Fail Quotes

[tnu]

Ugh still at it. fail in red my stuff in blue.


You want to use violence to control people's peaceful behaviors and you're calling my ideas crass. This is a joke! As for murder. How are you equating peaceful behavior which you don't like with outright violence? Drugs and alcahole don't even BEGIN to compare to murder.

So you want your cake and to eat it too. You just implicitly conceded to having rules regulating infractions like murder and theft. You just contradicted yourself, not me. Also, drug-use does have a negative effect on bystanders, including drunk driving and second-hand smoke. One person's actions are indeed impacting another. In fact, both of these external affects account for more excruciating deaths than does direct murder.


Whether it be a direct ban like alcohol in the early twentieth century or drugs now. Or whether it be an indirect "incentive" like a vice tax. Or something in between like Bloomberg's dieting laws. They DO NOT WORK.

Actually, I don't support prohibition on alcohol. However, excise taxes have reduced pollution, road congestion, tobacco consumption, etc. You're the one that is making baseless assumptions. If you want evidence, there is a plethora of research I can refer you to.


Oh by the way. Have you paid the $100 to my friend's webcomic? (I decided to use Hawkeye's Social contract as an example of how inane the idea is)


How would this surpass due process? You'd have to gain support, legislate it, and defend it on legal grounds. Your analogies are flawed.

[AnCap Dave]

It's kind of hard to read because of how blurry it is, but if you can make it out, it's still tons of fail.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]FJj44PW8joU[/yt]
/vomit

[Ibrahim90]

[yt]FJj44PW8joU[/yt]
/vomit

I don't get this video: you don't ask random people this question: most don't know the difference between jack and shit , and they're going around doing that?

also, I understand that as a negative philosophical position, it doesn't even need to account for these things?

[BlameThe1st]

Sigh, do I have to say anything at this point?

[MrBogosity]

Sigh, do I have to say anything at this point?

Sorry about the low quality, but it was the only video I could find online of this segment (NOT fail BTW):

[yt]KbxxsyyGW9c[/yt]

[BlameThe1st]

A recent post on Yo, Is This Racist?:

anonymous asked: I used to be a libertarian, then i graduated high school and got better. My dumb racist beliefs also died not long after that.

Honestly, I get how Libertarianism might seem logical, if you're super stupid, have no understanding of how the world works, and are a piece of shit teenager. Everyone else, you have no excuse. Piece of shit teenagers, you actually don't have any excuse either.

Sigh, why do I even bother visiting that blog? No good comes from it.

[Travis Retriever]

A recent post on Yo, Is This Racist?:

Sigh, why do I even bother visiting that blog? No good comes from it.

The race card! What's in your wallet?

[BlameThe1st]

Forget my last post: this is by far the stupidest post I've seen on Yo, Is This Racist?

anonymous asked: is batman racist. probably yeah

Yo, what could possibly be racist about a white billionaire running around at night exacting vigilante violence?

Batman is racist? WTF?!

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]WLYLe_88hgg[/yt]

I don't know what's more depressing, that Thomas Sowell is promoting aggressive action against Iran and falling for the same bullshit that got us into Iraq, or that LibertyPen is promoting Thomas Sowell promoting aggressive action against Iran and falling for the same bullshit that got us into Iraq.

[BlameThe1st]

Excuse me while I go vomit blood. My stomach cannot handle such willful ignorance.

[FeatheredTerror]

Excuse me while I go vomit blood. My stomach cannot handle such willful ignorance.

I think someone needs to watch Shane's videos on Atheism and Libertarianism.

[ArtemisVale]

Me and my buddies voted before hand, if people dont want to be part of our democracy they can leave. By not leaving they consent to anything we might do!

Your not really capturing the states argument... Probably because you're being a bit sarcastic. However, I'm curious about your actual response to this...

If you and your buddies were limited to coercing each other to contribute to the welfare fund then you'd be on the ball. Of course, you say such a vote gives you authority to boss around everyone.

Now the state does give most people the right to decide via democracy. The exceptions being those under the age of 18, illegal immigrants, and those who have lost their voting rights thanks to criminal histories. Now it is undeniable that such democracy is being forced on these people but the common person has the option to be a deciding factor within the democracy.

You could argue that you allowed everyone to vote in your buddies election system but clearly the opportunity and knowledge is not the same as in the governmental elections. There is an expansive campaign to inform the polling base and localized opportunities to vote where your buddies election system lacks both qualities.

A separate issue, but one that might speak a bit on the issue at hand passively is on the NAP itself. If the rule of the NAP is to not aggress against someone, how does the NAP work at all? Thanks to how the NAP operates it is an aggressive act to define any action as aggressive in the first place. Defining an act (ie. kicking) as aggressive means the person who would kick is now forbidden from performing the act of kicking. But forbidding the act of kicking is an act of aggression to whose who would otherwise perform the act... There is always the implicit we'll kick your ass/starve you if you violate the NAP.

This is remarkably similar to your sarcastic theory on voting. If no one can define what is it to be aggressive (because such an act is a violation of the NAP) then the NAP says nothing other then you're not allowed to talk about what would violate the NAP. As such a discussion is impossible without defining actions as aggressive which is against the NAP.

Now the problem to this is that I need to define "aggression" without violating the NAP... To this I simply say that the NAP doesn't mean anything without the definition of aggression understood. It's just a random assortment of characters until the definitions for "non," "aggression," and "principle" are understood.

So we have a definition for aggression as an idea that some act is violent and/or forceful. Cool. One problem. Saying an act is "aggressive" is in itself aggressive because it's implicitly understood if I perform said act you'll kick my ass or arraign for me to be starved to death. So you violate the NAP by enforcing the NAP. The NAP is reduced to pointlessness and nonsense.

Any rebuttals?

[MrBogosity]

Any rebuttals?

1) Social contract garbage again

2) Conflating defensive with aggressive force

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvxw9ACcnGY&lc=wnJSxO8Fp53eJpR2HKaDwc9iSgV32C-WajQSwd1l73U
Stabbedagainandagain in the comments...

I knew this guy was a kook early on but when he cited MAOISTREBELNEWS2 as his source...I seriously thought he was joking for a second.
Yeah, another idiot who doesn't want to face reality that Mao was a mass murderer who caused one of the worst famines in history and it's not like his plan looked good on paper either.  I have yet to meet a single person who didn't laugh at his "tell the farmers to make steel" idea.