Fail Quotes

[dallen68]

That's just sad.  Also, they *do* know that not all libertarians are anarchists, right?

Actually, that article wasn't even anti-libertarian. Basically, the guy was saying that even in a libertarian society based on market ideals, occasionally person A's rights negate person B's rights, and we occasionally need someone who has some authority, guided by some form of legal/social framework to make a decision, rather than person A gets his army, person B gets his army and have it out. Then he gets into how the kind of anarchism that allows anyone to apply force at will is worse than having one recognized authority apply force guided by laws.

He actually makes a good argument for limited government, which he says has been sacked somewhere a long the way. In other words, a constitutionalist.

[Altimadark]

Fail on GameFAQs revolving around one of the many things I just don't know enough about: Netherlands Bus Systems. Still, Mr Lasastryke is convinced that the free market has ruined the bus system based on hard evidence.

Mr Lasastryke
There's no competition [in The Netherlands], but there's a number of bus companies that provide buses in different places. The buses in my town are from a different company than the buses in Amsterdam, for instance.

redrocket
This is the problem. You don't actually have free market buses.

We do have free market buses, the problem is that in all places, one company has the monopoly on buses.

oh wait a monopoly can't exist in the free market lololo

Altimadark
When and how were the bus systems in the Netherlands privatized?

Hell if I know, it happened ages ago (late '90s, I'd guess)

That's interesting, because I just found a 2011 article which shows there's still a good amount of government control:

http://www.eur.nl/english/news/the_issue/issuearchive/2011/issue_2011_10/

OK, that's news to me.

Wait, did I say "hard" evidence? I meant, "hardly any."

[Travis Retriever]

Actually, that article wasn't even anti-libertarian. Basically, the guy was saying that even in a libertarian society based on market ideals, occasionally person A's rights negate person B's rights, and we occasionally need someone who has some authority, guided by some form of legal/social framework to make a decision, rather than person A gets his army, person B gets his army and have it out. Then he gets into how the kind of anarchism that allows anyone to apply force at will is worse than having one recognized authority apply force guided by laws.

He actually makes a good argument for limited government, which he says has been sacked somewhere a long the way. In other words, a constitutionalist.

I was going by the title. 
"person A's rights negate person B's rights...need some authority"  And why does that authority have to be a government?  Guys, it's like we've said, anarchists are NOT opposed to police, courts, and military.  Just one institution having a violent monopoly on them (government).
Also, funny how he doesn't provide a real world example (at least not without government).  If he wants a really good refutation of such "Yes, but what if?..." scenarios, he should check out "Practical Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux.  Basically, it's too costly to just raise an army out of nowhere without government because you foot the costs and the risks--and not to mention the government to draft victims to die for you.  Hell, to give you an idea, something like a few hundred nukes from the old USSR are unaccounted for.  Yet no terrorist or private organization has used them in war; only government.  Funny how that works.

[ArtemisVale]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/banvoluntary/

Someone please tell me this is satire.

[MrBogosity]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/banvoluntary/

Someone please tell me this is satire.

Considering it's signed by "Adolf Stalin," yeah, I'm guessing so.

[tnu]

Anarcky is the belief that war, chaos and corruption are good things.

Assuming this isn't satire, if "Anarckists" believed this why would they oppose the state?

[dallen68]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/banvoluntary/

Someone please tell me this is satire.

I think who ever wrote it intended for it to be taken seriously, but judging by the "signatures", it isn't. (Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin)

Maybe I'll sign up for that sight, and seek to ban "mandatory volunteerism" - You know, where "volunteering" a certain amount of hours to (some list of pre-approved organizations) is a requirement for school. I mean, if the "volunteering" is mandatory for graduation, then it isn't "volunteering" and the student learns nothing, other than "even when I'm volunteering, the government gets to tell me what to do."

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-useless-pieces-advice-everyone-gives/
Mainly the 5th one.  Again, I'm having trouble buying that about obesity.  Also, if being fat changes your body's chemistry, wouldn't being thin/toned as well?  Like I said, I don't buy that bit from him, or from this clusterfuck of an obvious troll article of his here:  http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science/

Knowing Wong, he's over-selling the shit to the point where he just comes off as a clueless twat.

[dallen68]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-useless-pieces-advice-everyone-gives/
Mainly the 5th one.  Again, I'm having trouble buying that about obesity.  Also, if being fat changes your body's chemistry, wouldn't being thin/toned as well?  Like I said, I don't buy that bit from him, or from this clusterfuck of an obvious troll article of his here:  http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science/

Knowing Wong, he's over-selling the shit to the point where he just comes off as a clueless twat.

Well, being fat, or thin, or fit doesn't change your metabolism or anything; some people just have a metabolism that makes them have a tendency to be fat, or thin, or fit. I guess to most people, that would be a split-hair... But anyway, what he says about the advice people give about it is mostly true- If you've never struggled with (well, actually any number of things), you don't get a license to be a dick to those that do. I sort of disagree with him that you can't give "any" advice, and need to STFU, as you might have some kind of knowledge on the subject from other sources, in this case, say you're a certified dietitian or psychologist, or nurse, etc. Even then, the person suffering the condition isn't going to become what they ain't, at most they're going to become a healthier them.

[Travis Retriever]

Well, being fat, or thin, or fit doesn't change your metabolism or anything; some people just have a metabolism that makes them have a tendency to be fat, or thin, or fit.

Actually, this was debunked by...another cracked.com writer believe it or not:  http://www.cracked.com/article_19296_6-lies-about-human-body-you-learned-in-kindergarten_p2.html (#1 on this list)

[tnu]

[yt]xsWgEqXfUXA[/yt]

from the comments.

Oh damn, Steve!  You left out the best one: it's a contranym!  'Libertarian' in this sense, means authoritarian, and is the polar opposite of the social Anarchism that originally defined it (and still does, outside the United Hates).

Which leads to the second best one: it's literally a plutocracy.  It's core beliefs are that people should be able to do whatever they can afford to do, and that if they can't afford something, they don't deserve to have it.  Nothing they ever say will contradict either of those principles.

Which leads to the third best one: it's hypocritical.  All their rhetoric about the government notwithstanding, they actually want to increase the power of government.  They just want to restrict the function of government to the protection of property rights: a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Which leads to the fourth best one: those property rights stem from the same 'guys with guns' as the taxes they bitch about so much.  If the government can grant title deeds, they can tax that property, and spend the revenue on the poor.  John Locke and Thomas Paine said so.

Which leads to the fifth best one: it's completely irrelevant.  It's a movement for preppy middle-classed white kids and exists solely as an excuse for why they aren't rich.  They're being held down by the mediocrity of the collective!  If they didn't have to pay taxes, they would be captains of industry, just like in Atlas Shrugged.  But as long as Bitcoin is their best idea, and Stefan Molyneaux is their best thinker, there's no risk of them ever running a goddamn thing.  Amen?"

Steve Shives is brilliant, and funny as hell, but he doesn't make the the best argument against libertarianism [sic].  For that, I recommend the 'Libertarians are Idiots' series, uploaded by nomenclature1.  I especially appreciate his "Anarcho-Capitalism" Debunked vid.

[dallen68]

Actually, this was debunked by...another cracked.com writers believe it or not:  http://www.cracked.com/article_19296_6-lies-about-human-body-you-learned-in-kindergarten_p2.html (#1 on this list)

Yes, in the sense of it being some mysterious cause beyond understanding and control, it has been debunked. In the sense that some people have difficulty estimating how much intake they need to match their output, no. Those with a tendency (which can be over come with effort) to be overweight, have a tendency to think they're hungry when they're not. Of course, with proper professional guidance, and perhaps encouragement from family and friends, and I guess fellow dieters, they can retrain themselves to know the proper amount.

[Travis Retriever]

In the sense that some people have difficulty estimating how much intake they need to match their output, no.

I really don't know what you're getting at here.  The article I linked to above showed exactly what you're saying in terms of estimation of portions.  Also, don't move the goalposts.  You were first going on about "some people just have a metabolism that makes them have a tendency to be fat, or thin, or fit." and I just debunked that; not about serving sizes which has bugger your original post.  And which as the very article I linked to not from Wong showed--metabolism *increases* as you gain weight for the same reason a hummer uses more gas than Japanese car.  Did you even read them?

[dallen68]

I really don't know what you're getting at here.  The article I linked to above showed exactly what you're saying in terms of estimation of portions.  Also, don't move the goalposts.  You were first going on about "some people just have a metabolism that makes them have a tendency to be fat, or thin, or fit." and I just debunked that; not about serving sizes which has bugger your original post.  And which as the very article I linked to not from Wong showed--metabolism *increases* as you gain weight for the same reason a hummer uses more gas than Japanese car.  Did you even read them?

Your metabolism, experts say, involves a complex network of hormones and enzymes that not only convert food into fuel but also affect how efficiently you burn that fuel.

"The process of metabolism establishes the rate at which we burn our calories and, ultimately, how quickly we gain weight or how easily we lose it," says Robert Yanagisawa, MD, director of the Medically Supervised Weight Management Program at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Of course, not everyone burns calories at the same rate.

Your metabolism is influenced by your age (metabolism naturally slows about 5% per decade after age 40); your sex (men generally burn more calories at rest than women); and proportion of lean body mass (the more muscle you have, the higher your metabolic rate tends to be).

And yes, heredity makes a difference.

"Some people just burn calories at a slower rate than others," says Barrie Wolfe-Radbill, RD, a nutritionist specializing in weight loss at New York University Medical Center.

Occasionally, Yanagisawa says, a defect in the thyroid gland can slow metabolism, though this problem is relatively rare.

And here's a fact that may surprise you: the more weight you carry, the faster your metabolism is likely running.

"The simple fact is that the extra weight causes your body to work harder just to sustain itself at rest, so in most instances, the metabolism is always running a bit faster," says Molly Kimball, RD, sports and lifestyle nutritionist at the Oscher's Clinic's Elmwood Fitness Center.

That's one reason it's almost always easiest to lose weight at the start of a diet, and harder later on, Kimball says: "When you are very overweight your metabolism is already running so high that any small cut in calories will result in an immediate loss."

Then, when you lose significant amounts of body fat and muscle, your body needs fewer calories to sustain itself, she says. That helps explain why it's so easy to regain weight after you've worked to lose it.

Oops. right the first time.

Source=http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/make-most-your-metabolism

[Travis Retriever]

Oops. right the first time.

You or me and which post/point?  You bounced around with your points like I said.

Source=http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/make-most-your-metabolism

Ah.  Okay, glad you actually cited your source this time. I thought you were talking about the articles from cracked.com.
Age, sex, and lean body mass: no arguments from me.  Thyroid?  Even the American Thyroid Association says that people with severe, SEVERE. Sorry, let me reiterate: SEVERE hypothyroidism can only attribute weight gain to 5-10 lbs. Everything else is diet and lack of exercise.
The rest of that actually CONFIRMS what I said.