Fail Quotes

[Gumba Masta]

To which you should've replied; "In the future there is only war. And war, war never changes.." ...Hnnngggg! Arrrr, arf arf, nyyyung, I have one thousand demons inside me that force me to type this stuff out.

[MrBogosity]

"It's not nepotism--he's my brother!" --Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo, after appointing his brother Joe as Fire Commissioner.

[Travis Retriever]

"You contest that before the industrial revolution classes were more simplistic, but Marx shows us that it is actually the other way around. He suggests that society had a more complex order in say the middle ages (Vassals, fiefs, guild masters, knights, apprentices, journeyman, Burgers, ect.) Where as today our classes are ever more simplified into 2 opposing forces. Bourgeoisie and proletariat. And wouldn't you say that class analysis is NECESSARY to discover if any class is being OPPRESSED?" --TolstoyKafkaEvsky, showing himself to be a Marxist or at least leaning in that direction, and therefore a fucktard.

[Travis Retriever]

Ah, gotta love the Anarcho Socialists/Communists/Syndicalists.  I never run out of fail quotes from them.

"Capitalism is for the profit of the few, anarchism for sharing among the many. Anticapitalism goes hand in hand with anarchism. What point are you trying to make?" --johnlepo on this video:

[yt]xIGco4hjZ1c[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

From that same video, the poster said this:

"I don't know why people are still having the capitalism versus socialism naming debate. Both words can mean entirely different things to different people. What we want is freedom, pure and simple. Call it capitalism, call it socialism, I don't care." --AlaskanAnarchist

I simply can't stand it when people pull the semantics card.
Words have meaning.  His whining won't change that.

[Travis Retriever]

Granted, I find their statist cousins to be far worse, if not for any other reason than the fact that they want to impose a system from the top down...

Witness this idiot (in red). I (in blue) try to help inform.
The conversation takes place in the comments section of this video by FlowCell:

[yt]qhdcymNtKRs[/yt]

Staunts:  "Even by making the statement that our rights are natural, you are a person making this claim, therefore it's just another example of rights coming from people. Nobody can stand up for rights other than people, and nobody can take them away other than people. What's so hard to understand about this? How can you demonstrate where rights come from without doing so through the words, actions and perspective of people?" (Um...not sequitor, much?  Not to mention a shifting of the burden fallacy:  he's asking FlowCell to prove a negative.)

Me:  "@Staunts Yes, but people also came from nature.  Ergo our rights have to have come from nature."
(So I try to do what Shane did and try to link the two.  Apparently, that was a mistake...)

*Staunts:  "yeah, but I mean what's the difference. We're nature, we give ourselves rights. Poeple wouldnt consider rights an issue if there werent other people to threaten them, and when they are threatened it's not a tree or the wind that fights for them, it's people." (*facepalms*  What an egotist...we ARE nature?  wtf?  We "give ourselves rights"  What does that even mean?  *facpealms again* Yes.   People VIOLATE and SECURE our rights.  That doesn't mean that rights come from them.  Gotta love how to twists my point into something to fit his statist mindset, and then later on baw's about FlowCell making a video correcting AronRa making FlowCell to be some kind of bully...)

Me:  "Then you agree people secure our rights, that doesn't mean they 'grant' them to us.
Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean squat. Many people don't agree that evolution is a fact. Does that mean evolution is not firmly supported by evidence?
Then look at the comments section and read up on the other hundred or so times your point has been suggested."

Staunts:  "But proving evolution is different than proving we have rights! Evolution leaves physical traces, and continues to do so even if we die away. How do you scientifically prove human rights? Would human rights exist without humans?I think you are just making this pointless distinction to try and sound smart, but what's the point, everybody still agrees that we should have rights."
(*facepalms*  Argument from ignorance + shifting the burden + Ad hominem + bullshit point at the end.  Not all people agree we have rights.)

Me:  "Once again.
See the other many comments where this idea has been suggested.
Should be the first set of comments FlowCell replied to." (Yeah, I'm getting tired of this political dogmatist.)

(Another part of the thread):

Me (replying to *'ed comment):  "And by the last sentence of my other comment to you, I mean the idea that rights come from men.
This idea has been brought up roughly 100 times and has been responded to at least that many times.
Read through comments on this video. " (Yeah, I completely lost all interesting in debating this dogmatist at this point)

Staunts:  "I have and I still find it to be stupid. Like the kind of jerk who has to one-up the other guy(AronRa) by making a pointless distinction to sound smart when you're not really disagreeing with him on the main point.(That we have rights) Our rights come from nature. We are nature, rights come from us."
(*double facepalms*  Argument from personal incredulity and poisoning the well.  Not to mention distorting my first point to mean something it didn't.  What a fucktard.  Just like the creationists, I swear).

Me:  "Then you admit to not understanding the concept.
Come back when you get an education dude, seriously. Nature doesn't just consist of humans..."

Staunts:  "There is no concept to understand. You say our rights come from nature, hut you fail to explain exact;y how that works without human interaction. It's a simple question: do rights exist without someone to even concieve of the idea of rights? You couldnt really say that non human animals think they have rights."
*facepalms* (If he actually BOTHERED to read the comments posted by FlowCell he would know that the idea that there are liberties (or rights) without human interaction is actually proof that they don't come from other humans.
"There is no concept to understand." Puh-leeze.)

Me:  "'Interesting that you'd ask me to show a universal, when you make it sound as if they are particulars. You may as well ask me where the physical location of happiness or the number one. Please don't ask me gotcha questions when you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want to see something physical, go get a book of laws and read where men have declared your rights null and void. Liberty is the default state of the universe, not legal restriction.' --FlowCell

'Liberty is the absence of restriction, much like how darkness is the absence of light. You don't need anything for darkness to exist. Much as how Darkness existed before stars existed, so too did Liberty exist before Government.

The fact that you can do what ever you want in the absence of governance should be all the proof you need. Nobody would be around to say "no".

Liberty is the default state of the universe. I'm not sure I could explain this in language any plainer or simpler.' --FC

'I view rights as a way of conceptualizing Liberty (a negative) in positive terms. This is why I call rights heuristic (a useful fiction). Its similar to fictional borders on a map defined by treaty or law (heuristic) vs. geographical regions which law has no control over (real). I derive my definition of rights from Liberty, which is why you see conflation. I see them as different perspectives on the same concept.' --FlowCell
"Liberty cannot be imposed on anybody, only Tyranny can. If Liberty is given, then the last man on Earth would be in chains." --FlowCell
A man may be born a slave, but only if his pre-existing rights are violated; he is not a slave by default.

I suppose I should have specified what I meant by "rights", so I do apologize if that caused any confusion.'"
(As I said, in the comment, I will give him that.)

[Travis Retriever]

Iconoclastithon:  "@Malthus0

American Libertarianism is very influenced by Rand/Objectivism.

Libertarianism is rooted in social-anarchy. The first people to call themselves Libertrarians{1800s} were such. The American Libertarian ovement is an imposter that usurped the term. So unofrunately real libertarians have to now pre-fix their libertarianismj with left or suffix with socialist{ie: Left Libertarian & Libertarian Socialism}, which is a redundancy, classic liberalism partly informs LEFT LIbertarianism."

On the comment section of this video: [yt]1mkJONJSmrQ[/yt]

I'd say that's an Argument from etymology (argumentum ad etymologia).
What do you think?

[MrBogosity]

I'd say it's just plain wrong.

But remember, this is the guy that thinks libertarianism = objectivism.

[Travis Retriever]

*nod*
Next thing you know he'll be saying that a mutually voluntarily agreed upon wage is "slavery" (or wage slavery exists).

And even if what he says is true, so what?
Word definitions change.  That's part of how language works, you have already stated.

[Virgil0211]

Iconoclastithon:  "@Malthus0

American Libertarianism is very influenced by Rand/Objectivism.

Libertarianism is rooted in social-anarchy. The first people to call themselves Libertrarians{1800s} were such. The American Libertarian ovement is an imposter that usurped the term. So unofrunately real libertarians have to now pre-fix their libertarianismj with left or suffix with socialist{ie: Left Libertarian & Libertarian Socialism}, which is a redundancy, classic liberalism partly informs LEFT LIbertarianism."

On the comment section of this video: [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mkJONJSmrQ&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mkJONJSmrQ&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>[/yt]

I'd say that's an Argument from etymology (argumentum ad etymologia).
What do you think?

Found a response to the above video.

[yt]UpNnjkowOOE[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

@Virgil0211:  I saw it.  I also added it to my favorites, as I figured you would.

[Virgil0211]

@Virgil0211:  I saw it.  I also added it to my favorites, as I figured you would.

What was that about great minds thinking alike?

What say we work together on this "AncientAtheist" nutball?

[Gumba Masta]

Great minds? On my Interwebs...Yeah right. =P

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/01/22/olbermann-unhinged-supreme-court-sanctioned-murder-democracy

Olbermann went on a mega tirade recently apparently.

Here's the challenge, how much of it can you read without laughing?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

You can't just "print more money", for someone who so adamantly claims to know what a good economy is supposed to look like, you should understand that even if the "political class"(what are you a Marxist now?) may be wasteful but they're not stupid. Printing more money only makes the money they have worth less. And it's not like every member of this "class" has access to the printing machine. A senator can not just go and say "print me more money." When you make such parodies of the actual situation it just makes me wonder what on earth you're thinking.

Oh yeah, they don't print money.  They'd NEVER do something like that...  -_-