Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

I'm sure most of you will get a groan out of this: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/04/05/why-atheists-are-a-myth/

Let me guess: it's the old everyone-believes-in-God-they-just-deny-it-because-they-want-sex canard, right?

[AdeptusHereticus]

Let me guess: it's the old everyone-believes-in-God-they-just-deny-it-because-they-want-sex canard, right?

It's a few things, but his main point is that any set of beliefs is a religion, and there are only organized or disorganized religion.

Look at one of the most popular "secular" values right now: equality. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. Evolution cares absolutely nothing about equality;
What a start for an argument about atheism ...

Obviously you did well by not wasting your time reading that.

[evensgrey]

It's a few things, but his main point is that any set of beliefs is a religion, and there are only organized or disorganized religion.

Look at one of the most popular "secular" values right now: equality. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. Evolution cares absolutely nothing about equality;
What a start for an argument about atheism ...

Obviously you did well by not wasting your time reading that.

Well, the quotation you give from him is correct that evolution doesn't care about equality, but that's only because evolution, being a mindless, automatic process, doesn't care period.  It's just a natural outcome of the laws of the universe, which Dawkins aptly described as having the properties expected of a universe governed by "blind, pitiless indifference."


Given the context, however, this statement is about half a grade above pure wordsalad, making it on a par with going FullMcIntosh.

[MrBogosity]

Well, the quotation you give from him is correct that evolution doesn't care about equality, but that's only because evolution, being a mindless, automatic process, doesn't care period.  It's just a natural outcome of the laws of the universe, which Dawkins aptly described as having the properties expected of a universe governed by "blind, pitiless indifference."

But you can also say that about gravity, quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry, or any other scientific theory. NONE of them direct any sort of moral codes because THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE FOR. They describe how the universe works, and that's IT.

And this is true of economics, too. When we make arguments against the Minimum Wage, for example, we'll bring up the well-established fact that it destroys jobs for the least-skilled workers. But we're using economics only insofar as we're describing the disemployment effects; as soon as we go beyond that and say "And therefore we shouldn't have a MW" or "Therefore MW is bad," we're leaving the realm of economics and science and entering the realm of political philosophy.

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/6651781/
>>Common Sense.
Nope.  What he's talking about is something that always happens when the state becomes life.  People become lazy, etc.  Because such is the incentives of the system.  Between him, Jason, and many others, I'm getting really sick of the elitist attitude of people who haven't seem to have cottoned on to this fact...
Have they not heard of Plymouth Plantation?

[AdeptusHereticus]

Well, the quotation you give from him is correct that evolution doesn't care about equality, but that's only because evolution, being a mindless, automatic process, doesn't care period.  It's just a natural outcome of the laws of the universe, which Dawkins aptly described as having the properties expected of a universe governed by "blind, pitiless indifference."


Given the context, however, this statement is about half a grade above pure wordsalad, making it on a par with going FullMcIntosh.

The quotation is not correct at all because
1)Evolution is not relevant when it comes to secular values. It's an obsession of some religious groups that if a description of nature doesn't fit their morals, it means it's immoral, which means it's inherently bad. Of course it's stupid, for the reasons Shane gave us.
2)He is supposed to be arguing the position that atheist don't exist because they are just people disguising their religion as something else. At that point, what science and secularist do is irrelevant.

Secularism is not equal to atheism, and neither of those are predicated on evolution.

[Travis Retriever]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1556597557934522&id=100007528785584&comment_id=1556974751230136&offset=0&total_comments=11&notif_t=feed_comment
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that custody statistic as being fair for a second.  His links have been very unconvincing to say the least...lots of vague, flowery language, more words than needed to describe something, which, for me, has always been a bullshit red flag.

[Travis Retriever]

https://www.facebook.com/intactamerica/posts/10153283584546388?comment_id=10153283975011388&offset=0&total_comments=107&ref=notif&notif_t=share_reply
Every comment by Greg Nightshade.  Absolutely shameful.

[yt]LxhJXw0I4EA[/yt]
Win quote from Karen Straughen to this mentality of his.

[tnu]

I don't feel like posting thewh ole conversation so here's the last post form one of the iditos i'm dis cussing the social contract with. When he keeps s yaing that in anarchy someone with the will to take over will absolutley take over and impose the ir will on ot hers I ask how they're oging to cover the cost of that.

Well since we are living in reality, if we took a nose dive into anarchy there would still be million of guns along with tanks, helicopters, jets, etc.

Since you don't want to address that issue, how about a social scenario? Group of religious bigots come across a group of black men. Their holy book tells them that blacks are below them and that they should take them as slaves, so they do. We could even take religion out of it: A group of people decide that Hispanic people are not fit to live on this earth, so they go on an ethnic killing spree.

Anarchy does not have safeguards for these kind of things.

[MrBogosity]

I don't feel like posting thewh ole conversation so here's the last post form one of the iditos i'm dis cussing the social contract with. When he keeps s yaing that in anarchy someone with the will to take over will absolutley take over and impose the ir will on ot hers I ask how they're oging to cover the cost of that.

I like how he just says, "so they do," without any explanation as to how they could accomplish that without a monopoly on violence.

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

Sigh!

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]Y0xRca9VLJ8[/yt]

The comments are pretty lame too.

[Dallas Wildman]

Sigh!

Okay how much has CEO compensation gone up in time again?

[dallen68]

Okay how much has CEO compensation gone up in time again?

In 1960, a CEO (at a top tier company, like IBM) made 40 times what a entry level employee made. In 2013, it was 301 times. However, this is somewhat deceptive if taken at face value, since for upper management "compensation" may not necessarily be take home pay. This link explains it fairly well:

http://connection.ebscohost.com/businessfinances/executive-pay/history-corporate-executive-wages

[tnu]

Here's a list of nonsense by someone trying to argue that the social contract is valid and rights are a soci al contrsutct grnated to us by go vernment

This is going in circles. This is stupid. I'm going to state so point, and you say either that they are true, or why they aren't. Especially (1) needs quite the reason why it is not true. You get that? Let's go:

(1) Rights are a human concept.
(2) Rights are enforced by power, in whatever form, assuming (1)
(3) State is an entity of power.
(4) State has the collective power of the people in a republic or democracy, assuming (3)
(5) Your parents can make decisions for you until you are deemed capable of deciding for yourself.
(6) Property right is a right granted by the state, assuming (2) and (3).
(7) Being citizen is not the same as being slave.