Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

I think he might have been talking about this one girl(?) imitating a horse...

I was talking about the video BTF showed...the one of them as humans, not little cartoon horses.

[Gumba Masta]

At least it'll make the rule 34 picture slightly less disturbi... Oh who am I kidding.

[tnu]

I was talking about the video BTF showed...the one of them as humans, not little cartoon horses.

Still applies. for some reaosn these high school ocunterparts keep their fur.

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

Ugh, Shane we're doing it again.

[tnu]

Ugh, Shane we're doing it again.

Doing what?

[AnCap Dave]

[Travis Retriever]

Still applies. for some reaosn these high school ocunterparts keep their fur.

For some reason that makes even less sense than the premise of the source material. :\

[Ibrahim90]

he should tell that to 40% of people in Lesotho, who have AIDS because the men insist on raping the women, thereby giving them AIDS, and any resulting children AIDS, and making it a multi-generational issue. doesn't help that they don't have access to condoms...because their king insists that the people are meant to stay in their shitty place, while he fucks all the other women who don't have AIDS....

seriously, this guy should be taken out to a courtyard and shot. he's not just an ordinary traitor: he's a traitor to humanity as a whole.

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

Doing what?

Going off on weird tangents. 

[Gumba Masta]

Wait, I'm confused... we ever stop doing that? I can't recall a situation like this ever happening.

[AnCap Dave]

Bette Midler

[BlameThe1st]

Was lurking on PZ Myers' blog (why I do this is beyond me) when I came across this recent blog post about the different versions of "atheism" and their relation to feminism, which contained this le gem:

a libertarian atheism that rationalized virtual enslavement of half the population to serve the other half, which just happened to recognize that it was easier to maintain the existing patriarchal framework, rather than going to all the trouble of inverting it.

Daqfuq is with anti-libertarians like PZ Myers failing to grasp the philosophy they vehemently criticize?!?! Does he not understand that the crux of libertarianism is self-ownership, the full autonomy over you own body and life, and the freedom it entails to do as you please provided you harm no one? How in the bloody plot of Discord does that squeeing translate to "virtual enslavement of half the population to serve the other half"? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge about the history of the philosophy, from the enlightenment thinkers of John Locke and Adam Smith, to modern advocates such as Murrary Rothbard and Ayn Rand, will realize that the main argument of libertarianism (or "liberalism" as it was once called) is that no human being can own another as property. You. Cannot. Own. Another. Human. Being. Period.

But why am I bothering explaining this to you lot? You all know this. I know this. But PZ Myers doesn't. And neither does the myriad of anti-libertarians. This is why I gave up arguing with them. They're not even trying to honestly criticize the philosophy. All they do is argue and "debunk" a strawman version of it. This is the same group of people who insist that libertarianism would lead to feudalism, even though feudalism is a form of government. For Celestia's sake! Why bother talking to another person when they're not even on the same plane of existence such as yourself? It's futile. Insanity. Madness, I tell you, madness!

[AnCap Dave]

Was lurking on PZ Myers' blog (why I do this is beyond me) when I came across this recent blog post about the different versions of "atheism" and their relation to feminism, which contained this le gem:

Daqfuq is with anti-libertarians like PZ Myers failing to grasp the philosophy they vehemently criticize?!?! Does he not understand that the crux of libertarianism is self-ownership, the full autonomy over you own body and life, and the freedom it entails to do as you please provided you harm no one? How in the bloody plot of Discord does that squeeing translate to "virtual enslavement of half the population to serve the other half"? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge about the history of the philosophy, from the enlightenment thinkers of John Locke and Adam Smith, to modern advocates such as Murrary Rothbard and Ayn Rand, will realize that the main argument of libertarianism (or "liberalism" as it was once called) is that no human being can own another as property. You. Cannot. Own. Another. Human. Being. Period.

But why am I bothering explaining this to you lot? You all know this. I know this. But PZ Myers doesn't. And neither does the myriad of anti-libertarians. This is why I gave up arguing with them. They're not even trying to honestly criticize the philosophy. All they do is argue and "debunk" a strawman version of it. This is the same group of people who insist that libertarianism would lead to feudalism, even though feudalism is a form of government. For Celestia's sake! Why bother talking to another person when they're not even on the same plane of existence such as yourself? It's futile. Insanity. Madness, I tell you, madness!

That's beyond a mere strawman on PZ's part. That's just him not knowing what the fuck he is talking about.

[tnu]

Oh dear.

No one does R&D without government money, and those who do are regulated by the government so they don't pass the buck to the customer immediately.

I'm really sick of half the forum saying that government sucks and is useless, free markets are the greatest.

The point of all of this was that governments did play a large roll in the proliferation of the internet. Saying that the government couldn't have used the technology that they had because they didn't is unhelpful, irrelevant, and just plain wrong. The article itself basically says that the only reason ARPA didn't try to interconnect networks is because they had no reason to- Xerox did.

My favorite part is when he spouts off about "government money" Like he thinks if government didn't have that moeny and subsidize R&D Since eveyrone knows governments money is special and iwthout government it would just vanish.

[Ibrahim90]

No one does R&D without government money, and those who do are regulated by the government so they don't pass the buck to the customer immediately.

simply untrue: many researchers who have been developing new research and technology have no government funding. for example, I did my research on Ordovician coral reef possibilities without any funding whatsoever--and it worked out well. managed to solve a decade old mystery.