Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   "Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?"   (townhall.com) divider line 499
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1808 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 02:05:34 PM  

physt: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

hmmm All the livertardians I know are conservatards.


Maybe you should get out more....?
 
2013-11-07 02:06:09 PM  

heap: xalres: There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.

the assumption of rational actors is the best political pixie dust the world has ever seen.

no evidence ever shakes it, even when it is supplied daily.



But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.
 
2013-11-07 02:10:16 PM  

Phinn: But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.


or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

remember that week when alan greenspan said that there were some flaws in his assumptions? that was the 1 singular week where it was acceptable for a loon to admit this crux of their philosophy is worthless - and it only took the near destruction of the entire economy to get that 1 week vacation to reality. go figger, eh?
 
2013-11-07 02:10:33 PM  

karnal: physt: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

hmmm All the livertardians I know are conservatards.

Maybe you should get out more....?


It certainly speaks volumes for someone to say that the only people of a type they know are extremists.

That or disingenuous.
 
2013-11-07 02:13:07 PM  

Bf+: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

...at the expense of ethics.


Even that much isn't true - the only libertarian that comes to mind with respectable economic credentials would be Hayek (and those who subscribe to his philosophies). Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.
 
2013-11-07 02:13:24 PM  

lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.


You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I don't know how you can make that assumption that the People are subservient to the government.  By your opinion, the People have no rights and are only granted rights by the government.
 
2013-11-07 02:16:43 PM  

Biological Ali: Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.


kinda, but it's more a side effect of the larger problem - there is only 1 perspective - theirs. viewing something like macro-economics thru a lens of singular personal benefit isn't really illiteracy, it's treating your diary like it's porn. or something.
 
2013-11-07 02:19:59 PM  

heap: or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.



I don't pretend.  I don't assume.  I have never subscribed to the idea of universal rationality, and have long since figured out that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

People learn to be rational when their irrationality comes with a cost.  The more immediate and large the cost of irrationality, the more time and energy people invest in learning how to behave rationally (and how to obtain accurate and useful information).
 
2013-11-07 02:21:21 PM  

Phinn: heap: xalres: There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.

the assumption of rational actors is the best political pixie dust the world has ever seen.

no evidence ever shakes it, even when it is supplied daily.

But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.


Exactly.
 
2013-11-07 02:21:22 PM  

slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited ...


i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-07 02:22:31 PM  

heap: the last two big L party nominations have been recycled republican offerings - does anybody involved with libertarian politics reeeeeaaaaaaaallly get to be too surprised when Republicans treat you like you're the conservative farm league (like this article) when......you are the conservative farm league?


Well they're either nutters (like the lady who argued for the legalization of child porn) or has-been Republicans like Bob Barr.
 
2013-11-07 02:23:35 PM  

skullkrusher: grumpfuff: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.

I'll also defend conservatives against unfair criticism. That makes me a teabagger


Which is why I'm sympathetic to you at times. Got called a teatard for saying "Christie's not ALL bad, he did a few good things."

/also been called a Christo-facist for pointing out problems in atheist arguments
 
2013-11-07 02:24:09 PM  

Phinn: heap: or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

I don't pretend.  I don't assume.  I have never subscribed to the idea of universal rationality, and have long since figured out that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

People learn to be rational when their irrationality comes with a cost.  The more immediate and large the cost of irrationality, the more time and energy people invest in learning how to behave rationally (and how to obtain accurate and useful information).


I never got the rational actor thing either. And if people aren't rational, why even give them democracy or trust the same irrational people in government?

Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.
 
2013-11-07 02:24:09 PM  

heap: slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor ...



Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." 
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." 
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" 
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
 
2013-11-07 02:25:50 PM  
i47.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 02:26:03 PM  

EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Time for... THE PYRAMID:

fablegod.com
 
2013-11-07 02:26:16 PM  

Phinn: that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.


....so somebody came along and made that a central tenet of libertarian economics to like....trick you, or something?

Phinn: How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?


you must practice at missing the point.  the person doing long term damage for short term personal benefit IS ACTING RATIONALLY. the concept of a rational actor isn't just pixie dust for political/economic reasons, it's an absolute mis-read of the situation. intentionally.
 
2013-11-07 02:27:06 PM  

EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem


i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.
 
2013-11-07 02:31:43 PM  

Fart_Machine: heap: the last two big L party nominations have been recycled republican offerings - does anybody involved with libertarian politics reeeeeaaaaaaaallly get to be too surprised when Republicans treat you like you're the conservative farm league (like this article) when......you are the conservative farm league?

Well they're either nutters (like the lady who argued for the legalization of child porn) or has-been Republicans like Bob Barr.


or gary johnson. or ron paul.

again, i don't know why anybody could be surprised when party republicans treat libertarians like they were the double A league...when as a political party,  that's exactly what they set out to be, all too often.
 
2013-11-07 02:33:08 PM  

super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.


No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?
 
2013-11-07 02:34:00 PM  

heap: Phinn: that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

....so somebody came along and made that a central tenet of libertarian economics to like....trick you, or something?

Phinn: How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

you must practice at missing the point.  the person doing long term damage for short term personal benefit IS ACTING RATIONALLY. the concept of a rational actor isn't just pixie dust for political/economic reasons, it's an absolute mis-read of the situation. intentionally.



It's not a central tenet of libertarian economics.  See how strawmen work?  They're so easy to beat up!

There is no "libertarian economics," by the way.  Just economics.  Right and wrong economics.

Economics happens to illuminate the astronomical costs of Statist (i.e., aggressively violent) interference and control over people's lives, which is why I advocate for a more scientific, rational approach to Statism (i.e., approaching "none"), for the economic benefit of humanity, but that's only because reality says it's beneficial, not me.
 
2013-11-07 02:34:20 PM  

grumpfuff: skullkrusher: grumpfuff: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.

I'll also defend conservatives against unfair criticism. That makes me a teabagger

Which is why I'm sympathetic to you at times. Got called a teatard for saying "Christie's not ALL bad, he did a few good things."

/also been called a Christo-facist for pointing out problems in atheist arguments


The problem with Internet atheists is the same as the problem with RL Evangelicals. The unwavering desire to tell people what you do or do not believe. No one gives a fark except those two groups.
 
2013-11-07 02:34:56 PM  

heap: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem

i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.


Yeah those silly cartoon libertarians who have the audacity to bring up history. What a joke.
 
2013-11-07 02:35:26 PM  

Phinn: There is no "libertarian economics," by the way.


sweet zombie jesus, you're all the way down the rabbit hole, aren't you?
 
2013-11-07 02:36:02 PM  

EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem

i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.

Yeah those silly cartoon libertarians who have the audacity to bring up history. What a joke.


you get cranky when the shoe fits, don't you?
 
2013-11-07 02:36:58 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?


Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?
 
2013-11-07 02:37:00 PM  

EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.
 
2013-11-07 02:39:35 PM  

heap: slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor ...


Can't refute?  Just post a cartoon that is a weak caricature of libertarians and achieve the admiration of those that disagree with libertarianism and also can't refute an argument.
 
2013-11-07 02:40:13 PM  
Wow...they're really butthurt about Cucinnelli losing huh?

They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better.
 
2013-11-07 02:40:23 PM  

slayer199: ."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.


i believe he was copypasta'ing in response to my copypasta. or not. really at this point, it ceases to matter.
 
2013-11-07 02:40:33 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?



Market competition is not like competition in the biological sense.  It is, in practice, a competition between producers for the privilege of cooperating voluntarily with consumers.  It's a competition to see who can cooperate with consumers the most.

The results of that competition are proof positive of who is better at meeting consumer preferences.  Is that "rational" in the grand, global sense?  Not really, and it really doesn't matter, since it doesn't really matter how rational those consumption preferences are to begin with.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:21 PM  

heap: EWreckedSean: heap: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem

i didnt' tell the guy to be a walking cartoon. that's on him.

Yeah those silly cartoon libertarians who have the audacity to bring up history. What a joke.

you get cranky when the shoe fits, don't you?


Yes, that was a wonderfully well fitting ad hominem attack. Here comes the crank. Lol.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:22 PM  

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?


Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:29 PM  

slayer199: Can't refute?  Just post a cartoon that is a weak caricature of libertarians


dude, your first statement was 'you should read the constitution' and then followed up with pretending 1 statement from the federalist papers means you're a constitutional scholar - if you don't want to be mocked as a stereotype, you could always be less stereotypical.
 
2013-11-07 02:42:00 PM  

slayer199: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.


The cartoon was the ad hominem.
 
2013-11-07 02:43:26 PM  

EWreckedSean: The cartoon was the ad hominem.


Ah...thanks
 
2013-11-07 02:44:27 PM  

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


I guess.  If they skipped the lessons on negative externalities, fiat currency, and a bunch of other stuff.
 
2013-11-07 02:45:43 PM  

EWreckedSean: The cartoon was the ad hominem.


Your mother is an ad hominem!
 
2013-11-07 02:45:58 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.


And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.
 
2013-11-07 02:46:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better


that really is the twisted part of this election - whoever won will have to actually like...you know...govern. and i don't think either option was at all capable. short term, Democrats won, but now they have a money/power man with no actual governing experience tied around their ankles as they go for a swim. the guy isn't in office yet, so it's a bit early to be calling Pyrrhic victory, but it does kinda feel like it's just a matter of time.
 
2013-11-07 02:46:47 PM  

heap: dude, your first statement was 'you should read the constitution' and then followed up with pretending 1 statement from the federalist papers means you're a constitutional scholar - if you don't want to be mocked as a stereotype, you could always be less stereotypical.


No, I was refuting his argument regarding his position that the Constitution was never written to protect and defend the rights of the People.  The Federalist papers were relevant as that clearly shows the intent of the founders that the People have Rights, and the government is granted powers....not the other way around.

Of course, if I made the claim and I didn't cite my sources, you'd be going off on how wrong I was and we exist to serve the government.
 
2013-11-07 02:48:46 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

I guess.  If they skipped the lessons on negative externalities, fiat currency, and a bunch of other stuff.


Don't forget fractional reserve banking.
 
2013-11-07 02:48:58 PM  

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.


That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.
 
2013-11-07 02:49:30 PM  

slayer199: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.


You didn't refute, you said I was ignorant, then went on to say something I said. It doesn't matter what the the framers had in mind, as passed the constitution did not limit the power over individual liberties. It took the bill of rights to do that. Where there aren't explicit limitations the government has governed as they see fit with limited regard for liberties not enumerated. In no way did you actually address my central point, the government is not here to defend individual liberties, rather it's reason detre is to govern the union of states.
 
2013-11-07 02:50:00 PM  

slayer199: No, I was refuting his argument regarding his position that the Constitution was never written to protect and defend the rights of the People.  The Federalist papers were relevant as that clearly shows the intent of the founders that the People have Rights, and the government is granted powers....not the other way around.

Of course, if I made the claim and I didn't cite my sources, you'd be going off on how wrong I was and we exist to serve the government.


the funny part is the above makes perfect sense to you.
 
2013-11-07 02:52:58 PM  

Biological Ali: Bf+: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

...at the expense of ethics.

Even that much isn't true - the only libertarian that comes to mind with respectable economic credentials would be Hayek (and those who subscribe to his philosophies). Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.


A lot of politically ignorant people have jumped on the Libertarian bandwagon....libertarians then are much different than libertarians now -  Ayn Rand  was not a libertatian and her novel Atlas Shrugged was never intended to be their bible.  At some point the libertarian movement went crazy.
 
2013-11-07 02:53:59 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.

That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.


How so? I got to support whoever I liked and see bad companies get culled. It sucks that the rest of society don't always choose exactly according to your personal standards but the system still works.
 
2013-11-07 02:57:13 PM  

heap: Mrtraveler01: They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better

that really is the twisted part of this election - whoever won will have to actually like...you know...govern. and i don't think either option was at all capable. short term, Democrats won, but now they have a money/power man with no actual governing experience tied around their ankles as they go for a swim. the guy isn't in office yet, so it's a bit early to be calling Pyrrhic victory, but it does kinda feel like it's just a matter of time.


Yeah, McAllufie was pretty terrible. But if Cuccinelli won, he would've been starting his Tea Party crusade right away.

VA dodged a bullet.
 
2013-11-07 02:58:11 PM  

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.

That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.

How so? I got to support whoever I liked and see bad companies get culled. It sucks that the rest of society don't always choose exactly according to your personal standards but the system still works.


How so?  Because plenty of businesses act irrationally and still prosper - competition doesn't weed out irrationality.  Just because you (yes, THE super_grass) take your business elsewhere doesn't mean that those prosperous, irrational businesses fail.
 
2013-11-07 03:02:13 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.

No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?

Ever seen a bad restaurant or company go out of business?

Have you ever seen a bad restaurant or company succeed?  I certainly have.

And I do business with restaurants and companies that I like instead.

That's fine for you, but it also means that your point that "rewarding logical behavior and punishing illogical behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place" is bullshiat.  Glad we can agree on something.

How so? I got to support whoever I liked and see bad companies get culled. It sucks that the rest of society don't always choose exactly according to your personal standards but the system still works.

How so?  Because plenty of businesses act irrationally and still prosper - competition doesn't weed out irrationality.  Just because you (yes, THE super_grass) take your business elsewhere doesn't mean that those prosperous, irrational businesses fail.


Those business might have done a lot of other things right too and provide value overall. There are animals with poor adaptions and politicians with flaws too, that doesn't make natural selection and democracy any less valid.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report