Fail Quotes

[tnu]

@ tnu: that person clearly doesn't know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements...

Mind elaborating?

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

[tnu]

Yeah that's great now go subsidize it yourself instead of forcing others  to do so.

[Ibrahim90]

Mind elaborating?

you mentioned that people have infinite desires and limited resources: that was descriptive, since it mentions how things are.

his reply clearly only makes any semblance of sense if he assumed you were stating this as it ought to be.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]hzF5hWoPVFY[/yt]

[yt]Ndou2ZbPHb0[/yt]

[yt]jcXo1sHqKeI[/yt]

All are from MaoistRebelNews2.

[MrBogosity]

So Sinfest makes this nice little comic today:



And then there are the forum comments:

http://sinfest.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=7239

FULL of fail! Like:

Libertarianism like many other 'isms', are a nice idea in theory but are more or less doomed to fail due to a pesky thing called human-nature.

How many times have we heard THAT? As if statism isn't somehow completely dependent on humans (at least, the ones in power) acting AGAINST their nature!

You'll notice that most libertarians are middle- to upper- class white people (especially men) who have little to nothing to worry about with regards to being systemically discrimated against.

A) NOT true, and B) Genetic Fallacy even if it were.

I think they underestimate how much exactly the government pays for them.

Oh, believe me, that is one thing we DON'T underestimate!

You get the idea.

[dallen68]

Rant ahead--You have been warned.

And my mom is being unreasonable about this stuff too.   She talks about how she used to think that, but then she did more research and found it's also where the carbs come from etc that matters and "well, let's see if you can do this for at least a year!"  Yes, when all else fails, attack the messenger.

She also starts it off by saying, "Now, I know you're really sensitive about this subject."  No mother, I just get indignant when people--like you--pretend they are scientists while not citing a single study done, while I present arguments from first principles, logic and said studies, while you continue to just vapidly assert and vaguely reference "books I've read"  Big fucking whoop!  I can find books saying donuts are good for you, what's her point?  And yeah, I get indignant when people vapidly assert and pretend they have knowledge when it's clear to anyone with a brain they're bullshitting me.  Yes, us evil scientists, skeptics and Bayesian thinkers, not wanting to accept anything as fact until we have compelling (read: non fallacious/anecdotal/poorly controlled) evidence to do so and dismissing all else as null/false via the null hypothesis; if ONLY OUR brains could be so open they fall out like non-skeptics too, right?

When I finally bring up the point that, if she really believes it makes THAT big a difference and violates the laws of physics, have a physicist measure it so you can both win a Nobel Prize; or at least James Randi's $1 Million Challenge.  Her response?  "I don't care about this stuff, I'm just..."   Right.  She doesn't care, yet she was the one to even bring it up in the first place. *rolls eyes*

And of course the whole "Agree to disagree" card; which is just Swahili for: "I don't have any evidence to present in my favor, and rather than just manning the fuck up and admitting I don't have anything other than anecdotes at best and concede, I'm going to pretend to be the better and more congenial person, because fuck you for disagreeing with me."

So then she tries to use Weight Watchers (/sigh) as a reason for why a carb isn't a carb, saying, "Well, they let you eat more of the food that has more fiber in it, so it MUST mean something!"  And responds to my pointing out their 3% long term success rate with, "BECAUSE PEOPLE TRY TO CHEAT IT/DON'T STICK WITH IT!" /groan  Marketing ploys =/= methods of science, damnit.

I even read her this article:  http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html (With sources & studies listed at the end)
And, like every good pseudo-scientist, she goes into the grey areas for cover: "YES BUT IT ACTUALLY DOES SUPPORT WHAT I"M SAYING BECAUSE OF THE BIT ABOUT THE MICRONUTRIENTS THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING (moving the goal posts)! POTASSIUM DOES MATTER (strawman; he never said it didn't; that was a bogus assumption she made, not something he said)! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SKINNY/LEAN WHO AREN'T HEALTHY WHY DO THEY USE THAT (he never said there aren't people like that), LIKE PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS (in response to me pointing out that yes, drugs would fuck you up regardless, and acting like it somehow invalidates the studies--it doesn't)."  The point being, they were controlled for Calories, etc (read the article to see for yourself, damnit. ).  So if there WERE differences in results, it was NOT from carb sources.  Get over yourself.  Anecdotes will always be trumped by controlled studies.  Just like how being a parent doesn't make you good at it or mean you have a PhD in Psychology.  And these people have the nerve to call *us* arrogant.

And yeah, she even goes on about how, "I buy organic food, though I don't know if it has any extra benefit."  read:  I have no evidence to believe it is better, but I'll pay extra regardless*. *facepalms*  Fact:  In the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe a statement.  And no, "well I've read stuff over the years saying otherwise!" is not evidence.  Otherwise, I could say donuts are "healthy" because Krispy Kreme's don't contain trans-fats because I read it somewhere.  Deal with it.  And let's be honest here, most books have terribad low information density, and even at best are often dated (save for a few, e.g. Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson  And even then, the he writes it leaves room for higher information density).
*To be fair, some of the organic food is just stuff from local farmers that are willing to sell it cheap even compared to the non-organic stuff in the grocery store.  Note that I have nothing against this.  I'm talking about buying overpriced fruits/veggies from grocery stores just because they have an "organic" or "No GMOs" label on them, instead of the non-organically labeled/non "no GMO" labeled stuff for much cheaper.

Learn how to do science people.  Learn how to be skeptical and learn some statistics/probability theory.  You'll save yourself a lot of tears, dollars, frustration and desecrated memories over your lifetime.  Yes, it is lame to find out you were a fool and wrong for so long.  It hurts, I know.  I used to be a Christian and a statist, and so on.  But wouldn't it be even worse to live a life that's a lie?  You do have but one after all.

/Rant

Wow! That's a long one.

1. I just love the "organic" argument. Show me a food that *isn't* organic - and I'll be happy to slap a label on there for you - unless you want to change the definition of organic. (I got it - let's label "food Dallen likes" organic, and "food Dallen doesn't like" not organic.)

2. How would a carb be not a carb? If it was a not carb, they'd call it something else - like fat, or protein. Some foods that have carbs, it is conceivable, are better for you than other foods that have carbs because they happen to have other (more) nutrients. The carb itself is still a carb.

3. I happen to be one of the "skinny people that eat like that" - The secret is primarily volume. (A donut is probably not all that bad for you... A dozen... er, well...)

[BreadGod]

Libertarianism like many other 'isms', are a nice idea in theory but are more or less doomed to fail due to a pesky thing called human-nature.

I always laugh at the human nature argument. They say that humans are naturally evil, yet they want to give a small group of these naturally evil humans a monopoly on the initiation of force to keep the other naturally evil humans from doing evil things?

[Travis Retriever]

How many times have we heard THAT? As if statism isn't somehow completely dependent on humans (at least, the ones in power) acting AGAINST their nature!

It's like Stef once said:  You trust a single elite group of people with prisons, nukes, total control over the education system, the power to imprison at will and total legal and moral immunity for all their bad behavior and you call yourself a realist?

A) NOT true, and B) Genetic Fallacy even if it were.

Someone needs to tell this race-card using pillock that it was government that made the Jim Crow LAWS, and to look up "Fugitive Slave Act."

Oh, believe me, that is one thing we DON'T underestimate!

I know right?  He says that like it's something we should be grateful for...

You get the idea.

Indeed.

[Travis Retriever]

Wow! That's a long one.

1. I just love the "organic" argument. Show me a food that *isn't* organic - and I'll be happy to slap a label on there for you - unless you want to change the definition of organic. (I got it - let's label "food Dallen likes" organic, and "food Dallen doesn't like" not organic.)

2. How would a carb be not a carb? If it was a not carb, they'd call it something else - like fat, or protein. Some foods that have carbs, it is conceivable, are better for you than other foods that have carbs because they happen to have other (more) nutrients. The carb itself is still a carb.

3. I happen to be one of the "skinny people that eat like that" - The secret is primarily volume. (A donut is probably not all that bad for you... A dozen... er, well...)

1. Even better: food Travis likes = "organic" and food Travis doesn't like = "not organic" 

2. & 3. Indeed.

[AnCap Dave]

I don't give a fuck what you believe. If you don't think this is some psychotic evil shit, there's something wrong with you.

[Skm1091]

I don't give a fuck what you believe. If you don't think this is some psychotic evil shit, there's something wrong with you.

Fucking Psychopath!

[BreadGod]

I don't give a fuck what you believe. If you don't think this is some psychotic evil shit, there's something wrong with you.

Unlike most other atheists, I don't care what you believe in as long as you remain peaceful while doing so, but if your god commands you to kill people, then we have a problem.

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-people-who-really-are-making-world-better-place/
I only read the titles of each item, but the fact that he included Pope Francis at all in that list should be enough to merit this being a fail.

Especially in light of a magazine cover I saw while waiting at the dentist's office.  I can't find it online (sadly), but it was of the Pope looking like he's about to rub his hands on the world from space like it's a crystal ball, and it had a title like, "Salvation:  What is the Pope's plan to save the economy?"  Just...what.

Oh well, these will have to do instead:





Says the guy who profits off of AIDS sufferers in Africa and is sitting on a good $10 billion or more worth of wealth (at least!)...

[Travis Retriever]

I don't give a fuck what you believe. If you don't think this is some psychotic evil shit, there's something wrong with you.

On the one hand, it strikes me as Poe's Law, but on the other, anyone who remembers this super fail from VenomFangX:

[yt]EBKSd9y70j4[/yt]

definitely wouldn't put it past the crazier Creationists.