Call the cops, get evicted

[von]

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

IOW, they're jujitsued into massive butthurt.

Well, bluntly spoken, it's one of the things that exposes the flaws in their ideologies so directly that one either must put up the screen of "lol obvious troll" and ignore it, or face the harshest cognitive dissonnance possible. So yes, jujitsu'd into the most anally seeping butthurt imaginable!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

When you find the perfect rebuttal, stick to it.  Know what I mean?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

IOW, they're jujitsued into massive butthurt.

Well, bluntly spoken, it's one of the things that exposes the flaws in their ideologies so directly that one either must put up the screen of "lol obvious troll" and ignore it, or face the harshest cognitive dissonnance possible. So yes, jujitsu'd into the most anally seeping butthurt imaginable!

Problem is, it's accurate.  Somalia really IS the libertarian paradise, as libertarians explain their philosophy.

[von]

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

When you find the perfect rebuttal, stick to it.  Know what I mean?

I can't see where you're coming from at all really.

Other than mental masturbation, what is the purpose of debate? I shall, for my purposes, state that it is to influence someone to think in a manner that is beneficial to the debateur's ends.

In this, debate is a field of competitive sport where the goal is to win. If a given argument has a track record of being stale and ineffective against your target audience, would it not be logical to devise a more potent argument that is unexpected and not obviously a "device of the opposition"?

By analogy:

You've been engaging an enemy with sub machineguns chambered in 9mm luger. Your enemy gets smart and adopts level IV plates. Do you continue to invest in 9mm luger, or do you switch to something unexpected? Say 7.62x54r, or an analogous full power rifle cartidge? Hell, you could even flood the battle field with something nefarious like sarin gas, but what purpose would sticking with an ineffective weapon serve other than to produce stalemate or your own defeat?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The sheer incredible idiocy of the pre-rich crowd is mind-boggling. How anyone can look at America and think "I'm poor right now but I'm going to make it big someday" with absolutely no plan or basis for doing so is essentially a retard.

Even if they have a plan, they're fucking retarded. Most of the time the "plan" is this nebulous "I will work hard and be rewarded" concept that doesn't actually mean anything. Every once in a while the plan is the slightly more workable "I will go to business school and get an MBA and work in management for a corporation" which ends one of two ways for the common man with no family connections: way one is you're smart and have people skills so you work your way up through management and end up CEO of a small corporation with a salary less than $100k, way two is you're not that smart and you don't have much by way of people skills and you end up unemployed, or doing "small business consulting" which is a fancy way of saying that you're an out of work MBA.

Which scenario is more likely for our little pre-rich teabuddies? I'm gonna go with option 2, because anyone who thinks they're going to get rich with an MBA is obviously a fucking retard. What you're going to get is $200k in debt, and unemployed.

They expect to become rich because they're "exceptional".  When asked about it, they holler shit about "innovation", which is libertarian for "Baby Jesus is gonna give me money".  They're essentially Calvinists, even if they think they're atheist.  The principles remain the same.  God/The Universe/Ayn Rand loves them and will give them nice things.  One day.  Soon.

It's fascinating because even if they DO work hard and are smart and have good ideas and make something of themselves, they will still never be rich. They might be comfortably middle-class, but they will NEVER be in the tax brackets they scream about protecting. It's perfectly obvious, yet they never seem to have any concept of this reality. I don't think they're even capable of grasping that the "rich" they are deluded into thinking they will become have so much money that their annual salary is completely meaningless.

I mean, there's something kind of funny about the fact that even the engineers and physicists and chemist PhD's I know, for all their high level of education and the relatively high status of their careers, will never break $200k/year. Ever. If I get into the program I want and become a wildly successful researcher and travel the world on speaking tours, the only way I'll ever break $200k is if I write a book and it makes the bestseller list. Going to school and working hard isn't how you get rich, you get rich by being born into a rich family. A brief glance at the statistics for intergenerational economic mobility will tell you that, even if you don't understand the processes behind it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I can't see where you're coming from at all really.

Other than mental masturbation, what is the purpose of debate? I shall, for my purposes, state that it is to influence someone to think in a manner that is beneficial to the debateur's ends.

No.  It is to grind your opponents down until they drop out of politics entirely.

Bonus points if they get angry if it's even brought up.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The sheer incredible idiocy of the pre-rich crowd is mind-boggling. How anyone can look at America and think "I'm poor right now but I'm going to make it big someday" with absolutely no plan or basis for doing so is essentially a retard.

Even if they have a plan, they're fucking retarded. Most of the time the "plan" is this nebulous "I will work hard and be rewarded" concept that doesn't actually mean anything. Every once in a while the plan is the slightly more workable "I will go to business school and get an MBA and work in management for a corporation" which ends one of two ways for the common man with no family connections: way one is you're smart and have people skills so you work your way up through management and end up CEO of a small corporation with a salary less than $100k, way two is you're not that smart and you don't have much by way of people skills and you end up unemployed, or doing "small business consulting" which is a fancy way of saying that you're an out of work MBA.

Which scenario is more likely for our little pre-rich teabuddies? I'm gonna go with option 2, because anyone who thinks they're going to get rich with an MBA is obviously a fucking retard. What you're going to get is $200k in debt, and unemployed.

They expect to become rich because they're "exceptional".  When asked about it, they holler shit about "innovation", which is libertarian for "Baby Jesus is gonna give me money".  They're essentially Calvinists, even if they think they're atheist.  The principles remain the same.  God/The Universe/Ayn Rand loves them and will give them nice things.  One day.  Soon.

It's fascinating because even if they DO work hard and are smart and have good ideas and make something of themselves, they will still never be rich. They might be comfortably middle-class, but they will NEVER be in the tax brackets they scream about protecting. It's perfectly obvious, yet they never seem to have any concept of this reality. I don't think they're even capable of grasping that the "rich" they are deluded into thinking they will become have so much money that their annual salary is completely meaningless.

I mean, there's something kind of funny about the fact that even the engineers and physicists and chemist PhD's I know, for all their high level of education and the relatively high status of their careers, will never break $200k/year. Ever. If I get into the program I want and become a wildly successful researcher and travel the world on speaking tours, the only way I'll ever break $200k is if I write a book and it makes the bestseller list. Going to school and working hard isn't how you get rich, you get rich by being born into a rich family. A brief glance at the statistics for intergenerational economic mobility will tell you that, even if you don't understand the processes behind it.

But to ADMIT that they aren't the exception is to admit that they're possibly not the main character.

[von]

I can't see where you're coming from at all really.

Other than mental masturbation, what is the purpose of debate? I shall, for my purposes, state that it is to influence someone to think in a manner that is beneficial to the debateur's ends.

No.  It is to grind your opponents down until they drop out of politics entirely.

Bonus points if they get angry if it's even brought up.

I think our statements of purpose are actually quite compatable.
I say: debate is getting your enemy to do what you want
You appear to be saying: I want my enemy to wet his pants and cry

You know, I used to be afraid of you when I was a kid: always figured the big evil roger from peedee would crawl out of the internet and smash all of my hippy dreams. Your misanthropy is actually enjoyable and engaging, come to find out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The sheer incredible idiocy of the pre-rich crowd is mind-boggling. How anyone can look at America and think "I'm poor right now but I'm going to make it big someday" with absolutely no plan or basis for doing so is essentially a retard.

Even if they have a plan, they're fucking retarded. Most of the time the "plan" is this nebulous "I will work hard and be rewarded" concept that doesn't actually mean anything. Every once in a while the plan is the slightly more workable "I will go to business school and get an MBA and work in management for a corporation" which ends one of two ways for the common man with no family connections: way one is you're smart and have people skills so you work your way up through management and end up CEO of a small corporation with a salary less than $100k, way two is you're not that smart and you don't have much by way of people skills and you end up unemployed, or doing "small business consulting" which is a fancy way of saying that you're an out of work MBA.

Which scenario is more likely for our little pre-rich teabuddies? I'm gonna go with option 2, because anyone who thinks they're going to get rich with an MBA is obviously a fucking retard. What you're going to get is $200k in debt, and unemployed.

They expect to become rich because they're "exceptional".  When asked about it, they holler shit about "innovation", which is libertarian for "Baby Jesus is gonna give me money".  They're essentially Calvinists, even if they think they're atheist.  The principles remain the same.  God/The Universe/Ayn Rand loves them and will give them nice things.  One day.  Soon.

It's fascinating because even if they DO work hard and are smart and have good ideas and make something of themselves, they will still never be rich. They might be comfortably middle-class, but they will NEVER be in the tax brackets they scream about protecting. It's perfectly obvious, yet they never seem to have any concept of this reality. I don't think they're even capable of grasping that the "rich" they are deluded into thinking they will become have so much money that their annual salary is completely meaningless.

I mean, there's something kind of funny about the fact that even the engineers and physicists and chemist PhD's I know, for all their high level of education and the relatively high status of their careers, will never break $200k/year. Ever. If I get into the program I want and become a wildly successful researcher and travel the world on speaking tours, the only way I'll ever break $200k is if I write a book and it makes the bestseller list. Going to school and working hard isn't how you get rich, you get rich by being born into a rich family. A brief glance at the statistics for intergenerational economic mobility will tell you that, even if you don't understand the processes behind it.

But to ADMIT that they aren't the exception is to admit that they're possibly not the main character.

This is true.

And we can't have that.

[von]

The sheer incredible idiocy of the pre-rich crowd is mind-boggling. How anyone can look at America and think "I'm poor right now but I'm going to make it big someday" with absolutely no plan or basis for doing so is essentially a retard.

Even if they have a plan, they're fucking retarded. Most of the time the "plan" is this nebulous "I will work hard and be rewarded" concept that doesn't actually mean anything. Every once in a while the plan is the slightly more workable "I will go to business school and get an MBA and work in management for a corporation" which ends one of two ways for the common man with no family connections: way one is you're smart and have people skills so you work your way up through management and end up CEO of a small corporation with a salary less than $100k, way two is you're not that smart and you don't have much by way of people skills and you end up unemployed, or doing "small business consulting" which is a fancy way of saying that you're an out of work MBA.

Which scenario is more likely for our little pre-rich teabuddies? I'm gonna go with option 2, because anyone who thinks they're going to get rich with an MBA is obviously a fucking retard. What you're going to get is $200k in debt, and unemployed.

They expect to become rich because they're "exceptional".  When asked about it, they holler shit about "innovation", which is libertarian for "Baby Jesus is gonna give me money".  They're essentially Calvinists, even if they think they're atheist.  The principles remain the same.  God/The Universe/Ayn Rand loves them and will give them nice things.  One day.  Soon.

It's fascinating because even if they DO work hard and are smart and have good ideas and make something of themselves, they will still never be rich. They might be comfortably middle-class, but they will NEVER be in the tax brackets they scream about protecting. It's perfectly obvious, yet they never seem to have any concept of this reality. I don't think they're even capable of grasping that the "rich" they are deluded into thinking they will become have so much money that their annual salary is completely meaningless.

I mean, there's something kind of funny about the fact that even the engineers and physicists and chemist PhD's I know, for all their high level of education and the relatively high status of their careers, will never break $200k/year. Ever. If I get into the program I want and become a wildly successful researcher and travel the world on speaking tours, the only way I'll ever break $200k is if I write a book and it makes the bestseller list. Going to school and working hard isn't how you get rich, you get rich by being born into a rich family. A brief glance at the statistics for intergenerational economic mobility will tell you that, even if you don't understand the processes behind it.

But to ADMIT that they aren't the exception is to admit that they're possibly not the main character.

Well, given that humans do experience life through a single pair of eyes, it can be quite a leap of faith to convince them that they are less than central to the plot of their lives...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You appear to be saying: I want my enemy to wet his pants and cry

No, I want my enemy to quit the field.

You know, I used to be afraid of you when I was a kid: always figured the big evil roger from peedee would crawl out of the internet and smash all of my hippy dreams. Your misanthropy is actually enjoyable and engaging, come to find out.

Yes, Dirty Old Uncle Roger turns out to be mostly harmless.  Certain people are shocked to learn this.  Others, like LMNO had me figured out from day one.

Maybe.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, given that humans do experience life through a single pair of eyes, it can be quite a leap of faith to convince them that they are less than central to the plot of their lives...

There's 3 options when you die.

1.  If the atheist tards are right, you just cease existing, so all that time you spent money-grubbing instead of fucking off was wasted.

2.  If the religious tards are right, then libertarianism is an E-ticket to hell.

3.  If I'M right, then God eats you, see option 1.

[von]

You appear to be saying: I want my enemy to wet his pants and cry

No, I want my enemy to quit the field.

Still, I think they're compatable

Again, my position is that debate is for getting your opponent to do what you want...
You keep beginning with "I want my enemy to..."

Wait a minute? Am I really sitting here arguing about the point of arguing?
Shit I derailed so hard...so um, how 'bout them nuisance laws? Any ideas on how to get those removed?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Shit I derailed so hard...so um, how 'bout them nuisance laws? Any ideas on how to get those removed?

Well, first you have to get rid of all the humans that wanted nuisance laws. 

That means pretty much everyone except that old deaf mute guy down the street, and I wouldn't be too sure about him.

I mean, seriously, VZ, who makes laws in America?  The legislators.  And WHY do they make endless laws?  Because The People are too stupid to reelect do-nothing congressmen.

And if you tore it all up, people would just start building it again.  Because humans are DUMB.