Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]UPQLLK0nIRA[/yt]

Every single comment left by HarryFuckedBabyTesco on the above video without exception.  Damn, gotta love how venom-filled the irrationality of statists can be.

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/the-catholic-church-builder-of-civilization-487/video-lectures/
All of them.

[Travis Retriever]

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.naturalnews.com/042613_Theory_of_Evolution_contradictions_scientific_thinking.html
As I told D, I know he made a BBE nomination thread for this, but it's not enough.  It belongs here too.  Especially this shitstain:

"And don't even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That's another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind."--last paragraph of the above link

[ArtemisVale]

There was a discussion about wether pathfinder paladins could be anarchist and i gave my two cents about this at the very end of the thread

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kia5&page=3?The-Paladin-Anarchist#127

a bit of fail from pugwampi

First I'll dust off the old political science class stuff and say there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist. The term is an oxymoron. An anarchist is opposed to all hierarchy. That means government, religion, and capitalist hierarchy. I know the term gets thrown around a lot these days, but if you are calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist please stop. You are a libertarian not an anarchist.

As far as the much more important gaming stuff goes... Lawful=Order. There's no judgement call to make there. I've actually enjoyed the way Paizo has highlighted that concept with things like the Hellkights. They only care about order and don't care if it is good evil or neither. Awesome concept.

An anarchist character could be CG, CN, or CE. So no paladins for you.

[Skm1091]

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os&lc=YXkyjhzzJQN-xwJHH2qpFOkDG-E3YjXeUcZJBZlsRt4[/yt]

ThunderF00t Comments

I've seen this extendedly from both sides.
I love the UK, where guns are almost non-existent and how marvelously safer that makes you feel.
I also kinda like america, with the far larger onus on being responsible for your own safety.
Both have their appeal, but I gotta agree with concordance here, gotta draw the line somewhere. Assault guns designed for killing large groups of people and grenades seem pretty hard to justify.

My Reply

You do realize before gun control your crime rate was lower right? The homicide rate in the United Kingdom during the 60s up 70s was around 0.6 to 0.8. Then In 1988 the UK passed the Firearms act of 1988, which outlawed semi automatic centerfire rifle after the Hungerford Shooting in 1987. By 1996 the year of the Dunblane shooting the homicide was 1.3 which is an increase. And after the 1997 handgun ban after Dunblane the homicide went up to as high as 2.0 only to drop to 1.2 in recent times

His Response to me

not quite sure where you're going with this? Banning guns increases gun crime? Well in that case the US should be bottom of the list right? but its not, its about 50x higher in the US than in the UK

.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os&lc=YXkyjhzzJQN-xwJHH2qpFOkDG-E3YjXeUcZJBZlsRt4[/yt]

ThunderF00t Comments

My Reply

His Response to me
.

*EDIT*
Okay, because the image doesn't want to display, I'll have to say what it showed.
Some dude: "How's that total civilian gun ban workin' out for you, England?"
English Bloke: "Oh, just great! We now have more violent crime per capita than the USA.  Invasions of occupied homes are very popular!"
Scottish dude: "I'm now the most violent western nation!"

[Lord T Hawkeye]

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os&lc=YXkyjhzzJQN-xwJHH2qpFOkDG-E3YjXeUcZJBZlsRt4[/yt]

ThunderF00t Comments

My Reply

His Response to me
.

A man of science like Thunderf00t just taking one factor and disregarding all others?  Truly shameful.  He should know better than that.

[Skm1091]

A man of science like Thunderf00t just taking one factor and disregarding all others?  Truly shameful.  He should know better than that.

Gun control advocates seem like bad economists.

As they say a good economist looks at the seen and the unseen, a bad economist looks at only the seen.

Thunderf00t is looking at only the seen (decreasing gun crime) and ignoring the unseen (Overall Homicide & Other Crimes going up)

Not economics, but pretty good analogy i guess.

[AnCap Dave]

Just wow.

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

[dallen68]

And?

[Ibrahim90]

And?

don't you see, we are all getting poisoned!!! Monsanto wants to screw with our heads so Government can control us!!! HURRR DURRR!

[FSBlueApocalypse]

[BlameThe1st]

Study: White racism linked with opposition to gun control

Oh look: it's our old friend the race card rearing it's ugly head again and poisioning the well!

Fortunatley, one reasonable commentor left this comment debunking the whole mess:

Let's look at O'Brien's web page–His list of published papers does not include the one cited in this article. The 'paper' itself was not published in an academic journal, etc; but rather on PLOS|One, which appears to be a 'pay for publication' website. It says it is 'peer reviewed;' however, I would bet the 'peer' reviewing the paper is a computer. [My subjective impression.] If reviewed by humans the humans are not identified. (This is a huge problem when citing 'peer reviewed' studies such as this. Academic publications, at least, have an identifiable Editorial Board. This one has none.)

The American National Election Survey is pretty difficult to determine what questions they ask and for what purpose, but neither this, nor their contribution to it, is mentioned on their website. Most of the 'research' on the site was produced prior to 2000. That's 13 years old, folks. How they determine the cohort for the studies are not easily determined. However they claim the data was asked during federal election years, (I assume of voters.), which skews the sample and excludes, generally, blacks, hispanics, the elderly and others not in the middle to upper classes–simply because they are less likely to vote.

The Symbolic Racism Scale is a joke, it is entirely based on self-reporting of subjective "feelings." The use for which information gathered, entirely subjectively, is not a component or consideration of the research undertaken.

The SRS sample, how it was obtained and how it was used, is incredibly  biased. Before they even started, they had 52-66% who were known supportors of 2nd amendment rights. The American National Election Survey data was obtained after the fact and there is no identification of the how the sample was chosen. The purpose of this 'paper' seems, obviously, to portray a behavior salon dislikes as being associated with another behavior that is generally seen as negative by society.

O'Brien declaratively stated the study is CORRELATION, NOT causation. So, basically, someone hired his research assets to keep looking for data that would support a foregone conclusion–firearms are bad and WHITE racism is the reason. So, all you guys/gals out there who own firearms are RACISTS; which is another reason to hate you.

Given enough time to scrounge around in piles of inapplicable data, money and access to staff, I could find a correlation between 'anti-gunners' and 'football hooliganism.'

Anyone want to speculate why even the author won't list this 'study' on his own website?

The headline is incorrect and inflammatory. Created to generate maximum dysphemistic effect.