Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

"Too Smart For Science: Has the author ever heard of Piltdown Man? Climategate? No doubt he or she would decry any studies to the contrary of the IPCC's as "Funded by Big Oil interests", and yet somehow thinks research grants, fame and government protected positions are not sufficient motivations (let alone the incentives for their backers..) for climate scientists to falsify data, exaggerate or simply lie."--Praetyre here

Yeah, I would have forgiven him had he not made himself out to be stupid by mentioning Piltdown Man.

[MrBogosity]

Link him to my video on Piltdown Man and Potholer54's videos on ClimateGate.

[Travis Retriever]

I'm considering it.
Here's hoping they don't dismiss you and potholer54 as "too dumb" "too gullible", etc, like the last time I tried doing that.
I think I will though.

Depending on the responses I get, you may end up seeing more from him and others on this thread.

[Travis Retriever]

Alright...after 30 minutes of fucking fiddling, I finally just gave up and posted the links with a non-formatted quote.
The reason?
Because for some reason, every
single
time
I tried to do a quote the way I did before (and would work), it wouldn't show up in my post.
WTF?
That's another reason I rarely (if ever) post there.
That forum is about as user friendly as Ikea Furniture with the directions written in Mandarin Chinese.

[Gumba Masta]

Yes, but the furniture looks much more interesting that way when you're finished putting it together.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

More fun from Saur.  For fun, I sent him Stefan Molyneux's podcast on how academia basically entraps intellectuals by making them have to invest massive amounts of money and time so that they'll be too afraid to dissent lest their investment be for naught.  I got this...

podcast is a bit rich. The livestock analogy is bunk as livestock have no effort reward as we do even if I concede the society is utterly statist. If they produce more milk, they get no benefit, nor even if they did would they be aware of it. This changes the dynamics of the game fundamentally and renders the analogy extremely weak.
   
    As to how societies control dissenters, yup, pretty much dead on. Of course, the control isn't ironclad and the system still evolves purely because there are, as he says, the poor, the rich, the old and the young who have less vested interest- and even those who are so vital to the society's running that the cost of them speaking up is less than that of getting rid of them. However, I disagree with his complaints that nothing comes of formal academia, as much as I'm inclined to be sympathetic. This might be more true now than it ever was, but formal academia has been a cornerstone of technological advancement and, until fairly recently, social advancement as well through the study of economics before it became widely known. For every Eddison, Franklin and Ghandi there has been a Newton or a Smith or an Einstein. Those who come up with the theoretical basis for improvement almost always hail from formal academia, even if they did not need to- Einstein didn't *need* to become a professor to publish and develop his ideas, but he chose to become one when they were accepted.
   
    For all its strictures and regulations, academia *does* recognize good ideas when they come along. It might be hard for you to understand, but the problem is, there have just been so many that what seems like a good idea to you, has probably been had- and published- and debated- and often debunked, many times before. Anything genuinely new and solid that someone dreams up will get integrated, regardless of barriers.
   
    That's all I can say, take what you will. I'm not really interested in debating with you unless you can show you're willing to be more polite than in the past.

[Travis Retriever]

I shared my thoughts on it in an AIM convo with him.
My conclusion:  Saur is a pompous windbag with a severe case of Unwarranted Self Importance.

[Gumba Masta]

He's not an orc by any chance?

[VectorM]

The world would be better off without money.

It wouldn't think it through.
Currency helps maintain a structured society. When it gets out of control and hyperinflation comes about yes that is bad. But if there was no money and everything was free, people would most probably annex certain stocks of items. And end up selling them off. Hence re-building another society.

Couldn't sell them because there would be no currency to buy them with. And if someone takes a lot, just make more.

This has to be the dumbest shit I have seen in some time.

I posted Shane's video about money, so I hope he puts his brain back on.

[Gumba Masta]

This has to be the dumbest shit I have seen in some time.

I posted Shane's video about money, so I hope he puts his brain back on.

Obviously JD doesn't appreciate money, unlike some other people I know.

[yt]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sor9GzivGbk&amp;hl=de_DE&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sor9GzivGbk&amp;hl=de_DE&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

This has to be the dumbest shit I have seen in some time.

I posted Shane's video about money, so I hope he puts his brain back on.

What I usually do with people like that when I'm talking one-on-one is ask them questions about how they would make the system fair and equitable. They go different paths, but end up in the same basic place as I point out problem after problem and they modify their system of equity to solve them.

When it's over, I say to them, "Congratulations--you just invented money!"

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I do a similar thing with so called "anarcho-socialists"

When they talk about distributing wealth fairly, I ask them "So if someone ends up having...'too much', how do you fix that?"

When they say who's going to have the authority to take the money, by force if needed, I say "Congratulations, you now have a government."

[Travis Retriever]

In this video
I saw the following comment posted by Libertarianist:

While I do agree that foreign occupation is definitely the wrong way and provokes most of the violence committed against us, and that the Jeffersonian approach would work much better. I don't think this would result in terrorism stopping entirely. You CAN'T stop terrorism.

Some of the violence is senseless. Perpetrated by radical muslims who are motivated merely because they feel commanded by their book to punish the infidels.

To which I responded with:  "How much Muslim terrorism in on the books before we starting meddling in their affairs?"

To which he fail-quote responded with:

@Surhotchaperchlorome  Your sentiment is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Muslims have always been in conflict with neighboring infidel societies.
The shift in US foreign policy resulting in occupation of muslim countries coincides with technological developments that both exposed western culture to xenophobic muslim extremist and provided them with affordable means of travel.

And muslim extremists don't just attack invading countries. Remember the violence in Denmark over that cartoon?

So how many fallacies and other forms of bullshit can you spot in both of Libertarianist's comments (both of which are the fail quotes)?

[MrBogosity]

How about just ignorance of history?

The Barbary pirates WERE Muslim extremists. So how come we didn't hear anything from them from the end of that episode throughout the period when we had a humble foreign policy, only to see a resurgence when we started meddling over there again?

[Travis Retriever]

How about just ignorance of history?

The Barbary pirates WERE Muslim extremists. So how come we didn't hear anything from them from the end of that episode throughout the period when we had a humble foreign policy, only to see a resurgence when we started meddling over there again?

True, but I was a bit irked that he called me question, "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
Does he even know what that means?
His point about the Danish cartoonists is kinda lame.  Last time I checked, Denmark has soldiers in those parts too.
So red herring + ignorance.

I got a reply from Akatam0t0ma which read: "@Surhotchaperchlorome:
Pretty much since Islam started. Starting from the 3rd decade of the 7th century, going through Muslim occupation of North Africa, India, part of Spain, later Anatolia and continues to this very day, even if the tactics changed."

OK, I'll admit I should have worded my question better to regard Muslim terrorism in the USA, but still...
I don't know that much about history, myself, so I'm a bit iffy on his response.