http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJZKW5noC8Y
Sigh...another skeptic tossing it all out the window when it comes to politics.
Damn, not another one. :(
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 14, 2010, 09:58:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJZKW5noC8Y
Sigh...another skeptic tossing it all out the window when it comes to politics.
Script for video response already written...
Ugh...really getting sick and tired of people using the argument "health care should be health oriented first." I mean...what the hell does that even mean? They deny it when I say they're hypocritically calling profit a dirty word so what is it?
We'll find out; I'm including your quote in the response.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 15, 2010, 11:16:09 AM
They deny it when I say they're hypocritically calling profit a dirty word so what is it?
You... you just gave me a vision about CEO sex.
"Ms Krinkelmeier....let me show you my profit."
"Oh, Mr Manybucks, it is immense. My whatever will you do with so much... profit."
"Why Ms Krinkelmeier, I'll "Invest" it of course."
After he gets what she's buying, he'll drop her.
Well, they have thick carpets in those executive rooms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRzOqXL-5I0 Well, that's my vid on it. I moved the camera closer so hopefully the sound should be good. It sounded fine to me when I played it back.
Heh, beat me to it. Damn my sinuses--I have to wait for my voice to get better to record it.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 16, 2010, 03:42:00 PM
Heh, beat me to it. Damn my sinuses--I have to wait for my voice to get better to record it.
You could always use the robot voice again.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 16, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
You could always use the robot voice again.
NO!
It burns! D:
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 16, 2010, 08:19:35 PM
NO!
It burns! D:
Okay. Next idea- Hire Frank Welker to read it in the Megatron voice and put it through a vocoder. That would be friggin' awesome, if not very feasible.
Just a question, is there anything I can do about the sound being off track with the picture? I'm sure most notice that my lips aren't moving in tune with what I'm saying.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 17, 2010, 01:09:26 AM
Just a question, is there anything I can do about the sound being off track with the picture? I'm sure most notice that my lips aren't moving in tune with what I'm saying.
Make a Godzilla joke?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 17, 2010, 01:09:26 AM
Just a question, is there anything I can do about the sound being off track with the picture? I'm sure most notice that my lips aren't moving in tune with what I'm saying.
All the YouTube direct uploads I've seen do that. Notice how every one of LadyAttis' videos has that delay.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 17, 2010, 01:09:26 AM
Just a question, is there anything I can do about the sound being off track with the picture? I'm sure most notice that my lips aren't moving in tune with what I'm saying.
As long as it's recorded in sync, of course, I find that by rendering it as an MP4 with AVC for the video codec and AAC for the audio that I never have sync or cutoff issues.
[yt]cpeoZsCobrM[/yt]
Feels kinda weird to be mentioned on one of these vids. ^^;
You're welcome.
I could DEFINITELY use some help in the comments.
Gotta love people whipping out the UK like they've totally got their shit together. I've never been there but if half the stuff I hear about their government being a bunch of nosy nannies, I certainly would never want to live there.
"Yep, no problem, free as the air!
....you just have to wait six months...and get mediocre care....and pray the doctors don't strike in the mean time....and it's kinda sorta not actually free because you paid for it out of your taxes and the politicos took a nice big chunk out of it....
Wait a minute, what was the big advantage of the UK's system again?"
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 18, 2010, 10:33:06 AM
Gotta love people whipping out the UK like they've totally got their shit together. I've never been there but if half the stuff I hear about their government being a bunch of nosy nannies, I certainly would never want to live there.
"Yep, no problem, free as the air!
....you just have to wait six months...and get mediocre care....and pray the doctors don't strike in the mean time....and it's kinda sorta not actually free because you paid for it out of your taxes and the politicos took a nice big chunk out of it....
Wait a minute, what was the big advantage of the UK's system again?"
Snooty accents and the chance of catching a monty python rerun while you're waiting?
Also the accent will make any rant sound 87.3 per cent more awesome.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 18, 2010, 12:36:13 PM
Also the accent will make any rant sound 87.3 per cent more awesome.
It also increases the likelihood that the parrot is, in fact, dead and NOT resting by 128.3%
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 18, 2010, 10:33:06 AM
Gotta love people whipping out the UK like they've totally got their shit together. I've never been there but if half the stuff I hear about their government being a bunch of nosy nannies, I certainly would never want to live there.
"Yep, no problem, free as the air!
....you just have to wait six months...and get mediocre care....and pray the doctors don't strike in the mean time....and it's kinda sorta not actually free because you paid for it out of your taxes and the politicos took a nice big chunk out of it....
Wait a minute, what was the big advantage of the UK's system again?"
You're right about our government being "a bunch of nosy nannies"; 45% the UK's GDP is controlled by the government. It's particularly bad here in Scotland; spending on Healthcare is 50% higher than anywhere else in the UK yet we still have longer waiting times. The Scottish government's target is to get waiting times for most operations under 18 weeks (as they are now in England). Things are only made worse by the fact that the two largest parties in Scotland have socialist roots and want to increase spending.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 18, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
Snooty accents and the chance of catching a monty python rerun while you're waiting?
Or, more appropriately, "Only When I Laugh."
"Figgis!!!"
Ho, boy. Guess who's back?
[yt]6QkRycRhPl0&feature=response_watch[/yt]
And he didn't even attach it as a video response to Shane's video. He instead attached it as a reply to FightingAtheist's video. Is it just me, or does he get dumber with each passing day?
I actually laughed aloud when he basically said that opposing socialism is anti social. Man, politicians must wish everyone was that easy.
Oh and his continued insistance that taxing isn't theft... Yeah, I'm not taking pie from you. I'm giving pie to me! ^^
"OH RLY ShaneDK?"
And another one, this time linked to Vogter's video.
[yt]1ZJ_FiKfLNg&feature=response_watch[/yt]
What is with these cowards who won't even bother to actually attach the video response to the one they're responding to? Seriously. Don't they see that this is behaving just like the creationists? If you're going to say something about someone, have the balls to say it to their face.
Non profit government bureaucracy? Hah! Oh man! These are awesome. Keep 'em coming.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 18, 2010, 11:40:44 PMAnd he didn't even attach it as a video response to Shane's video. He instead attached it as a reply to FightingAtheist's video. Is it just me, or does he get dumber with each passing day?
I notice they're still engaging in their favorite tactic of burying comments that cite evidence that contradicts their delusions.
Now they're just grasping at straws. "Not to mention the petty squabbles between nuclear fammilies [sic]"... what in the HELL does this have to do with the issue?
Is it a sign of weakness to take a break from debating these assholes? I'm getting mentally drained, here. It's like trying to empty out the Atlantic with a teaspoon.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 19, 2010, 06:24:24 PMIs it a sign of weakness to take a break from debating these assholes?
No. It's just means you're human.
We've all been there.
As I've noted on the video, damn, it seems like socialized medicine is the biggest pet project/belief of the collectivists.
It seems especially so when Shane's video disagreeing on it gets over 2600 comments in less than 3 days...
These people are fucking vultures.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 19, 2010, 06:28:31 PM
No. It's just means you're human.
We've all been there.
As I've noted on the video, damn, it seems like socialized medicine is the biggest pet project/belief of the collectivists.
It seems especially so when Shane's video disagreeing on it gets over 2600 comments in less than 3 days...
These people are fucking vultures.
Thanks. I needed that. I'm actually going to take a full-on break from this internet social stuff for a bit. I hope you guys don't mind. I need some time away from politics. Besides, my girlfriend got me Bioshock for Christmas and I haven't gotten around to playing it yet. That, and I need to devote more time to studying my courses.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 19, 2010, 07:26:55 PM
Thanks. I needed that. I'm actually going to take a full-on break from this internet social stuff for a bit. I hope you guys don't mind. I need some time away from politics. Besides, my girlfriend got me Bioshock for Christmas and I haven't gotten around to playing it yet. That, and I need to devote more time to studying my courses.
You're welcome.
I hear you on the school work. X_X
Between that Venus Project nutter who is in denial who thinks that the Federal Reserve doesn't have anything to do with the government or that just saying "the Venus Project isn't communism" is a logical argument against it; and that smug, self-righteous anarcho-syndicalist wanker who thinks that history is on his side...wow.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 19, 2010, 09:27:33 PM
You're welcome.
I hear you on the school work. X_X
Between that Venus Project nutter who is in denial who thinks that the Federal Reserve doesn't have anything to do with the government or that just saying "the Venus Project isn't communism" is a logical argument against it; and that smug, self-righteous anarcho-syndicalist wanker who thinks that history is on his side...wow.
You mean TheElmoIsEvil? Yeah. I stopped bothering to reply to him once I recognized him. He's done shit like this before. Apparently, he thinks that banning pornography is an acceptable course of action to engineer the human social condition. Apparently, pornography is inherently degrading to women. Which is strange, considering that my ex-southern baptist girlfriend watches more porn than I do.
Alot more, actually.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 19, 2010, 09:40:55 PM
You mean TheElmoIsEvil? Yeah. I stopped bothering to reply to him once I recognized him. He's done shit like this before. Apparently, he thinks that banning pornography is an acceptable course of action to engineer the human social condition. Apparently, pornography is inherently degrading to women. Which is strange, considering that my ex-southern baptist girlfriend watches more porn than I do. Alot more, actually.
And he has the nerve to say that WE'RE the ones who are supporting repressive policies (or whatever words he uses)?
Then there's that fakeham (I think that's his name) Venus Project cultist.
I facepalmed when he said the Venus Project doesn't deny the laws of economics.
I realized that if he's THAT damn deluded it isn't even worth trying to bring him back to sanity.
To think he had the balls to say that in order for their idea to work they would need to have it worldwide.
What a bunch of authoritative pricks.
We don't need that.
And of course that one nutter who is convinced that duress isn't force.
Man, we're surrounded by morons.
That whole "degrading to women" argument is bunk. Were I a woman, I'd be insulted by such coddling attitudes. -_-
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 19, 2010, 10:30:18 PM
That whole "degrading to women" argument is bunk. Were I a woman, I'd be insulted by such coddling attitudes. -_-
It's part of this new sort of feminism, one which sees sex as inherently degrading to women due to the act of penetration. They feel that porn and any sexual material needs to be censored in order to promote healthy social changes until sex is no longer degrading to the female gender. Or some shit like that. They try to cite correlational studies between porn viewing and sexual assault rates. As if one caused/contributed to the other.
http://www.youtube.com/user/nuclearnight
One of the idiots who actually buys into this shit.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 19, 2010, 10:38:36 PMIt's part of this new sort of feminism, one which sees sex as inherently degrading to women due to the act of penetration.
Then shouldn't they be against gay porn and stuff aired on the discovery channel?
Why is it also not degrading to gay men, or straight men who take it from their woman with a strap-on?
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 19, 2010, 10:38:36 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/user/nuclearnight
One of the idiots who actually buys into this shit.
Not only that, but she's a communist.
OK, I just got done watching those two clusterfucks of videos.
Some things I should point out:
1. I was laughing all the way through both of them.
2. I downloaded them to a folder in my computer titled, "Epic Failures - So bad, they're good".
Wasn't nuclearnight, but a similar YouTuber jedimasterbooboo said that studies prove men who watch porn have less empathy than those who don't. My, my, MY, where to begin? I mean really, how do you "test" for empathy? Take 1,000 men who watch porn, 1,000 men who don't, and then see which group hands out less Valentine's cards? Also like has been said above, this doesn't even account for homosexual porn, or amateurs who do it all voluntarily for free and who trade their escapades with others. I subscribed to a good number of these channels because I like having a varied amount of opinions to learn from, but this anti-pornography shtick always leads to the idea of making men feel guilty for having a boner, and it has nothing to offer.
I've grown fond of Sarahon06's recent videos on porn and the free market. If none of you have heard of him, he'd be right up your alley. He's put in a good word for Shane as well.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 19, 2010, 10:30:18 PM
That whole "degrading to women" argument is bunk. Were I a woman, I'd be insulted by such coddling attitudes. -_-
It's a very effective argument politically, though: it's emotionally charged, and it doesn't actually mean anything.
My guess is we probably have religion to thank for it on some level. As Penn said: None of us would be here if it wasn't for sex. WE NEED TO GET THAT INTO OUR HEADS!!
Oh yes, this Vogner fellow, does he have one single post where he doesn't spew curses like an angry chimpanzee?
I think just the ones where he's preening to the praise of his flock.
Quote from: valvatica on February 20, 2010, 03:28:02 AM
Wasn't nuclearnight, but a similar YouTuber jedimasterbooboo said that studies prove men who watch porn have less empathy than those who don't. My, my, MY, where to begin? I mean really, how do you "test" for empathy? Take 1,000 men who watch porn, 1,000 men who don't, and then see which group hands out less Valentine's cards? Also like has been said above, this doesn't even account for homosexual porn, or amateurs who do it all voluntarily for free and who trade their escapades with others. I subscribed to a good number of these channels because I like having a varied amount of opinions to learn from, but this anti-pornography shtick always leads to the idea of making men feel guilty for having a boner, and it has nothing to offer.
There's another possible reason that 'study' was probably bunk.
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/dr-obvious-gee-a-study-eh-demotivational-poster-1260397953.jpg)
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 10:39:07 AM
I think just the ones where he's preening to the praise of his flock.
Oh you're so right Father Killian. ;)
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2010, 10:39:07 AM
I think just the ones where he's preening to the praise of his flock.
You should see his responses to his critics. He actually responded to me saying "Whatever mr strawman builder"
This is a grown man using 4th grade elementary school ground level arguments. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic...
Yes, surely you never used that kind of response ever when a logicaly founded argument would've done it.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 20, 2010, 06:46:12 PM
Yes, surely you never used that kind of response ever when a logically founded argument would've done it.
Only when I've already made said logically founded argument and the recipient has ignored it in favor of repeating himself.
I'll throw jabs in here and there but never will I use them as a substitute for evidence.
[yt]Za7OVjrxfV0[/yt]
MasterGhostKnight is at it again.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2010, 07:48:38 PM
[yt]Za7OVjrxfV0[/yt]
MasterGhostKnight is at it again.
Ho, boy. And the worst thing? I can't even comment on the damn thing. I think the sumbitch blocked me.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 20, 2010, 07:56:04 PMHo, boy. And the worst thing? I can't even comment on the damn thing. I think the sumbitch blocked me.
Why am I not surprised?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2010, 07:56:48 PM
Why am I not surprised?
Ah, well. I guess it's for the best. Arguing with these idiots was starting to affect my health, anyway.
Here's the relevant section on Ad Hominems from the wiki page for anybody he hasn't blocked. Posted for ease of use.
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[4][5][6][7][8] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.
I also love how he stated that ShaneDK was dismissing the argument based on its label, when all he was saying was that you shouldn't try changing the label. It is what it is.
I bet you I could p3wn this bastard simply by copying/pasting from wikipedia and the dictionary.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 20, 2010, 07:59:15 PM
Ah, well. I guess it's for the best. Arguing with these idiots was starting to affect my health, anyway.
Here's the relevant section on Ad Hominems from the wiki page for anybody he hasn't blocked. Posted for ease of use.
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[4][5][6][7][8] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.
I also love how he stated that ShaneDK was dismissing the argument based on its label, when all he was saying was that you shouldn't try changing the label. It is what it is.
I bet you I could p3wn this bastard simply by copying/pasting from wikipedia and the dictionary.
You can still rate his video though if you haven't already.
*hint hint*
MasterGhostKnight made a complete fool of himself the first time around with his "how to pwn a political crackpot" videos. I know what it's like to have the urge to just bitch at your opponents, but if you've got nothing, it's better not to waste your time. Vogter steps into an arena he has no skill in, and then does the theme park equivalent of complaining of chest pains and demanding to get off the ride. There are signs posted for a reason while you're in line for the roller coaster.
I saw this kind of desperation a lot around April of last year when TAA and Thunderf00t were making HTWW known. He annoyed many, even me, but most of the critiques of his videos were laughable. TerraRising made a pathetic response labeled "How Lee Doren really works" which basically was a complaint that HTWW makes videos too fast. It was just sad. LadyAttis responded to TerraRising about this and pointed out what a lame accusation this was.
Everything said, the recent critiques of Shane's videos are really, really reaching. If you can't make an argument, better not to play passive-aggressive and complain when things don't go your way.
Gotta love these people. Going on and on about how Shane spat on their holy grail when really all he did was point out that it's made of fool's gold.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 20, 2010, 11:34:12 PMGotta love these people. Going on and on about how Shane spat on their holy grail when really all he did was point out that it's made of fool's gold.
Very well put as usual, Lord T Hawkeye.
I find that the holy grail of liberal statists would be socialized medicine.
While the holy grail of conservative statists would be the military.
Why the fuck do all of these people bash Shane for that one joke at the beginning? "OMGZ he made a jouk, HE IS DA WRONG!!!"
Quote from: VectorM on February 21, 2010, 03:28:06 AM
Why the fuck do all of these people bash Shane for that one joke at the beginning? "OMGZ he made a jouk, HE IS DA WRONG!!!"
It's an act of desperation.
Goddammit! I started commenting again. Okay. Last time. I'm taking my break.... now.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 21, 2010, 12:23:02 PM
Goddammit! I started commenting again. Okay. Last time. I'm taking my break.... now.
It's addictive, I know.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 21, 2010, 12:23:02 PM
Goddammit! I started commenting again. Okay. Last time. I'm taking my break.... now.
Oh, come on, just ONE more! You know you want to...
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 21, 2010, 04:20:47 PM
Oh, come on, just ONE more! You know you want to...
Well, I tried commenting on MGK's video. I mean, I figured I at least owed him one ass-kicking from last time. But it wouldn't work. So I went to his profile page and tried the subscribe button.
"You may not subscribe to someone who has blocked you."
Class act, that MGK. I think the worst thing I said to him is that he might have a formal thought disorder (at least, that I can remember). Double standard, maybe?
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 21, 2010, 04:36:29 PM
Well, I tried commenting on MGK's video. I mean, I figured I at least owed him one ass-kicking from last time. But it wouldn't work. So I went to his profile page and tried the subscribe button.
"You may not subscribe to someone who has blocked you."
Class act, that MGK. I think the worst thing I said to him is that he might have a formal thought disorder (at least, that I can remember). Double standard, maybe?
But you can still reply to his comments he has left on other videos.
Like the ones he left on this video:
[yt]2AXM-nIXxlw[/yt]
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 21, 2010, 04:50:18 PM
But you can still reply to his comments he has left on other videos.
Like the ones he left on this video:
[yt]2AXM-nIXxlw[/yt]
Just tried. It wouldn't let me.
Oh, well. He's been embarrassed enough, I guess. But how is his video staying up at 2.5 stars? Does he have sockpuppets or something?
Here's a question the woos will never answer and we should keep pressing them until they give in: If free market health care couldn't possibly work, why not let us try it? Why not allow people to completely opt out of socialized healthcare and do their own thing? If they're right, then the whole thing will flop and us the skeptics will all end up looking like fools. Surely the woos wouldn't want to pass up an opportunity like that.
It's just like that vid Phil Hellenes did on why creationists won't fabricate the evidence that would disprove evolution. Because they know that the science works. Because when someone is actively avoiding the cracks in the sidewalk, there's one thing you can be sure of: He knows the cracks are there.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 21, 2010, 06:53:13 PM
Here's a question the woos will never answer and we should keep pressing them until they give in: If free market health care couldn't possibly work, why not let us try it? Why not allow people to completely opt out of socialized healthcare and do their own thing? If they're right, then the whole thing will flop and us the skeptics will all end up looking like fools. Surely the woos wouldn't want to pass up an opportunity like that.
Be careful how you word that. They may just turn around and say the same thing about us.
How? Their view is already the status quo. Plus, since our view is not a system forced on the populace but rather a lack of such, this is equivalent to demanding proof of atheism.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 21, 2010, 07:16:47 PM
How? Their view is already the status quo. Plus, since our view is not a system forced on the populace but rather a lack of such, this is equivalent to demanding proof of atheism.
I didn't say they were right. Just that they would try using that against you.
Edit: Okay. That's it. Last one. I mean it this time.
This is why I never was for Universal Health Care: Even if that side wanted to "try" it to prove the opposing side wrong, they can't genuinely try it on their own. They'd have to get taxes to do it. If they were able to raise money to do it, it would become Free Market care :)
I was for the Public Option though, if you remember me saying. It looked like a good alternative because it was voluntary, could compete against expensive private health care and lower prices (even though it was by government). But I realized that if people didn't have to pay until/unless they got sick, how could it possibly stay alive without more government intervention? And since the idea revolves around people chipping in, pooling money together, and circumventing the need for collecting it through taxes entirely, why not just go the Free Market route?
Dear god. When am I actually going to be able to stop doing this shit?
But thoughts on Dbrandow's latest posts.
His 'free because they're wealthy' concept: One, the freedom tends to precipitate the wealth more easily than vice versa, and I remember Milton Friedman saying somewhere that economic freedom can lead more readily to social freedom. The latter point is just an interesting factoid.
His 'they're wealthy because of an increase in energy consumption': I can take my car out of gear and gun the engine for 2 hours. I would not only have not done anything productive with the fuel I burned, but I would also have damaged my car's engine. Energy consumption isn't in and of itself conducive to wealth. It's what the energy is used for.
Secondly, you can't simply increase energy consumption. There has to be an increase in wealth for you to obtain the necessary resources to trade for the extra energy. People use more energy when they watch more television, travel more, etc, and businesses use energy to operate more machines, run factories, etc. Energy use would, as expected, increase when wealth increased because certain real goods (cars VS bicycles, televisions, air conditioning, etc) use more energy. However, this increase in energy consumption is a result of wealth rather than a contributing factor in it.
Edit: Okay. I swear. Last time.
What the hell is this?
[yt]BZYuMpMjG8A[/yt]
A video filter that David Icke uses to find Lizard men?
Vogter now thinks Shane is a theist. ::) Coming from someone who used to subscribe to him and watch his videos, he is now admitting to being officially loony. I'll have quite the task of pruning my subscription list in the coming weeks.
I'm watching his 5 part series on health care
part 1,2 and 3 could've been compressed to 1 video.
just to sum it up:
- Austrian economics and objectivists misunderstood human behavior, nature or biology
- Capitalism results in a gap between the rich and the poor
- Capitalism results in corruption and therefore proving Mises and Ayn Rand wrong
- Elmo apparently pwned Shane. All I saw was endless comments of rants and facts that really weren't important or wrong like the ones where he tries to sum up American health care history.
- More rants about how kaphithalizm iz teh eevul because the workers complained about it.
- and sadly more.
He never discusses the sources he cited in the first 2 and halfway through the third.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 22, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
What the hell is this?
As TJ once said, "Oh, that is so cute! He thinks he can think!
EDIT: Oh, and did you notice? "Ratings Disabled."
Quote from: valvatica on February 22, 2010, 07:11:37 PM
Vogter now thinks Shane is a theist. ::) Coming from someone who used to subscribe to him and watch his videos, he is now admitting to being officially loony. I'll have quite the task of pruning my subscription list in the coming weeks.
He already did that when he said he was a "libertarian socialist." So, is he a tall short guy, too? Is he a pedestrian when he drives?
Its really nothing new
He goes into life expectancy, infant mortality, overall health of a population
He even misinterprets facts. Canada uses each MRIs more often because they LACK MRI machines per capita compared to America which apparently has 4 time the amount of MRIs. Its not because Canadians treat more patients.
Quote from: 11mc22 on February 22, 2010, 08:58:27 PMHe goes into life expectancy, infant mortality,
AFTER being told why they're bogus metrics.
A question though: how much of the technologies that are developed in America was invented as a result of public spending as opposed to private?
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 22, 2010, 09:31:58 PM
AFTER being told why they're bogus metrics.
I remember watching him argue with FletchForFreedom. He had his ass thoroughly trounced, and continued to re-assert facts. I was amazed Fletch was able to keep from insulting him out of frustration.
But yeah, most of the stuff he says has been corrected.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 22, 2010, 08:24:46 PM
He already did that when he said he was a "libertarian socialist." So, is he a tall short guy, too? Is he a pedestrian when he drives?
Anarcho-syndicalist to be more specific.
Sounds just like the time someone tried to tell me that socialism/communism aren't centralized, top down systems.
"Uh...yes they are. The state is absolutely essential for these systems. They can't exist without a central authority.
'Hey you making the pies, you have to share them with everyone.'
'Do you have any power to force me to?'
'No...'
'Well @#$% off then!'"
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 22, 2010, 11:10:34 PMSounds just like the time someone tried to tell me that socialism/communism aren't centralized, top down systems.
Yeah, that's pretty much the idea behind Anarcho Syndicalism/Communism/Socialism...
It's stupid, I know.
I forgot but he also said that free markets lead to monopolies.
Quote from: 11mc22 on February 22, 2010, 09:40:28 PM
A question though: how much of the technologies that are developed in America was invented as a result of public spending as opposed to private?
I don't know specifically, but generally the data show across the board that government spending in technology and research crowds out more private innovations than it creates.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 22, 2010, 10:54:25 PM
Anarcho-syndicalist to be more specific.
That's just as contradictory. It requires everyone to be part of the syndicate, so it's not anarchy; it's just government by any other name.
This rose stinks!
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 23, 2010, 07:02:44 AM
That's just as contradictory. It requires everyone to be part of the syndicate, so it's not anarchy; it's just government by any other name.
You think so too, huh?
We ancaps get a ton of flak from the leftist anarchists saying that we "aren't real anarchists" because we believe in hierarchies and stuff.
Thank you for vindicating me. :3
That, along with the thread when you noted that communism without a state wouldn't last long voluntarily makes me smile.
You know, I've noticed that it helps to offset my frustration levels if I simply post long, detailed, multi-part explanations of economic principles in response to assertions and questions. It helps me to divorce personal feelings from the debate.
Yeah, that worked for me for awhile, too. But sooner or later, you'll get tired of people saying the same thing regardless of what you just posted.
Whaddya know? One of the earlier cowards posted a video attacking us. Or, at least, he probably thinks it attacks us. I don't see what his point is.
[yt]0nJ84f-gv78[/yt]
It's also funny how he thinks disabling the embedding is actually going to do anything. It still works as a direct link to the youtube page. What's his deal, anyway?
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 23, 2010, 05:01:31 PMWhaddya know? One of the earlier cowards posted a video attacking us. Or, at least, he probably thinks it attacks us. I don't see what his point is.
[yt]0nJ84f-gv78[/yt]
It's also funny how he thinks disabling the embedding is actually going to do anything. It still works as a direct link to the youtube page. What's his deal, anyway?
They don't post the videos as a response to any of Shane's and yet he has the nerve to call
us cowards in a circle jerk.
Smells like blatant projection to me.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 23, 2010, 05:01:31 PM
Whaddya know? One of the earlier cowards posted a video attacking us. Or, at least, he probably thinks it attacks us. I don't see what his point is.
[yt]0nJ84f-gv78[/yt]
It's also funny how he thinks disabling the embedding is actually going to do anything. It still works as a direct link to the youtube page. What's his deal, anyway?
I responded to Virgil0211's note that a response he (Virgil) got from a PM was just a swastika.
So I accused the dude of being a nazi (sort of) and he goes crazy on me.
Much lulz.
Damn, guys, between Vogter2100, TheAmazingAtheist, DPRJones, Thunderf00t, The League of Reason, RationalWiki, DachIsBack, etc, it seems like the Libetarians and Anarcho Capitalists are gaining a less than awesome reputation.
You know, in Lord T Hawkeye's first post here he talked about just letting them have their way so we can watch their system collapse while we laugh at them.
Well, that would be nice, if they weren't dragging us down the statist black hole along with them; being in the same system as they are, unfortunately.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 23, 2010, 11:09:54 PM
Damn, guys, between Vogter2100, TheAmazingAtheist, DPRJones, Thunderf00t, The League of Reason, RationalWiki, DachIsBack, etc, it seems like the Libetarians and Anarcho Capitalists are gaining a less than awesome reputation.
You know, in Lord T Hawkeye's first post here he talked about just letting them have their way so we can watch their system collapse while we laugh at them.
Well, that would be nice, if they weren't dragging us down the statist black hole along with them; being in the same system as they are, unfortunately.
Well, Vogter finally blocked me. I just snapped and poured a ton of venom into my last comments.
Comment 1:Oh? How about this- It's the equivalent of VenomFangX saying that the grand canyon could have been formed in under five minutes.
What's the matter? Does it bother you that I don't think you have anything valid to say? That your ability to reason is on the same level as creationists? Were you bluffing when you said you could draw graphs? I guess that explains the state of your apartment.
You're fucking trash, dude.
Comment 2:They probably will vote it down, but it won't change anything. You're a sad, broken, socially awkward individual who can only find value in making videos on the internet, which is probably why you make videos every day. You've vested so much interest in your worldview that you're afraid that your 'friends' would abandon you if you actually learned anything about economics. Too bad they aren't actually your friends.
I hope when you die alone in your hellhole apartment, you think on what I said.
I think it'd actually be really healthy for me to take a break from this shit for a while. I haven't been that pissed off at someone in a long time.
Oh really, I take you don't listen to Radio Vatican as frequent as I do then?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 23, 2010, 11:09:54 PM
Damn, guys, between Vogter2100, TheAmazingAtheist, DPRJones, Thunderf00t, The League of Reason, RationalWiki, DachIsBack, etc, it seems like the Libetarians and Anarcho Capitalists are gaining a less than awesome reputation.
While this is still more of a learning period for me than a participatory one, what's really standing out above all of this is the need to dispose of any and all dogma. Partisan dogma, statist dogma, religious dogma, pseudoscientic dogma, etc. It's been quite a road I've been on. Those on the other side are really making it clear how bad dogma can get if you're more concerned with holding onto your reputation than actually learning something. Many of the atheists have good videos and all but I just cannot commit myself to their overall viewpoints anymore (which includes political leanings). I want to dispose of ALL dogma. It's just sad it can get that bad with otherwise intelligent people.
Hey, disposing of dogma is always a good thing.
The trick is to figure out the difference between when you're right and when you just think you're right.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 03:02:36 AM
Hey, disposing of dogma is always a good thing.
The trick is to figure out the difference between when you're right and when you just think you're right.
There's also keeping a lid on one's anger in the process. Honestly, if Vogter hadn't blocked me right then, I would've said quite a few things that were far, far worse...
He really is a sad individual, and I pity him. I'm more upset that I let him get under my skin than anything else.
On a side note, I'm personaly insulted by that video.
None of my posts where highlighted.
It's almost as if he's implying that sophomoric one-line jokes arent a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 03:19:46 AM
On a side note, I'm personaly insulted by that video.
None of my posts where highlighted.
It's almost as if he's implying that sophomoric one-line jokes arent a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Perhaps it's better that way. He was mainly looking for posts that would possibly make the rest of us look foolish. The fact that he didn't highlight your posts is probably more of a compliment than an insult.
Yes, but don't you see, I'd be perfect to make something look foolish.
It's like... like I'm not good enough anymore. v_v
Younger generations of internet idiots have surpassed me... I feel so... old.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 03:40:44 AM
Yes, but don't you see, I'd be perfect to make something look foolish.
It's like... like I'm not good enough anymore. v_v
Younger generations of internet idiots have surpassed me... I feel so... old.
Nah. Not yet. Wait until they start making poorly-conceived remakes of your old kids shows.
That is when you're getting old.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 24, 2010, 04:00:01 AM
Nah. Not yet. Wait until they start making poorly-conceived remakes of your old kids shows. That is when you're getting old.
They already did that with Transformers.
Ah well, at least I still have my hideously bright and colourful "erotic" art that makes people gouge their eyes out.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 04:15:43 AM
They already did that with Transformers.
Oh. Sorry. I thought you were younger than that. No offense.
But then again, Transformers doesn't really count that much. I mean, they make a new Transformers series every 2 or 3 years, if they wait even that long. When they start remaking Beast Wars,
then we'll be in trouble.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 04:15:43 AM
Ah well, at least I still have my hideously bright and colourful "erotic" art that makes people gouge their eyes out.
Disney movies?
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 24, 2010, 01:00:50 PMOh. Sorry. I thought you were younger than that. No offense.
He's 31 years old last time I checked: http://www.youtube.com/gumbamasta
(I know, I was surprised too.)
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 24, 2010, 01:03:55 PM
He's 31 years old last time I checked: http://www.youtube.com/gumbamasta
(I know, I was surprised too.)
Sweet zombie Jebus on a pogo stick!
So now I wonder when those knuckleheads will make yet another video bashing Shane?
Of course I doubt we'll know if they do.
Being the cowards that they are, they won't be posting it as a response to Shane's video, while having the nerve to call us cowards, but whatever.
All because he observed that their holy grail of socialized medicine is made of crap, and painted with fool's gold.
Well, here's another by Vogter2100:
[yt]3S6Ix1-g9V4[/yt]
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 24, 2010, 01:03:55 PM
He's 31 years old last time I checked: http://www.youtube.com/gumbamasta
(I know, I was surprised too.)
Wouldn't be out of character for him to put a fake age number though :D
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 24, 2010, 01:09:03 PM
Well, here's another by Vogter2100:
[yt]3S6Ix1-g9V4[/yt]
You people have no idea how much I FUCKING HATE that argument.
Speaking of which... Is it just my imagination or does Vogter looks like a Zombie Jesus?
Quote from: VectorM on February 24, 2010, 01:53:07 PM
Wouldn't be out of character for him to put a fake age number though :D
Funny you mention that... I still have to show my ID occasionaly when I go out to buy alcohol.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 24, 2010, 01:09:03 PM
So now I wonder when those knuckleheads will make yet another video bashing Shane?
Of course I doubt we'll know if they do.
Being the cowards that they are, they won't be posting it as a response to Shane's video, while having the nerve to call us cowards, but whatever.
All because he observed that their holy grail of socialized medicine is made of crap, and painted with fool's gold.
Well, here's another by Vogter2100:
[yt]3S6Ix1-g9V4[/yt]
Heh. That's the one where I snapped and left those comments.
I'm just not going to bother myself with any of that shit anymore. I mean, you try and sit there and calmly explain it to them, you try to walk them through it, and it doesn't do anything. They're completely unwilling to learn even basic economics.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on February 24, 2010, 01:54:55 PM
Heh. That's the one where I snapped and left those comments.
I'm just not going to bother myself with any of that shit anymore. I mean, you try and sit there and calmly explain it to them, you try to walk them through it, and it doesn't do anything. They're completely unwilling to learn even basic economics.
I just skimmed through the comments.
Woah! These people actually believe that giving things to others messes up laissez-faire capitalism??? I knew they were messed up, but man...
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 24, 2010, 02:03:10 PM
I just skimmed through the comments.
Woah! These people actually believe that giving things to others messes up laissez-faire capitalism??? I knew they were messed up, but man...
Hehehehehe. You didn't see the comments I left there, did you? <.< >.>
Well I gave my take
"Even if people are unpredictable, even if many are messed up, even if the majority were messed up, your reasoning still contains a glaring flaw. You are forgetting that the state is elected by those very same people and is made up of those very same people.
So like, when people say "we need welfare or whatever because people are selfish pricks who won't do it on their own", you are assuming that while people won't donate to the cause themselves, they will elect a leader who will force them to."
Seems reasonable enough to me but we'll see.
Edit: His response...
"@lordthawkeye What you forget is the people that wants power and goes thru the rtouble to get it are not like the sheeple/people. They are not average.
So you fail."
Yeah, cause we all know that evil people NEVER seek positions of power. Oh not at all!
Priceless I tell you. ^^
I mean, doesn't psychology state that it's sociapaths who are the most strongly drawn to positions of power?
Whose response was that?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 24, 2010, 05:36:15 PM
I mean, doesn't psychology state that it's sociapaths who are the most strongly drawn to positions of power?
Gumba Masta sits at his table and plays with marionettes resembling various heads of state.
"Hahaha dance my puppets, dance!" Suddenly he notices you and hastly crams them into a drawer.
"You where saying?"
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 24, 2010, 07:20:19 PM
Whose response was that?
Three guesses, first two don't count.
And if you guessed ol' Big V, a prize for you! ^^
These people forget that the very reason WHY one will start to distrust government is because government IS us. They are not some team of angels with a bunch of typewriters and cubicles made of clouds. They have the same flaws, incompetence, ineptitude, inclinations to have affairs, susceptibility to bribery, etc. as any other person not in government. If people can raise money for a cause or to donate without any middle man, why require government at all? Even if things are going dandy under a country with government healthcare, they are not accepting the fact that at any moment it can be taken away. It's like that Goldwater quote.
A goverment big enough to provide everything is big enough to take it away?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 07:24:01 PM
Gumba Masta sits at his table and plays with marionettes resembling various heads of state.
"Hahaha dance my puppets, dance!" Suddenly he notices you and hastly crams them into a drawer.
"You where saying?"
You forgot the 'I have everything, and you have nothing!'
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 24, 2010, 07:38:02 PM
A goverment big enough to provide everything is big enough to take it away?
Exactly.
Vogter2100 has posted yet another video on the subject again, now, while I still place myself in the "still researching" camp (while favouring liberty). I am finding it frustrating that he still doesn't seem to understand. In his latest video, he's making the point that people don't want to bother with having to handle the water, sewage, police, etc, that's why you need the state to do it.
But I'm struggling to see how he could have that point of view, just because some people wouldn't want to take care of it, doesn't mean that there wouldn't want to be companies that do?
I think he could be making the point that my wife makes (in a separate issue), in that, if there's too much choice, then it's too hard for people to make a decision. For example, if you had 100 insurance companies then it's too hard to make an educated decision on the "right" one. I think it's a pretty weak argument, but I think that's a point he is making, if I understand correctly?
I have my own water and sewage (well and septic tank). Lots of places hire their own security, and there are private courts. Besides, I don't want to take care of building and repairing my own car--so I pay others to do it for me.
Just more of his ignorance.
There will always be at least one person who wants to provide a particular service (to make money). If this person is the only person who provides the service, he's rolling high. This encourages others to compete. If customers aren't pleased with a particular competitor's services, they can go to the next one. So the entity that provides the best service will ultimately prevail, because the loss in business is the incentive.
With government, when they have a monopoly on a particular service, it means no one can compete and do it better if it's terrible.
Pretty crude, but am I right? I can't believe it took me this long to realize this basic stuff.
If government doesn't provide the services, are people going to just sit around and complain about the lack of services without doing anything about it? I don't think so. Someone will do it, and that will a) Provide the services to others and b) Help said person make money.
Vogter2100 is at it again. Honestly, what the fuck is his problem?
[yt]EzQnC2en6eQ[/yt]
It's apparently an obsession with him. There seems to be some sort of pathology going on.
Yes, but which obsession is biggers his with us or ours with him?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on February 25, 2010, 08:47:54 PM
Yes, but which obsession is biggers his with us or ours with him?
His.
He started it.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on February 14, 2010, 09:58:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJZKW5noC8Y
Sigh...another skeptic tossing it all out the window when it comes to politics.
He's not the only one:
[yt]pkKPtUywY-8[/yt]
I'm very very very disappointed in ZOMGitsCriss for taking part in this.
Someone as smart as her should know better.
That goes for everyone one of the people in this video for that matter.
She's still cuter than Vogter. =D
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 03, 2010, 02:10:50 PM
He's not the only one:
[yt]pkKPtUywY-8[/yt]
I'm very very very disappointed in ZOMGitsCriss for taking part in this.
Someone as smart as her should know better.
That goes for everyone one of the people in this video for that matter.
Dude, she is a fan of Immendham...
She really is smart, but c'mon, Immendham? Give me a brake. I have no idea how any sane person can enjoy that crap.
My reply to that one...
"So let me get this straight...you don't subscribe to the idea of us needing an almighty god to run our lives but you do subscribe to the theory of an almighty authority to run healthcare and whatever else?
Ugh...an atheist in name alone methinks. "
That should get a reaction. ^^
I need to come up with a term for these people. The ones who jumped on the atheism train but still subscribe to statist dogma, implying they completely missed the point of what atheism is really all about. Fashion atheists?
It also makes the point that it's cruel you can't buy insurance after the fact. Geez, do they think you could buy home insurance after your house burns down?
What I don't get though, is they always seem to be against people being able to opt-out. I mean, sure, have the option, but why not let people who don't want it opt-out and not pay the tax associated with it then?
Or wouldn't that work anyway?
Because they know that would expose their little pet law for what it is: imposing their idea on others.
I like that the video illustrates the idiocy in both lines of thinking: It shows how messed up believing in universal health care AND supporting the current corporatist system is. It's too much of a false dichotomy because if you say you're against universal health care people think it can only mean you're satisfied with the current system. There should be neither. There should be people coming together and raising money without any kind of middle men involved.
Well, none can say that I'm not sporting. Since the statists hate economical arguments, I made a new lecture vid using only arguments of morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvEC71m7j4g
[yt]pvEC71m7j4g[/yt]
Great video, but regarding doctors being forced to provide these services under UHC... would it apply to all doctors, period? I was always under the impression that only the doctors participating in it would have to to provide unconditional services, while doctors who remain private don't.
Private clinics get harrassed by our government constantly. They set as many regulations as they can to keep those competitors down.
In many cases the clinics are technically illegal. Yet they thrive anyway. Yes that's right. In Canada, some people break the law to get the care they need. What a farce...
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/10/ten-wrong-reasons-to-oppose-health-reform/
Sigh...come on apologists, at least TRY to look honest. -_-
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on March 10, 2010, 10:12:40 AM
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/10/ten-wrong-reasons-to-oppose-health-reform/
Sigh...come on apologists, at least TRY to look honest. -_-
Hmph. She didn't even TRY to answer the question in #5. She gave other examples where government did something similar, but did NOTHING to show that it's constitutional.
Anyway, all she did was attack a bunch of strawmen. She didn't even cover our REAL concern, which is that it's more of the same corporatism that has made health care such an expensive mess today. Examples:
"Private insurance companies would not only survive under this bill, they would get millions of new customers. That doesn't sound like socialism."
No, it sounds like CORPORATISM. Which is a form of fascism.
"The bill is, in fact, designed to preserve employer-based health benefits and the private insurance industry."
Except that a) tying health insurance to employment is a big part of the problem, and b) it still forces us into the insurance industry instead of bringing back the other options that used to exist before government started meddling.
Also, #4 shows she just doesn't understand reconciliation. It's ONLY supposed to be for budget bills, and even then ONLY when the actual amounts budgeted are different. Neither of those restrictions apply.
If this is the best they can do to defend their hideous boondoggle, they've lost the argument. By far.
QuoteIf this is the best they can do to defend their hideous boondoggle, they've lost the argument. By far.
Sadly as we've all learned, when promoting flim flam, you can lose all the battles and still win the war.
Whoah, fascism, for reals?
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on March 04, 2010, 12:33:33 AMI need to come up with a term for these people. The ones who jumped on the atheism train but still subscribe to statist dogma, implying they completely missed the point of what atheism is really all about. Fashion atheists?
InTheEndIWasRight calls them Statheists.