Fail Quotes

[BlameThe1st]

The most recent incredifail by the Pope of Atheism+ PZ Myers: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/29/my-remarks-at-ewts2013/

It's very hard to take him seriously when he claims that "all values are personal and subjective" when he later claims that "values have empirical consequences." So, wait, if values have "empirical consequences," then does that mean that they are not "personal and subjective" as he claims but "universal and objective"? This is why I never take moral subjectivists/relativists seriously: they claim that morals are subjective and relative--except theirs, which are obviously "objective" and "empirical." His support of "social justice" proves this.

It's also very hard to take him seriously when he rails against "authoritarianism" and "hierarchy" and "privilege" when he, quite clearly being a statist, or rather, a "statheist," supports the very institution, the state, that imposes "authoritarianism" and "hierarchy" and "privilege."

But of course, he believes that the government is not evil because the "government is us," and that government is only evil when we elect "evil people" into office--so the obvious solution is to elect "good people" into office. I'm still waiting for this benevolent government to show up. Maybe if we just have enough faith in government it will happen.

And then we have this epic piece of incredifail:

In short, one significant effect of secularism is that it means we have the freedom to make choices, and more: if we care about the success of individuals and of our society, it means we have an obligation to make choices that benefit humanity, all of humanity, and not just the privileged few.

Translation: you have the freedom to make choices--just as long as its choices that WE approve of and WE feel "benefit humanity." Any other choice is "greedy" and "selfish."

Funny thing, if he truly believed in an economic system that benefited all of humanity rather than a select privileged few, he would support free-market capitalism, which has been empirically shown to benefit the most people.

But, of course, being the socialist that he is, he probably believes the opposite is true: that capitalism is exploitive and socialism is liberating, even though there has never been a historical example of their "socialist utopia." And no, European countries, especially the Nordic counties, do not count, as they are mixed economies rather than socialist economies, and most of them have rolled back their socialist policies for laissez-faire liberalized market policies.

And yet PZ Myers wish for us to make the same mistakes that the Europeans are right now correcting. Sigh. Who are the real dogmatists here?

[Travis Retriever]

The most recent incredifail by the Pope of Atheism+ PZ Myers: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/29/my-remarks-at-ewts2013/

It's very hard to take him seriously when he claims that "all values are personal and subjective" when he later claims that "values have empirical consequences." So, wait, if values have "empirical consequences," then does that mean that they are not "personal and subjective" as he claims but "universal and objective"? This is why I never take moral subjectivists/relativists seriously: they claim that morals are subjective and relative--except theirs, which are obviously "objective" and "empirical." His support of "social justice" proves this.

It's also very hard to take him seriously when he rails against "authoritarianism" and "hierarchy" and "privilege" when he, quite clearly being a statist, or rather, a "statheist," supports the very institution, the state, that imposes "authoritarianism" and "hierarchy" and "privilege."

But of course, he believes that the government is not evil because the "government is us," and that government is only evil when we elect "evil people" into office--so the obvious solution is to elect "good people" into office. I'm still waiting for this benevolent government to show up. Maybe if we just have enough faith in government it will happen.

And then we have this epic piece of incredifail:

Translation: you have the freedom to make choices--just as long as its choices that WE approve of and WE feel "benefit humanity." Any other choice is "greedy" and "selfish."

Funny thing, if he truly believed in an economic system that benefited all of humanity rather than a select privileged few, he would support free-market capitalism, which has been empirically shown to benefit the most people.

But, of course, being the socialist that he is, he probably believes the opposite is true: that capitalism is exploitive and socialism is liberating, even though there has never been a historical example of their "socialist utopia." And no, European countries, especially the Nordic counties, do not count, as they are mixed economies rather than socialist economies, and most of them have rolled back their socialist policies for laissez-faire liberalized market policies.

And yet PZ Myers wish for us to make the same mistakes that the Europeans are right now correcting. Sigh. Who are the real dogmatists here?

Damn it PZ!  You used to be cool!  What the fuck happened you to man?

[BlameThe1st]

Damn it PZ!  You used to be cool!  What the fuck happened you to man?

Atheism+, that's what!

[MrBogosity]

[yt]pnJqpByutsc[/yt]

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]dJfqGFRZ1ek[/yt]

I nominated the bitch for Idiot Extraordinaire, but fuck it, she belongs in Fail Quotes too.

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

[yt]e4WA-RoTQUc[/yt]

Sad part is I usually like this guy.

[BlameThe1st]

I think my brain just melted from the incredifail!

[BlameThe1st]

From a Tumblr post called Everything Wrong with Libertarianism Summed Up Conveniently in One Person:

Edward Snowden. He's the man who recently leaked the information about the NSA listening in on American citizens' phone calls. He did so, he says, in defense of the Constitution; he believes that what the NSA was doing is illegal, and he sees himself as a sort of whistleblower for the federal government.

As expected, the government wasn't as understanding. He's been condemned largely by both democrats and republicans, though he has been praised by some. Republican senator with libertarian sensibilities, Rand Paul of Kentucky, reportedly agrees with Snowden's decision. No surprise there, either.

Snowden's dodging of the American justice system has shown the true hypocrisy of libertarianism. They're all for defending the Constitution until they can benefit from the opposite. If Snowden is trying to defend the Constitution, there's no denying that he should be adhering to the legal system that the same document created. Even if he wanted to argue that a charge of espionage by the federal government is virtually impossible to win, there is precedent to say otherwise; the Pentagon Papers actually proves to be a great comparison.

Snowden, in his libertarian logic, has sought refuge within nations that are by no means breeding grounds for liberty. He's been in Communist China and he's been in discussion with Communist Cuba as well as Russia, seeking asylum from an American justice system that has every right to charge him for espionage.

The childish libertarian philosophy extends beyond Snowden, however. I am still amazed that at this day and age libertarian economics exists. Are we truly to believe that if libertarians are okay with Snowden avoiding justice, that they'd be okay with their own "screw the poor" attitude if they were any less fortunate? This may sound somewhat trivial but I argue that it is not; libertarianism has far too many holes in it to be a growing political movement.

Right! Because if Snowden really cared about the Constitution, he would submit to the very same government THAT'S SQUEEING SUVERTING IT!

By the sweet delectable flank of Celestia is this stupid! Is it really possible that this manhabits the same world that I do? Because that doesn't seem to be the case!

[Travis Retriever]

I think my brain just melted from the incredifail!

Despite the fact that corporations are, by definition, a legal entity with gov't granted privileges...oops.

[Travis Retriever]

From a Tumblr post called Everything Wrong with Libertarianism Summed Up Conveniently in One Person:



Right! Because if Snowden really cared about the Constitution, he would submit to the very same government THAT'S SQUEEING SUVERTING IT!

By the sweet delectable flank of Celestia is this stupid! Is it really possible that this manhabits the same world that I do? Because that doesn't seem to be the case!

I believe the best response I have to that is summed up in that image showing Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden captioned with: "If gov't is doing nothing wrong, it has nothing to fear"  Simple, no?

[BlameThe1st]

From Escaping the Friendzone: The story of a former right-wing MRA:

If I am to accept libertarian ideology as legitimate, then logic dictates that I believe that women, people of color, etc., make less money than white men for the same jobs because there is something inherently lesser about them. This is, quite obviously, bullshit, and abhorrently so. As I'm not a monstrous human, even my feeble libertarian ego saw that it was bullshit and that was the end of libertarianism for all intents and purposes.

Sigh. When is the gender wage gap myth going to die already? It's high time somebody killed it with fire!

[BlameThe1st]

Does KenBrasai even know what the SQUEE libertarians are?

"Libertarians complain about the government disregarding the individual for the state. And then complain about abortions as "women who don't respect the greater good", and LGBT citizens who want equality as "not caring about the common will of the people". Fucking hypocrites, that's what they are."

Apparently not!

[BlameThe1st]

This is the kind of bogons you find when you search for libertarianism on Tumblr!

From a post called Libertarianism is BS:

Libertarians are, essentially, anarchists without the chutzpah to make a Molotov cocktail and lob it at a police car. Comprised almost exclusively of rich, white men, or upper-middle class, white, college students who smoke too much pot, it is a political philosophy inasmuch as hedonism is a moral philosophy. This comparison is not altogether tangential, as Libertarians like to espouse the doctrine of "free and unfettered market capitalism," which is a sort of hedonism in and of itself.

The entire philosophy of Libertarianism is, in fact, a sham, and little more than prolefeed disguised as a legitimate political belief. Now, of course, this is a blanket statement, and should be taken as such, but certainly, we can make SOME generalizations if Libertarianism is half the philosophy it claims to be, since it must, therefore, have SOME tenets that are universally held.

Libertarianism (Christ, I am already tired of the length of this word) is the belief in deregulation. While some are economic libertarians, and think that only the Almighty Dollar should rule over the market, others are social libertarians, who think that the government ought to fuck off and let me do huge bonghits, bro. And then, of course, you have Objectivists who, in between fantasizing about sliding their tongues in the space between her incisors, believe that the pursuit of one's own happiness is the utmost in moral obligation.

You know, something as "intellectually-stimulating" as that deserves an equally "intellectually-stimulating" response:

[yt]NZN1HowUV5Q[/yt]

[BlameThe1st]

Apparently this guy has never heard of the Libertarian Party.

[Travis Retriever]

Apparently this guy has never heard of the Libertarian Party.

And is unaware of how many republicans love parroting libertarian rhetoric while expanding gov't faster than the dems!  As Harry Browne said: Republicans campaign like libertarians but rule like democrats.