like candy" is laughable. Sex Ed is pretty much the way Travis described it. In my school, they had condoms, as well as IUD's at the nurses station, but a) you had to have parental consent and b) most students did not know that. (I didn't find out until about a week before graduation)

[Ibrahim90]

Plus, there's those that CAN'T abstain, despite their best intentions.

few can--certainly over the long view. That's partly why traditionally in the Near East (especially after Islam), it was literally a sin not to have sex (obviously through marriage, or a concubine--either works. the rules have hardly changed in at least 6,000 years): it was seen as unhealthy, for both genders, particularly the men. The desire for at least the Dad being financially independent and capable explains why the men married around the age of 25, and women traditionally from 13-20 (OK, if you want to be technical, any point after puberty was fine, though after Islam marriage age did rise towards the upper end: yes, you read that right). It also explains the gender segregation: sex when the person is unmarried and unprepared, in the days of limited contraceptives and dangerous abortions, could be a death sentence: we're talking about a desert or semi after-all.

basically the Near Eastern attitude for millennia has been roughly "sex is good, but it needs to be regulated tightly by society".

If anything what I see back home nowadays is very...foreign. This whole fear and ignorance of sex is discouraging in the extreme. To see the people who invented the modern Romance genre and wrote a book with over a thousands sexual jargon terms reduced to acting like Christian conservatives (or modern Hindu ones) is....disturbing.

then again, I suppose all religions gradually drift towards being abstinence only. 

Also, co-ed classes are actually a relatively recent innovation in...well, at least the U.S. (1930's or so) Even in my life time, most classes were "boys on this side, girls on that side" of the room, up until the time I hit high school. Which when I think about it is kinda funny because at the same time, phys. ed. class had always been co-ed... until high school, when it was a segregated class.

Not just co-ed classes, but also just being in the same building. we don't have that normally back home (and when it does, the consequences are predictable). Having said that, I've just learned something new here. worth remembering.

[evensgrey]

Not just co-ed classes, but also just being in the same building. we don't have that normally back home (and when it does, the consequences are predictable). Having said that, I've just learned something new here. worth remembering.

Gender-segregated schools are the traditional norm in Catholic schools (where they can manage it, anyway) here in Ontario. They don't actually manage it in practice, even where they technically have them in some cases (adjacent boys and girls schools that are functionally one school and share students back and forth freely, for example) but they do make a try of it.

[BlameThe1st]

I think I found my next target for Anti-Libertatrians Can't Think (After I tackle Dusty):

[yt]hNtGLbtFCjs[/yt]

"The main problem that I have with libertarian logic is that they expect the corporations to play the government's role." Wow! Not even ten seconds in and this video went from 0 to epic fail!