Fail Quotes

[tnu]

"What, are experiments the ONLY way to get knowledge from the senses?"

For an empiricist? Yes:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

Austrian Economics relies on Rationalism - ie: logical thought experiments that can never be tested or proven empirically because it's about THOUGHT not sensory input.

This, again - is because the Austrian School exists primarily as a propaganda engine.

Look, the Austrians pretty much only had ONE point, which was early neoclassical economists COULD be a bit rigid in their emphasis on perfect rationality of Actors - but that just meant that they had failed to take psychology into account in their models. However, Behavioral Economics arose out of the Neoclassical school to deal with this and rightly put the Austrians in their place by building workable, testable models, while the Austrians continued to insist they were right and you just had to take their word for it.

You don't. That's a fact.

[Travis Retriever]

"What, are experiments the ONLY way to get knowledge from the senses?"

For an empiricist? Yes:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

Austrian Economics relies on Rationalism - ie: logical thought experiments that can never be tested or proven empirically because it's about THOUGHT not sensory input.

This, again - is because the Austrian School exists primarily as a propaganda engine.

Look, the Austrians pretty much only had ONE point, which was early neoclassical economists COULD be a bit rigid in their emphasis on perfect rationality of Actors - but that just meant that they had failed to take psychology into account in their models. However, Behavioral Economics arose out of the Neoclassical school to deal with this and rightly put the Austrians in their place by building workable, testable models, while the Austrians continued to insist they were right and you just had to take their word for it.

You don't. That's a fact.

Bullshit.  It means we value real world results.  E.g. real world predictions like the Austrian School has in spades and what people *do* instead of what they say.  What a semantic prick! This is why I don't associate with leftist anarchists.

[MrBogosity]

Einstein developed and demonstrated Relativity using thought experiments. The light-clock gedankenexperiment solidly proved time dilation without any experiments having to be run. Of course, later experiments confirmed it, but they weren't necessary to demonstrate the truth of it.

He doesn't know the first thing about science OR empiricism.

[Travis Retriever]

Einstein developed and demonstrated Relativity using thought experiments. The light-clock gedankenexperiment solidly proved time dilation without any experiments having to be run. Of course, later experiments confirmed it, but they weren't necessary to demonstrate the truth of it.

He doesn't know the first thing about science OR empiricism.

Not to mention the fact that if he claims to not be an empiricist, he's bullshitting you according to his own definition of "information through the senses."  Oh, you mean like WHAT HE'S DOING BY READING AND RESPONDING TO US?! I mean what a fucking moron!  Self detonating statements people.  If you're that lacking in self awareness that you don't see that, I have nothing to learn from you and don't want anything to do with you in the first place.  Life is too short to waste on fools.

[tnu]

"Bullshit. It means we value real world results. E.g. real world predictions like the Austrian School has in spades and what people *do* instead of what they say. Your argument relies on pure semantics.

Einstein developed and demonstrated Relativity using thought experiments. The light-clock gedankenexperiment solidly proved time dilation without any experiments having to be run. Of course, later experiments confirmed it, but they weren't necessary to demonstrate the truth of it."

No - it didn't "prove" anything, it just happened to be the correct guess. It could just as easily been wrong.

Thought-experiments are good at forming hypothesis, but they don't mean anything until you can demonstrate them empirically. They're problematic because the thinker is often unaware of and unable to account for their own biases.

Einstein was an empiricist. He didn't claim that his thought-experiments proved anything. That's not how science works.

My argument is NOT semantics. Take this to any econ professor - they'll back me up.

Oh this just keeps getting better.

When I called him out on suggesting insurance should be mandatory

I'm saying that we're living in a capitalist society. I don't like it but so long as you can cost people hundreds of thousands in medical bills because YOU want to operate a giant hunk of metal capable of reaching speeds of over 100 miles an hour - you damn well have no right doing it without at least liability coverage.

It's not a violation of anarchism to recognize the realities of operating in a capitalist society. There's ideals and there's realpolitik and I care about REAL people in the REAL world.


OF COURSE insurance is a scam - BUT, like most of Capitalism it's a MANDATORY scam. And since the penalty for losing at this manditory scam is death/being crippled there's no reason not to mitigate this as best we can.

"Should" insurance be manditory? Of course not. But "should's" are not reality. Shoulds are how we'd LIKE reality to be.

So unless you guys want to have The Revolution tomorrow, there is literally NO REASON to allow for bad behavior - like driving uninsured. It doesn't help you or erode capitalism or The State to drive uninsured - it just makes it more likely that you'll completely fuck over some other random person by accident.

Anarchists DON'T put other people's lives in danger for no good reason.


oh and it just keeps getting better.

Capitalism is about giving the ILLUSION of choice. You don't actually have choice Daniel. You have owners. You are owned by Capitalists. Real capitalists, and you can either sell your labor to one of them, or you can die.


Capitalism will not and cannot abide competing systems. It's global. It's mandatory. This is a fact.

It PRETENDS to be pluralistic, because pluralism is a Liberal value - but when a competing system begins to assert itself it attacks and kills. It opens closed societies, it monetizes untapped resources, it opens new markets, whether those people want it or not.

It did it with China (twice), It did it with Chile, it did it with Iran, it did it with the Soviet Union.

Shit, the Soviets weren't just facing White Czarist troops, they were also fighting British, American, and Japanese forces.

And again, the Zapatistas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Zapatista_Army_of_National...

Communism is not possible until capitalism is destroyed as a global economic and political system, nor is any other kind of system.

Shit you want to see how far it goes to preserve the illusion of choice? Go into any grocery store and grab, I don't know - mouthwash or something. Compare the active ingredients between Listerine, and Listerine "Anti-Palque Extra" whatever.

Odds are, they are exactly the same. This occurs within brands, and between multiple competing brands, and often times those competing brands are owned by the same umbrella company.

Even most of the competition is fake. It's a way of MARKETING to people. Creating specific brand identities to attract specific types of people even though the product is exactly the same.


Also does anybody have any better standing of this Zapatista thing? Because he's mentioned it several times already as some sort of shining example about how capitalism is mandatory.


"Soi'm asusming it's fair game to pointout how many people were killed in Mao's Great Leap Forward? or Imprisoned in Stalin's Gulags? or the oppressive nad violent regimes in Cuba?"


No, those were victims of revolutionary violence. What I will say is that pile of bodies pales in comparison to the number killed by Capitalism. The only reason you're worried about those incidents and say - not the 80,000+ who were tortured and 41,000 murdered by the Phoenix Program, or Operation Condor, is you are reacting to cold-war era propaganda.

I mean you DO know the Batista regime killed WAY more people than Che and Castro, right? Why aren't you mad at them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

Also, when you take population size into account during the Great Leap Forward, the overall percentage of dead is similar to the amount who died of malnutrition and exposure during the US Great Depression.

[ArtemisVale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

This army is actually more reflective of libertarian socialism. Besides, if its compulsive then it isn't very capitalist.

He is also confusing corporatism with capitalism regarding the Batista regime http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

and the phoenix program and oepration condor were carried out by governments, and the free market has nothing to do with governments.

and the great depression was caused by the federal reserve monkeying around with the money supply, made worse by herbert hoover's policies, especially his tariff hikes, and it was extned by F.D.R. as he continued hoovers policies.

[tnu]

I havn't read too much in depth yet b ut how does it reflect libertarian socialism?

[ArtemisVale]

I havn't read too much in depth yet b ut how does it reflect libertarian socialism?

Well they are anti capitalist and they prefer democratic and collective processes.

And I think this guy is just a troll.

[tnu]

I think he's actually claming that hte liberation army was suppressed by capitalists.

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]33n2StTDCKA[/yt]

Yes, by all means, let's ignore the fact that they were called Jim Crow LAWS.

[Travis Retriever]

"We'll have to disagree there then. Im afraid I trust my doctor more then some online calculator. lol"--Aldark in response to my comment

*facepalm*

My (hopefully final) response to this pillock:  "And I trust basic math and the laws of physics more than some unnamed, unspecified doctor and rightly so.  I even ask my own nutritionist to back her claims up with studies.

Finally:  http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/AgreeToDisagree"

The dipshit strikes again!

Aldark:  "Sure maths is great and all but the body is a bit more complicated then basic math. its needs something a little more advanced. I may be wrong 'in your opinion', but I believe your original post is only half correct, myself. Not wrong, just incomplete."

My response:  "Appeal to complication, and ignores the physics of it too.  Not just the math, but Thermodynamics too.  And no, I'm not dealing with "opinion" (which you'd know if you bothered to read that link).  I'm dealing with facts, arguments from first principle, empiricism, and well established physical laws (thermodynamics).  I've backed up my arguments with physics and math.  You've done nothing other than just baldly assert, appeal to (bogus) authority and appeal to complication.  If you have a study (a RCT one) demonstrating the truth of your claims, present it, until then, my point stands as firm and undisputed as ever.

Your body cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics just to spite/love you.  If you really believe it can, have a physicist specializing in thermodynamics have a look and measure the stuff to be certain so you both can win a Nobel Prize; or at least James Randi's Challenge.  But until then, stop wasting my time and yours.
I'm sick and tired of hearing from people who think they're special, unique, and beautiful snowflakes that not even the laws of physics apply. Stop making excuses."

Why oh, why did I ever choose to get back in touch with this fucktard?

[dallen68]

The dipshit strikes again!

Why oh, why did I ever choose to get back in touch with this fucktard?

Because you enjoy arguing with the unreasonable? 

[Travis Retriever]

Because you enjoy arguing with the unreasonable? 

Eh, I honestly didn't know he was unreasonable when I first met him and got back to talking with him.  Oh well.  It happens I suppose.

[Dallas Wildman]

Here's a Facebook page that's so full of shit:

https://www.facebook.com/MMYVofficial

[AnCap Dave]

Here's a Facebook page that's so full of shit:

https://www.facebook.com/MMYVofficial

I'm going to assume that page is satire.