Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

I stopped after three. The Constitution putting something in sequence is NOT a prioritization.

Really, why do people keep bothering with Zo's videos? You KNOW they're going to be fail!

I stopped after 0:00.  Just knowing it was from that hack-job Zo was enough to make me to know was epic fail.

[tnu]

I love how Zo uses government regulation and socialized medicine as excuses for the war on drugs. Isn't this the same as saying that immigration should be more tightly controlled because otherwise it would lead to abuse of the welfare state. His invoking the bible is just hilarious.

[Travis Retriever]

I love how Zo uses government regulation and socialized medicine as excuses for the war on drugs. Isn't this the same as saying that immigration should be more tightly controlled because otherwise it would lead to abuse of the welfare state. His invoking the bible is just hilarious.

Yup.  Circular reasoning.  We need state intervention here because of issues created by state intervention there. I'd have expected no less from someone of Zo's intellect.

[BlameThe1st]

[yt]fcolo2uUSaM[/yt]

This is just a stupid argument. Even if you're an atheist, which most of you are, you have to admit this is a stupid argument. If you're going to argue against a subject, then you have to gain as much knowledge about the subject as possible; otherwise, you're arguing from ignorance.

Dawkins assumes that consulting a theologian about theology is along the same lines as consulting a fairiologist about fairies. Why, yes, Dawkins, it is! If you're going to argue against fairies, it's best that you consult someone who knows a lot about fairies so that you're better familiar with the subject to better argue against it!

By his standard, someone who argues against evolution doesn't have to understand biology to argue against it, just as someone who argues against global warming doesn't have to understand meteorology to argue against it. Oh wait...

[dallen68]

This is just a stupid argument. Even if you're an atheist, which most of you are, you have to admit this is a stupid argument. If you're going to argue against a subject, then you have to gain as much knowledge about the subject as possible; otherwise, you're arguing from ignorance.

Dawkins assumes that consulting a theologian about theology is along the same lines as consulting a fairiologist about fairies. Why, yes, Dawkins, it is! If you're going to argue against fairies, it's best that you consult someone who knows a lot about fairies so that you're better familiar with the subject to better argue against it!

By his standard, someone who argues against evolution doesn't have to understand biology to argue against it, just as someone who argues against global warming doesn't have to understand meteorology to argue against it. Oh wait...

Actually, I think PZ Meyer's was trying to make the point you just did.

[AnCap Dave]

[MrBogosity]

Dawkins assumes that consulting a theologian about theology is along the same lines as consulting a fairiologist about fairies. Why, yes, Dawkins, it is! If you're going to argue against fairies, it's best that you consult someone who knows a lot about fairies so that you're better familiar with the subject to better argue against it!

The problem is, being a theologian doesn't really give you any real expertise in the subject. Biologists know a lot about evolution because they observe, test, falsify, and modify their theories accordingly. Where is the test for God? How can the concept of God be falsified? When do theologians do ANY of that?

And when physicists like Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss come along and flatten their concept of God like a steamroller, do they do work to test their theory and experiments for flaws? Do they modify or throw out their God hypothesis in light of this new data?

Sorry, but I've got to go with Dawkins on this one. Theologians don't know any more about God than the rest of us do. At best, you can say they know more about what Bronze Age people wrote about God, but I could get better work on that from historians or classical anthropologists.

[Skm1091]

One little problem with Robin Hood Picture. It should actually be King George. 

[MrBogosity]

One little problem with Robin Hood Picture. It should actually be King George. 

For the life of me, I can't figure out WHY they think we'd see them as Robin Hood, someone who fights the government and its cronies to reclaim money stolen from the people via taxation.

[Altimadark]

For the life of me, I can't figure out WHY they think we'd see them as Robin Hood, someone who fights the government and its cronies to reclaim money stolen from the people via taxation.

Yeah, I'd think Robin Hood would go into a liberal's "How I See Me" slot.

EDIT: Thinking about this one after reading thru some of the comments; liberals seem to think Robin Hood is some sort of libertarian boogieman because he "steals from the rich and gives to the poor." Which really says more about how they see themselves (and Robin Hood) than how libertarians see them, given that libertarians identify with Robin Hood more than progressive liberals do.

[Travis Retriever]

From this video's comments:  [yt]S2OsdoAAjsE[/yt]

agentssith going on about how libertarianism = social darwinism.  Is anyone else reminded of Kent Hovind and other creationists talking about how it was evolution that was 'largely responsible for what happened to the Indians" and for blaming evolution/C. Darwin for the Holocaust?

[tnu]

From this video's comments:  [yt]S2OsdoAAjsE[/yt]

agentssith going on about how libertarianism = social darwinism.  Is anyone else reminded of Kent Hovind and other creationists talking about how it was evolution that was 'largely responsible for what happened to the Indians" and for blaming evolution/C. Darwin for the Holocaust?

and it's even worse.

Fact: Starting from a Social Darwinist perspective, it is hard to imagine a political ideology more complementary to it (made for it I would say) than Liberteatardism.

Notice how he's NOW not only accusing all libertarians of being objectivists and social darwinists but also  Tea Party affiliates? All while shifting the burden of proof?

[Travis Retriever]

and it's even worse.


Notice how he's NOW not only accusing all libertarians of being objectivists and social darwinists but also  Tea Party affiliates? All while shifting the burden of proof?

Unfortunately...

[ArtemisVale]

From libertarian girl

Anarchists can say politics doesn't matter and being involved in political parties is an evil form of socialism or fascism, all they want. But the fact that Obama won the election again instead of Romney, gave the libertarian leaning faction of the GOP the opportunity to start the GOP civil war going on right now. Which is largely responsible for the popularization of libertarianism we are seeing today.

Libertarians are a small faction of political thought. Anarchists are an even smaller faction of that faction. Anarchists are the only ones in this political spectrum that are encouraging people that agree with them to NOT be active in the political process. There are no other political ideologies doing that. So unless you are ready to admit you don't care or don't want libertarianism to progress into mainstream thought (which would inevitably lead to more anarchists as well) and admit that you just want to see the whole country destroyed as soon as possible, political activism is good thing.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

From libertarian girl

I know she means well but seriously, what part of "Politics is a rigged game" has not been made clear yet?  Last election, Ron Paul was properly entitled to a spot on the debate and they change changed the rules and kept him out.  They didn't even TRY to hide it.