I'll take Who Will Build the Hot Dog and Kool-Aid Stands for $1,000,000,000 Alex! (hyperinflationz, yo)

...and we won't need no stinking roadz, cuz everyone will build their own stands or they will starve, ldo..

Where has pvn clearly shown that he doesn't understand how pooling risk works?

Mother****er you once argued against anti-discrimination laws because you looked around and didn't see any more whites only lunch counters and ergo DVaut is a race traitor. You're exactly as stupid as you appear.

I think there's an app for that.

jmakin- Broadly, yes. Obviously none of them will admit that because that's weird(except Rand Paul, who briefly argued that BP shouldn't have to pay because it was an accident), but fundamentally they don't understand the concept of externalities. They are extra extra sure that the free market would make things better, and it is the thought that counts, though.


R.I.P. Ronald Coase

Exactly. He lives in this weird bubble where it's unfair of us to place comments in a larger context and speculate about motives. Like that's "cheating". Nich, man, it's not like you have a quota and if you don't find 10 bad arguments each day you get your pay docked. What motivates you to put fingers to keyboard:

1) Attacking "liberals" who you think are a little too confident in their arguments just because those arguments are right(I think there was one about taxes or something where you ended up agreeing with Wookie after ****ting all over his argument for 50 posts!)

2) Arguing that each individual instance of racist behavior could have a non-racist explanation and also, in a parallel but unrelated argument, that nobody should call anything racist unless it reaches some undefined threshold of "enough" racism

Typical off-topic Fly strawman + insult. I mean, my point was actually that racism has declined since the 1950s (not simply that certain overt examples been banned!) which weakens (not necessarily invalidates!) the case for anti-discrimination laws. But what do you care? For all your talk about how the reading comprehension of myself and others sucks, either yours is terrible or you intentionally strawman because that's the easiest way to rile people up.

I have corrected your post.

And this isn't swinging from Fly's nuts. It's that Fly's not doing rocket science here. He's pointing out really obvious racism. Racism that any functioning adult with a soul and a clue can identify.

When you start trying to bend your way into some stupid "I don't understand racism, why is that racist" nonsense, the end result is that you either look incredibly stupid, or blatantly racist and trying to act stupid to hide it.

Until you get this, it's basically impossible to take anything you say seriously.

It's really gotta suck being so dense you don't realize you're not fooling anybody.

Nich- There's a baseline assumption in all posts that a poster is a thinking and educated adult. At some point in these arguments you actually switch sides and stop arguing that people aren't giving you enough credit, you instead argue strenuously that people are giving you TOO MUCH credit. (Or, even more troublingly, the numerous times you do that via proxy and demand that whatever third party we're discussing should be both given credit for understanding the issue with more nuance that his critics on 2p2 while simultaneously arguing that the 2p2 critics aren't giving enough credence to the possibility that the third party in question was raised by wolves and shouldn't be expected to know better)

I dunno anything about racism, but it's easy to see that FlyWf is a douche.

Given the choice between racists and douches, I choose neither.

Most likely in all threads where he claims to be libertarian , A/C, Rothtardian or the like.

Lol i love this thread.

Thanks for making my day less boring.

This is called white privilege. For some people, (I'd call them "decent people" or "not racist *******s"), it matters. A lot.

I don't think those are the same. Like, you seem like a decent person to me, but FlyWf is clearly a "not racist" *******.

I'm not sure if you're being cute or stupid, so I'll make this simple.

If you think being a jerk (which I'll admit, Fly can be) is even close on on par to being racist, I find you a pretty deplorable person. If you think Fly being mean to racists is unfair, then please, please find a really painful way to go **** yourself. People who spread dehumanizing hate of that nature deserve any form of non-violent rebuke they get.

Because:

a) It's usually a way to dodge any actual debate and try to throw in personal attacks and guilt-by-association, the rough equivalent of saying "well Hitler was also a vegetarian". I mean, I'm not actually saying vegetarians are Nazis, just speculating on motives, what's wrong with that?
b) Even if your assumptions of motivations are entirely correct, why does that matter? Would abortion be wrong if it turned out that leaders in the pro-choice movement were actually secret racists who wanted black babies aborted?


Oh man this game is so easy when you start off assuming you're right.


No, it's that maybe, just maybe, you are not the omniscient arbiter of racism and if someone thinks you're gone too far in a certain instance, it doesn't automatically make them a white supremacist. Also, you can think that something is probably racist while acknowledging that there's a great deal of uncertainty in low information second-hand anecdotes.

I didn't say any of that IMO.

How bad people are:

100 - Nazis
70 - Run of the mill modern racists and homophobes
20 - FlyWf
0-10 - the people I choose

No, this is you being willfully obtuse and willing to give all the benefit of the doubt to racists who put forth racist philosophy for racist reasons but who give it just the slightest veneer for acceptability by polite society. Since you've already crossed Godwin's threshold, let's take Hitler. We don't look at Hitler's writings on the Jews and think to ourselves,"Well, I mean, we all know Hitler was a bad guy, but let's take a step back and avoid making an ad hominem fallacy. These musings about the conniving, evil, stealing Jews could actually be correct. Don't just smear Hitler for being anti-Jew. Attack the arguments, not the arguer. You're just trying to sidestep the meat of his argument by calling him anti-Jew."

I'll say it.

Vegetarians are Nazis.

This is dumb. Racists are a specific type of jerks, and what is worse, general jerkitude or specific racism is obviously dependent on the degree to which one is being a jerk or a racist. Although I'll happily admit that the average jerk is going to be much better than the average racist.

The thing is, it's really easy to attack Hitler's anti-Jewish arguments without referring to Hitler. If you need to constantly reference Hitler to show why they're bad, you probably suck at debating, even though that doesn't make Hitler's arguments right.

I don't need to reference Hitler to show why vegetarians are bad, but it does make it easier.

It's also apparently really easy to pop into a thread where someone calls Hitler racist and remind everyone that we don't know for certain that Hitler was racist. Maybe he was just using it as a populist to rise to power. He actually may have thought the Jews were all fine and dandy, but sometimes you have to break a few million eggs to get some Lebensraum, noamsane? We shouldn't be so quick to throw out labels like "racist" when we don't really know for sure. That wouldn't be logical. Why are you so concerned with labeling this guy a racist, anyway? Why aren't you concerned with more important things?