PZ Myers fail: "Maybe this will finally drive the libertarians out of atheism"

Started by BlameThe1st, December 29, 2013, 05:13:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 10, 2015, 12:44:41 AM
You might not see this post, but my ancap friend is calling in to the Majority Report tomorrow and debating Sam Seder. This is awesome! I share your frustrations, Shane, with Sam Seder. The first video of his that I saw was "Libertarian wants right to buy any Lightbulb he wants- own slaves." As if being able to buy any lightbulb I want is not my right(why can't the seller just raise the price of the one that hurts the environment or whatever Sam's argument was, and sell the more energy efficient one for less money, or sell them in a 2 pac- one good, one bad- to distribute the costs of energy efficiency or lack thereof. Plus, Sam doesn't even understand libertarianism enough to know that slavery was a government enforced system, the Underground Railroad was a free market, Lincoln never freed a single slave, and most importantly, that slavery violates the NAP!

Yeah, every video of Seder's I've seen is like that. That's why I won't debate him: he doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about and he won't take correction. Post the video when it's online.

I don't understand what Seder means when he says "supply side economics," which is the phrase he uses to describe Austrian/Chicago school economics. If we were such economists, wouldn't we support artificially stimulating supply? To me it sounds just like a debate between a religious person and an atheist. "Oh, ur not a Christian, then ur a Muslim." "No, I'm and atheist."
I guess since he is a "demand side" economist in his terms, he thinks everyone in opposition to him must be supply side, but don't u stimulate supply with demand? Isn't that the broken window fallacy?
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

I dunno. Debating someone like sedar is like talking to a brick wall.
Avatar image by Darkworkrabbit on deviantart

Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 11, 2015, 05:21:44 PM
I don't understand what Seder means when he says "supply side economics," which is the phrase he uses to describe Austrian/Chicago school economics.

Even though it isn't. Supply-side economics is bogus the same way Keynesianism is; the difference being that, where Keynesianism tries to boost Aggregate Demand with government spending, deficits, and transfer payments, supply-side economics tries to boost Aggregate Supply with subsidies and bailouts. It much more closely describes Obama's economic policy than Austrian economics.

QuoteIf we were such economists, wouldn't we support artificially stimulating supply?

Precisely.

Quote from: MrBogosity on December 11, 2015, 07:00:58 AM
Yeah, every video of Seder's I've seen is like that. That's why I won't debate him: he doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about and he won't take correction. Post the video when it's online.

Actually, he's debating him during Christmas vacation from school. I wish him him luck since he's a freshman and he'll be debating someone mind-numbingly dumb as Sam Seder
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

December 12, 2015, 02:30:24 AM #80 Last Edit: December 12, 2015, 07:27:09 AM by MrBogosity
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]

[yt]c3lXdW3WCVs[/yt]

Here's a response to ur healthcare video of u haven't seen it already

And here's another [yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

The first one, I only listened up until 1:46, when he bleated "UNLESS YOU'RE POOR!" when I'd JUST GOTTEN THROUGH SAYING that it was the cost that was the issue. If that's how little he's going to pay attention to my video, I don't see why I should pay ANY attention to his.

EDIT: Also, notice in the comments that there are a LOT of replies to evensgrey (and from usual suspects like No To Pseudoscience and njanovic1980), but his actual comments are gone. Deleted? Yeah, I don't think this video is worth bothering with.

ANOTHER EDIT: Actually, looking through the comments, I DID watch the video and debunked it. It went over just about how you'd think...

The second is the long-debunked FSAthe1st garbage.

Quote from: MrBogosity on December 12, 2015, 07:30:09 AM
EDIT: Also, notice in the comments that there are a LOT of replies to evensgrey (and from usual suspects like No To Pseudoscience and njanovic1980), but his actual comments are gone. Deleted? Yeah, I don't think this video is worth bothering with.

Not the first time I've seen someone entirely disappear from the comments while replies to them remain.  I doubt that the idiots are stupid enough to not remove replies if deleting comments, since it demonstrates the comments were made.  I think this is just another fail Google inserted into YouTube.

Quote from: evensgrey on December 12, 2015, 09:30:53 AM
Not the first time I've seen someone entirely disappear from the comments while replies to them remain.  I doubt that the idiots are stupid enough to not remove replies if deleting comments, since it demonstrates the comments were made.  I think this is just another fail Google inserted into YouTube.

Except those replies are from more than two years ago, before all of that started happening.

Quote from: MrBogosity on December 12, 2015, 11:32:20 AM
Except those replies are from more than two years ago, before all of that started happening.

Two problems with that objection:

1) This has been happening for more than two years, but after Google started messing up YouTube (I won't use Google+ for any purpose, so I stopped commenting on videos when it became mandatory, which was 2 years ago, and I commented about this phenomena on a video it was happening on).

2) New comment filtering functions would still apply to old comments.

Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 12, 2015, 02:30:24 AM
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]

[yt]c3lXdW3WCVs[/yt]

Here's a response to ur healthcare video of u haven't seen it already

And here's another [yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]
I put the link between the brackets. What else did I do
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat.

Quote from: libertarian__revolution on December 12, 2015, 02:30:24 AM
[yt]7DhJ73JuWJY[/yt]

[yt]c3lXdW3WCVs[/yt]

Here's a response to ur healthcare video of u haven't seen it already

And here's another [yt]IkK7mK0rAIQ[/yt]

The Swiss rejected single payer
California rejected single payer
Recently single payer went nowhere in Vermont because they said too it was expensive.  As far as I can tell opinion hasn't shifted towards it, so I don't think these videos are worth anyone's attention.
Working every day to expose the terrible price we pay for government.

Quote from: Dallas Wildman on December 13, 2015, 04:41:47 AM
The Swiss rejected single payer
California rejected single payer
Recently single payer went nowhere in Vermont because they said too it was expensive.  As far as I can tell opinion hasn't shifted towards it, so I don't think these videos are worth anyone's attention.

Incidentally, anyone who tries to argue based on Canada has a single payer system is demonstrating ignorance.  Not only does Canada not have single payer, it's actually ILLEGAL here.  It has been recognized by our Supreme Court that everyone has a right to access needed medical care in a timely manner, and government policy is not permitted to interfere, which has been recognized since the Morgentaller decision (and that decision would be reversed if this principle were overturned, rolling us back to a very restrictive and rather expensive system of abortion regulations).  As no single payer system can deliver needed services in a timely manner, single payer is a violation of rights.

Quote from: evensgrey on December 13, 2015, 07:00:35 AM
As no single payer system can deliver needed services in a timely manner, single payer is a violation of rights.
What ?!! What kind of reasoning can lead to that conclusion ?

Quote from: AdeptusHereticus on December 13, 2015, 07:47:54 AM
What ?!! What kind of reasoning can lead to that conclusion ?

That's an observation.  The case involved a man in Quebec who needed treatment for a back problem that was going to be years in waiting time.  When he tried to arrange to pay for it privately, the provincial government passed a law banning private payment for services covered by the government scam.  He filed suit, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor on the basis described, since the needed treatment HADN'T been provided within years of the need.  (It happens everywhere.  The UK's NHS was internationally infamous for having multi-year waiting lists for routine surgeries like tonsillectomies back in the 1970s, resulting in children suffering through numerous, needless infections and often having them delayed until after puberty, when a tonsillectomy is notably worse for the patient.  Since the Thatcher era private services have been taking up the slack, and these days typically handle things in less than two week that patients already waited two months for from the NHS.)