Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

He actually makes a fair argument there. The only modification I would make would be "voting or not voting does not effect the right to complain about any specific action that an elected official makes-unless there was a specific election on every single action said elected official could conceivably take."

In other words, repeating the assertion.

Reminds me of this (win) from Dale Everett: 

[dallen68]

In other words, repeating the assertion.

Reminds me of this (win) from Dale Everett: 

In general, responsibility falls on those who are in a position to change the situation. In the case of the cartoon, Bush's assertion that he had a mandate from the voters could be challenged (either by Congress or the Supreme Court). Congress could have easily removed the specific operation from the funding, or made a condition of the funding extraction from the mission. As far as the voter goes-individually he doesn't matter, unless a somewhat significant portion of voters vote for something other than tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, government as usual will continue in Washington. And the soldier, unless he can show that the orders in question are implicitly amoral or illegal, there's nothing he can do about it without severe personal, legal, and professional consequences.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5SO1RdCYdQ

There's a fellow by the name of Noah Howard responding to a post I make in the comments and oh my good sweet lord!  He actually unironically says "government is a non profit organization" and "politicians get into politics just to do some good."

How do people say this with a straight face?  How do politicians listen to it with a straight face?  Statism really is just the great conspiracy to keep a straight face.

[AdeptusHereticus]

Since he follows me on Twitter, he found these posts. :3

He responded with this:  http://ana.rchist.net/response.txt

I thought I had problems understanding him because of the limitations of twitter, but even now, it's difficult for me. So either he's nebulous or I lack the skills.

i'm only going to comment on the part that directly concerns me.

"Another person remarked, "He says that both arguments hinge on voting being effective...isn't it effective for people from the left and the right?"

Yes, it is effective for people on the left and the right who agree 100% with a particular politician, that politician is running in the election, and that politician wins the election in question. If that was all that was trying to be said, then you can say that it was effective. To make the statement more meaningful and relevant requires muddying the clear-cut conditions under which it can be said to be effective. I don't believe that what was trying to be said was only that it is effective under those specific assumptions."

Well, he's right, I was operating under a few assumptions that makes voting effective for people who have an interest in the current system. Of course, it is ineffective for others, like me. My interests cannot be taken into account under the political system of my country. Voting is ineffective for me, but voting isn't meant for me either if the way I understand the status-quo is correct, and I suspect the situation is largely similar in every other western country. People vote for a number of reasons, so their interests in the system vary.

Because of that, I reject the idea that the assumptions he makes are the only one that validate my claim. That's why I talked about partisanship. People might not always agree 100% with the action of a individual, or it's party, or the government put in place, but the widespread use of partisan rethoric demonstrate that it is not the main issue when it comes to voting. People vote to try to shape the social and economical context within their country. It's the act of shaping that brings them to the polls, not the minutia of said shaping.

So, one assumption one has to make to talk about the effectiveness of voting is that people have a good reason to vote, or at least, good enough to make them go to the polls. Another is that if people keep voting, that means that they get enough out of it to justify it. To me, it suggests that they think it is effective, and if they think that way, I must think it to. There's no way around it. I am a not a psychic : if someone speaks and act in a seemingly coherent manner, I have to believe them.

Using markets as an analogy, if people would stop buying political goods en masse (English speaking people use that expression right ?), we would expect a new market to emerge, because there is political money left on the table. Well, again, because the political market is regulated, even to the extent that some businesses are prohibited, the new market never rises. Which is why voting is effective only for a certain kind of people, people who have a vested interest in the political status-quo (left and right), people who have shares in the national food company which is the current political system they are in.

If no candidate is satisfying for me, I can't make political businesses aware of my intentions to not buy, because the only action that the customer can take on the current political market is to buy the political goods of the state sanctionned political businesses . I can't vote blank, which is equivalent to not buying in elections, or use any other options, because they don't exist. Well, they don't exist for a reason : the people who can manufacture them and the people who vote for them benefit from partisanship (shares in the company) which would crumble in a political free market. In other words, I (and the whole western world, I suppose) are stuck in a communist political market where dissidents get force-fed with the great leader's bland noodles while pasta manufacturer are denied the 42-a form they are asked to provide.

So yes, voting is effective. It's effective in the context people want it to be. If it was supposed to be something else, the system would be built otherwise.

[AdeptusHereticus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5SO1RdCYdQ

There's a fellow by the name of Noah Howard responding to a post I make in the comments and oh my good sweet lord!  He actually unironically says "government is a non profit organization" and "politicians get into politics just to do some good."

How do people say this with a straight face?  How do politicians listen to it with a straight face?  Statism really is just the great conspiracy to keep a straight face.

"education is bad because they need more money"

Nope. Teachers and students needs incentive.

I discussed that a few times with members of my family and each time I get the stares and the smiles and the constant nodding that says "we are going to let you speak because you will likely shut up at the end if we don't enable you" ... Why would people want to learn when they are stripped of their agency and their free time ? People don't want to learn under duress. If they don't like what they do, they will feel sadder, depressed and at this point, the path of least resistance will be the only one considered. Kids needs opportunities to figure out what they want to do. Teachers need to be taught that fact and the curriculums should mirror as much as possible the goal the student wants to achieve because we only have so much time to learn something before getting our agency back and the opportunity to become productive. There's no time to loose with things that don't align with our personnal goals and I would be surprised to find anybody who thinks that people don't feel more fullfilled when they are in control of their life.

[AdeptusHereticus]

http://www.metronews.fr/info/un-quota-de-femmes-dans-les-cockpits-l-idee-polemique-d-une-feministe-allemande-apres-le-crash-de-l-a320/mocD!L1E2gHXjqf6E/
It's a link to a french article about a german article, for which i'll also provide a link :
http://www.emma.de/artikel/frauenquote-fuers-cockpit-318639

Of course I don't expect you to be able to read it so I'll summarize it.

The original article is from Luise Pusch, a german writer and feminist. Apparently she presents a reasonning that goes lie this : The german A320 that crashed was piloted by a man. This man crashed on purpose. More women died than men. Which means that, "again", women are the victims or men's violence. So she provide a solution, which is to put one woman in each cockpit to ensure the safety of everyone ...

One of the tweets from the first link which I find funny :
"Eine Männerquote in der Redaktion von #Emma ein MIttel, um intellektuelle Katastrophen wie diese zu verhindern"
That translates roughly by " A men quota in Emma's redaction could have prevented that intellectual disaster"

So here you go guys, we can't be trusted by anyone. Be sure to bring your girlfriend with you when you hit the road, I wouldn't want you to crash your car and die because of your stupid man violence. Be safe.

[AdeptusHereticus]

https://twitter.com/StephenBendelow/status/583595761583161344

Little Stevie response to Dawkins.

And now, back to checking my privilege.

[Dallas Wildman]

Brianna Wu (and Company) strikes again
#5-Unsubstantiated
#4-Unsubstantiated
#3-Does not prove anything
#2-Simply because you've proven to be full of yourself
#1-Progress has been long before you started writing

[AnCap Dave]

Brianna Wu (and Company) strikes again
#5-Unsubstantiated
#4-Unsubstantiated
#3-Does not prove anything
#2-Simply because you've proven to be full of yourself
#1-Progress has been long before you started writing

>Choosing between your career and family
>implying only women have to do that

Explain to me then why we have so many movies of the overworking father who never spends time with his kids and in the end needs to choose between his career and his family?

[AnCap Dave]

[MrBogosity]

#3-Does not prove anything

Wait, it's a man's job because a woman can't do that and raise a child? As a man who's raised two children mostly on his own, FUCK YOU!!!

#1-Progress has been long before you started writing

Also contradicts the claim in #5 that "it's only gotten worse."

[Travis Retriever]

"Not everything is consistent."--Someone in one of my recent posts on Facebook.
#BroDoYouEven1stPrinciples

[Travis Retriever]

I really need to stop having these convo's in private, where they won't be open to some much deserved public scrutiny. X_x
Talking with a friend on Facebook regarding illegal immigration.  I show him this:  http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/statist-fallacies-illegal-immigration/
And the following exchange happens:

Him:  I'm even more confused now.  State property is fiction?  Wanna elaborate on that?

Me:  I admit the wording could have been better on that.  Oh well.

Him:  Holy shit yeah. Wanna translate?

Me:  Government fiat (them pointing at it and saying 'mine or I'll shoot you') does not, a legit property claim make.

Him:  What does a legit property claim make then

Me:  Homesteading, or voluntary transfer.

Him:  Well a lot of voluntary transfer (and involuntary transfer) went on to get the US land.  The Louisiana Purchase was voluntary while colonization was involuntary.

Me:  With stolen money (taxes) So not quite.  If I steal money and use it buy something, the transaction is invalid because the money wasn't legitimately mine in the first place.

Him:  Do you know the purposes of taxation?

And yes, for those who might have guess, the guy in red is the same one I quoted in the post above this one.

[Travis Retriever]

"Check your privilege!"--feminists/SJWs

[AdeptusHereticus]

Don't you get it ? It's their justification. It's what gives them credibility in the liberal Wonderland. Because obviously, someone who is well off and think about "the poor" cannot have ulterior motive and is necessarily rational and wiser. I witnessed that over and over and over in my own family. You can't attack someone who has money and pretend to speak on behalf of "the poor". Doing it will always result in the claim that you hate said "poor", have no empathy/compassion/whatever, or that you have some ulterior motive of some sort.
In today's social climate, speaking for a supposed victim of society is seen as the ultimate proof of altruism (Complete illusion, but anyways ...) and liberals made sure that they had the monopoly on that !

You won't find rationality so easily, and if you do, don't expect much.