Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

Not really going to regurgitate what apologists have already explained numerous times. As for "female sex slaves," here's a video by TektonTV explaining why that isn't the case:

And as usual, Tekton uses strawman arguments as well as speculation and extra-Biblical information (with his usual smug arrogance) to try and gleam what the Bible "really" means, while actually talking around the issue: "31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

As for Deut. 21, interesting how he considers it "humanizing" and "moral" for God to say that you have to marry your victim before you can rape her. "It was better than it was before" is FUCKING NO DEFENSE for a book that's supposed to be divinely inspired by a perfectly moral God.

That sounds too much like a "no-true Scotsman fallacy,"

No, it's not. Do you realize there are Jewish Quakers? Muslim Quakers? There are even ATHEIST Quakers!

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

[yt]s-k9MeyB6xI[/yt]

I really need to stop looking on PJTV YouTube page.

Really, an entire video for something was obviously a joke?

[FSBlueApocalypse]

I'm not sure whats worse, the failure of economics or that the people who run Being Liberal would be the first in line to block a Wal-Mart from opening all together

[AnCap Dave]

It gets worse:

[MrBogosity]

It gets worse:

I can personally attest that none of these are true. After my accident Walmart was VERY good about these things, including helping me to the car.

Of course, if they did it for EVERY customer they'd have to raise prices (imagine that), but it's there for the ones who need it (as opposed to the ones who are just lazy elitist fucks).

[AnCap Dave]

[AnCap Dave]

Unfortunately in this next piece of fail, we have to call out one of our own.

First, some background:
"The Skeptical Libertarian page on Facebook decided to point out some historical inaccuracies in Tom Woods' book "The Politically-Incorrect Guide to American History."

Tom Woods responded with this:
"The folks at the misnamed 'Skeptical Libertarian' are attacking my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a correspondent tells me. I am quite sure whatever they are saying can be answered, but you know what? I do not care.

Perhaps we can gather a list all the bestselling books produced by the entire community there and critique them. Or make a list of all the people they've converted to libertarianism. I suspect both lists would be the same length."

I never expected such a childish and silly response from someone I hold in high regard.

Okay, I'm adding more to this because after reading the comments, Tom Woods is starting to come off as a massive douche bag and almost conspiratard-like:




Hell, there might end up being more fail before I even post this.

[Travis Retriever]

Unfortunately in this next piece of fail, we have to call out one of our own.

First, some background:
"The Skeptical Libertarian page on Facebook decided to point out some historical inaccuracies in Tom Woods' book "The Politically-Incorrect Guide to American History."

Tom Woods responded with this:
"The folks at the misnamed 'Skeptical Libertarian' are attacking my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a correspondent tells me. I am quite sure whatever they are saying can be answered, but you know what? I do not care.

Perhaps we can gather a list all the bestselling books produced by the entire community there and critique them. Or make a list of all the people they've converted to libertarianism. I suspect both lists would be the same length."

I never expected such a childish and silly response from someone I hold in high regard.

Okay, I'm adding more to this because after reading the comments, Tom Woods is starting to come off as a massive douche bag and almost conspiratard-like:




Hell, there might end up being more fail before I even post this.

Yo, Shane any chance of Tom Woods getting named IE/BBE in a podcast from this idiocy?

[MrBogosity]

Yo, Shane any chance of Tom Woods getting named IE/BBE in a podcast from this idiocy?

I dunno, I'm having trouble finding anything there to take issue with.

[AnCap Dave]

I dunno, I'm having trouble finding anything there to take issue with.

I don't know, maybe the whole, "You criticize my book and point out my historical inaccuracies? Clearly you must support the establishment and aren't a true skeptical libertarian. I also don't care enough to address your points. How many books have YOU written?!"

Seriously, there's a ton of bullshit to call out here.

I'm also going to say that this is now reaching $2 Molyneux donation fiasco levels of stupid:

[MrBogosity]

It mostly seems to be him not wanting to take on yet more false accusations of him being a "neo-confederate," when he's done everything reasonably possible to make it clear that the Confederate States of America is FAR from his ideal government.

[AnCap Dave]

It mostly seems to be him not wanting to take on yet more false accusations of him being a "neo-confederate," when he's done everything reasonably possible to make it clear that the Confederate States of America is FAR from his ideal government.

But they weren't claims of him being a neo-Confederate. They were claims that his book had historical inaccuracies which he simply shrugged off as TSL being "not libertarian" and "parroting the mainstream media."

I don't see Woods as a neo-Confederate, but he certainly came off like a massive douche here.

[MrBogosity]

I don't see Woods as a neo-Confederate, but he certainly came off like a massive douche here.

Both Woods and TSL have that capacity. Doesn't qualify either for BBE or IE, though.

[AnCap Dave]

Both Woods and TSL have that capacity. Doesn't qualify either for BBE or IE, though.

I won't deny that TSL can't be a douche at times. He certainly can be. Doesn't change the fact that Woods was acting like a complete ass and honestly, worthy of IE for acting like pointing out historical accuracies within his book makes you "falsely labeled skeptical libertarian" and acting as if you need to have a best seller in order to dare challenge him. Whether or not he gets an IE is irrelevant, but the fact is, Woods needed to be called out on his bullshit.

[MrBogosity]

The thing is, I can't find anywhere where TSL pointed out specific historical innacuracies in his book. It's not on his blog, and I only see a couple of snarky comments on his FB that are little better than assertions. Unless I've missed a proper critique somewhere; if I have, please point it out to me.