Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

Here's a list of nonsense by someone trying to argue that the social contract is valid and rights are a soci al contrsutct grnated to us by go vernment

(1) Rights are a human concept.
(2) Rights are enforced by power, in whatever form, assuming (1)
(3) State is an entity of power.
(4) State has the collective power of the people in a republic or democracy, assuming (3)
(5) Your parents can make decisions for you until you are deemed capable of deciding for yourself.
(6) Property right is a right granted by the state, assuming (2) and (3).
(7) Being citizen is not the same as being slave.

1) So's gravity. What's your point? Rights, like gravity, are a human construct to explain an effect in the real world. But rights aren't just made-up things that we can will away or wish to be different. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYloEOwKjjA

2) Rights aren't enforced. They don't have to be. They exist no matter what. What can happen is, rights can be violated, and we have the right to defend ourselves and others from violations of our rights. Many people have advocated governments for this purpose; any government that limits itself to this is a good government. (I have yet to see any examples of a good government.)

3) The State is the only entity with the (perceived) legitimate right to initiate force against others. Whenever private individuals or groups do what the State does, it's called "crime."

4) No, the people are helpless AGAINST the power of the state. By the definition I just gave in 3), they can impugn their rights with impunity and the people have no recourse because their absolute right to defense in 2) has been abrogated.

5) Because rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Toddlers don't have the right to keep and bear arms because they can't possibly be responsible for it. This has nothing to do with the rights of adults, nor with any government, so it is only here as a non-sequitur.

6) Nope. It's established by first principles. See the video in 1) again.

7) And being a free individual is not the same as being a citizen.

[Travis Retriever]

1) So's gravity. What's your point? Rights, like gravity, are a human construct to explain an effect in the real world. But rights aren't just made-up things that we can will away or wish to be different. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYloEOwKjjA

2) Rights aren't enforced. They don't have to be. They exist no matter what. What can happen is, rights can be violated, and we have the right to defend ourselves and others from violations of our rights. Many people have advocated governments for this purpose; any government that limits itself to this is a good government. (I have yet to see any examples of a good government.)

3) The State is the only entity with the (perceived) legitimate right to initiate force against others. Whenever private individuals or groups do what the State does, it's called "crime."

4) No, the people are helpless AGAINST the power of the state. By the definition I just gave in 3), they can impugn their rights with impunity and the people have no recourse because their absolute right to defense in 2) has been abrogated.

5) Because rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Toddlers don't have the right to keep and bear arms because they can't possibly be responsible for it. This has nothing to do with the rights of adults, nor with any government, so it is only here as a non-sequitur.

6) Nope. It's established by first principles. See the video in 1) again.

7) And being a free individual is not the same as being a citizen.

Crap! Beat me to it! I was going to use the gravity example for #1 too!

[Travis Retriever]

I'd like to preface this post by saying, that, despite the bile I'm about to post, I am still glad that more and more young people--furries include--have a more libertarian (read: live & let live) attitude.  But seeing crap like this is still really annoying.

If this guy hadn't made this post friends only on facebook, I'd post a screencap.  Sadly, I'll have to do with words only.

OP:  "What the fuck."
And he posts this:


Commentor one:   "That's because they want us to be stupid. They want us to be smart enough to do our jobs but stupid enough not to question anything."

Commentor two:  "'Murica"

OP (in comments):  "Hence why I am leaving this place. Fuck you, government."

Commentor two again:  "Lol. Take me with you. I'm dying to leave the land of the 'free'"

So government wants you to think you don't need them?  Good lord these people are stupid...and yes, this was one of my furry friends...because of COURSE it was. >.<*

Folks, education has been run by government for over a century now.  Even if you want to run a private school, hell, even if you want to homeschool your kids, you have to answer to government.  We spend more on education pretty much every year and yet this is still how it goes.  Cherry picking *one* statistic (federal spending) is not going to change the overall picture.

I will NEVER understand the people who bitch about "People are stupid!" while arguing for MORE government control and funding of education.

I will always adore Hawkeye's response to these hacks:  "Do you support public schooling? Then stuff all your silly complaints about all the dumb people you have to put up with in life.  Surely you can't be completely blind to the contradiction there."

[Altimadark]

This article from the New York Times (as well as a good chunk of the comments section)

Ted Cruz's Strange Gun Argument by Andrew Rosenthal. EDIT: While the article is about Cruz, the fail in question belongs to Rosenthal.

...When the authors of the Second Amendment wrote about "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," what they meant was that the new country needed to protect itself against threats from other countries, like, say, England.

They were not encouraging armed insurrection....

9_9

[dallen68]

Trying to get health insurance quotes, getting endless links to "get free quote", not getting an ACTUAL FUCKING QUOTE. Being pissed off.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

"...When the authors of the Second Amendment wrote about "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," what they meant was that the new country needed to protect itself against threats from other countries, like, say, England.

They were not encouraging armed insurrection...."

Uh...what does this clown think the authors of the second amendment had JUST BEEN DOING for the past several years at the time?

[Travis Retriever]

[Travis Retriever]

This video:

[yt]5GQ7DY6etbo[/yt]

Me:  "I wasn't aware biology was a social construct...

The video reminds me of the platypus. It's an outlier, it doesn't perfectly fit the definition but it has more in common with mammals than birds or other types so mammal it is.  It doesn't destroy all of biology or taxonomy.

A few outliers do not override the general trend of the available data. Nor do different traditions regarding gender or biological sex change that.  Just because there are different views don't make something ambiguous.  The existence of different opinions doesn't change what is fact."

VarmitCoyote:  "My point is the facts themselves are organized into theories and those are socially constructed. Taxonomy is a bunch of facts, but we used to have two Kingdoms, and now we have as many as eight depending who you ask. That's a social construct. And our social constructs change over time as we learn more. This isn't the destruction of taxonomy, of course, because I'm describing how it continues to change, not how it's overturned. And so the same is true of sex and gender ^_^"

Yes, he's seriously arguing that because humans have organized the ideas into a theory (e.g. gravity), that means it's a social construct.  Gotta love these postermodernists.

I like that he's not frothing at the mouth the way most SJW trans people are, but then a well spoken post modernist is STILL a postmodernist.

[Ibrahim90]

Man that's weak. I could say this:

"Only President Bush could get gas down to $1.50, end two regimes, get Bin Laden's second, bring unemployment below 4 percent, then be told he's failing as president"

and still be right. And it wouldn't make Bush any better than he really was (i.e. abysmal as a president).

(gas was down to that level in 08-09 IIRC: made direct auto-travel to Colorado cheap.

[Travis Retriever]

Man that's weak. I could say this:

"Only President Bush could get gas down to $1.50, end two regimes, get Bin Laden's second, bring unemployment below 4 percent, then be told he's failing as president"

and still be right. And it wouldn't make Bush any better than he really was (i.e. abysmal as a president).

(gas was down to that level in 08-09 IIRC: made direct auto-travel to Colorado cheap.

But you'll never hear a leftist recall that.  Funny how that works...

[Travis Retriever]

"Women have always been the primary victims of war."--Hillary Clinton

[Ibrahim90]

"Women have always been the primary victims of war."--Hillary Clinton

no...whoever's the poor bastard fighting the war for his warlord of choice (or not) is the primary victim.

[MrBogosity]

The video reminds me of the platypus. It's an outlier, it doesn't perfectly fit the definition but it has more in common with mammals than birds or other types so mammal it is.  It doesn't destroy all of biology or taxonomy.

Plus, it's in the evolutionary line of descent for mammals. That's how the cladistic model works. It just means that the traits we associate with mammals (like live births) didn't happen all at once. It just means we have a new category of mammal: monotreme (which the platypus shares with the echidna).

VarmitCoyote:  "My point is the facts themselves are organized into theories and those are socially constructed. Taxonomy is a bunch of facts, but we used to have two Kingdoms, and now we have as many as eight depending who you ask. That's a social construct. And our social constructs change over time as we learn more. This isn't the destruction of taxonomy, of course, because I'm describing how it continues to change, not how it's overturned. And so the same is true of sex and gender ^_^"

That just means that our UNDERSTANDING of the real world has changed, not that it isn't real. It's no more a "social construct" than gravity.

Really, this is no different from Creationists saying, "See? Science changes all the time, therefore our idea is just as valid!"

[Travis Retriever]

I just had a friend tell me that Gary Johnson said he'd vote for Rand Paul, and the former doesn't support war and gave me this link:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/21/rand_paul_mccain_and_graham_are_obama_lapdogs_supported_hillarys_war_in_libya.html

"But we need someone like Rand Paul because he's more moderate and not a purist like Ruwart!"--the sentiment of a few too many libertarians.
...Am I seriously the only one who remembers how well that worked for Bob Barr in the 2008 elections?

[MrBogosity]

I just had a friend tell me that Gary Johnson said he'd vote for Rand Paul

Well: https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/gary-johnson-disputes-rand-pauls-liberta