How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[myrkul]

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

No shit. Typically liberal hippie types who like music and the arts and peace and love for everyone. Liberals. The opposite of libertarians, who want to crap on the little guy. Thus the cartoon loses its bite.

Your logical fallacy is...

Let's keep this up. This is fun! Anyone else want to play "Find the fallacy" with me?

[1714619340]

1714619340

[1714619340]

1714619340

[FirstAscent]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

[myrkul]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

[MoonShadow]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

[myrkul]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

[MoonShadow]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

Hmm, yeah I guess faith in democracy would be a special case of this.  I wonder if simply referencing opinion polls would qualify, since I've done this one myself. I know that polls don't actually count as an argument, but I wonder if there is a finely definable limit as to what their usefulness as supporting evidence actually is.

[FirstAscent]

What makes anyone actually think the interpretation of this cartoon is the foundation for anything that qualifies as rigorous argument?

[myrkul]

What makes anyone actually think the interpretation of this cartoon is the foundation for anything that qualifies as rigorous argument?

You attempted to base an argument on your interpretation of the cartoon. Ergo, you implicitly agree that the interpretation of the cartoon is a basis for argument.

[MoonShadow]

What makes anyone actually think the interpretation of this cartoon is the foundation for anything that qualifies as rigorous argument?

No one, but it's fun to watch you guys flop around.

[Rudd-O]

Here is the deal: statists will say any lie to prevent the truth of what the state does from being discovered and propagated.  When they run out of lies, they switch to the tactic of insulting. At this point, their sociopathic tendencies are pretty obvious from their behavior. Their whole goal (even as they are not aware of it) is to sabotage any thought that might expose their belief system as sociopathic. That is why they spare no vitriol for voluntarism. This is why they patrol the forums like desperate lemmings, looking for opportunities to shout down any idea that threatens their clique.

Once you understand this as their goal, their character as unwitting saboteurs playing out an emotional script programmed into them through abuse, my job becomes much easier. I am not out to convince the sociopaths - that would be sisyphean and futile because someone else broke them beyond repair already - I am only out to have them expose themselves.

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

Remmmber that these asshats are out to sabotage you through anger baiting.  This is why the ignore button is so effective too.

[MoonShadow]

Here is the deal: statists will say any lie to prevent the truth of what the state does from being discovered and propagated.  When they run out of lies, they switch to the tactic of insulting. At this point, their sociopathic tendencies are pretty obvious from their behavior. Their while goal (even as they are not aware of it) is to sabotage any thought that might expose their belief system as sociopathic. That is why they spare no vitriol for voluntarism.

Once you understand this as their goal, their character as ebwitting saboteurs, my job becomes much easier. I am not out to convince the sociopaths - that would be sisyphean and futile - I am only out to have them expose themselves.

Just rrk a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Rudd-O, I often cring when you jump into a conversation, because I both tend to find your participation to be both provocative & content-lite, as well as often arguing on my own side.  As a moderator, I find this to be an aggravation.  For while I often find your comments funny, they usually lack any particular merit.  This very comment is more civil than your norm, but otherwise typical.

[myrkul]

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

[Rudd-O]

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

It's "trolling" when I say the truth. It "isn't trolling" when he calls me names, or OP posts a slanderous fabrication that will anger many libertarians.

Remember when I spoke about the tactic of insulting? OK, so... there you go.

[MoonShadow]

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

The answer is in the question.

[MoonShadow]

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

It's "trolling" when I say the truth. It "isn't trolling" when he calls me names, or OP posts a slanderous fabrication that will anger many libertarians.

Remember when I spoke about the tactic of insulting? OK, so... there you go.

You are proving my point.  And no, responding to slanderous fabrications with more of the same isn't helping.

[bb113]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

Hmm, yeah I guess faith in democracy would be a special case of this.  I wonder if simply referencing opinion polls would qualify, since I've done this one myself. I know that polls don't actually count as an argument, but I wonder if there is a finely definable limit as to what their usefulness as supporting evidence actually is.

You could do this with bayes rule if there is a well defined hypothesis. The importance of the poll will be inverse to the amount of actual data there is. Most stuff people argue about there is weak data for (any data about politics will have small sample size and a huge number of possible confounds), so subjective opinions (prior probabilities), which will vary from person to person, end up being very important to the final conclusions we draw.

[Rudd-O]

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

Hmm, yeah I guess faith in democracy would be a special case of this.  I wonder if simply referencing opinion polls would qualify, since I've done this one myself. I know that polls don't actually count as an argument, but I wonder if there is a finely definable limit as to what their usefulness as supporting evidence actually is.

You could do this with bayes rule if there is a well defined hypothesis. The importance of the poll will be inverse to the amount of actual data there is. Most stuff people argue about there is weak data for (any data about politics will have small sample size and a huge number of possible confounds), so subjective opinions (prior probabilities), which will vary from person to person, end up being very important to the final conclusions we draw.

I prefer my polls futarchical.  When people put up money they could lose, they think much, much harder before opening their traps.  Also, futarchy naturally rewards those who are right, at the expense of those who are wrong.

[myrkul]

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

Which one are you, in this case? The dissenter or the one doing the caging?

Perhaps you should ask yourself, which one would you rather be?

The bird.

[myrkul]

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

The answer is in the question.

Then let me rephrase:
Is it still murder if you kill a murderer?

[MoonShadow]

Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

The answer is in the question.

Then let me rephrase:
Is it still murder if you kill a murderer?

Depends upon the conditions, of course, since the very word "murder" implys an unjust killing.