Lurker > Mr Lasastryke

yeah, from what i've heard atlas shrugged is a lot more obnoxious and preachy. the fountainhead may actually be readable.

didn't read either book because lol ayn rand but yeah.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SantaRPidgey posted...

Man I used to enjoy this topic series before it became a libertarian dick measuring contest

was it ever not this? pretty sure since day 1 it's been muffin and foolmo yelling "you're not REALLY libertarian!" at each other.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Sometimes I forget that so many of you have [redacted]

just say the word. it's not moddable if it's true ;-)
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

i thought southern had that stance.

if she doesn't have that stance that's cool, but she's argued tons of pro-big government stuff before, so... not sure why you're all "WTF NOBODY HAS THAT STANCE."
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SmartMuffin posted...

And literally no one, anywhere, ever, has argued this

oh, cool. i guess kokesh and southern have argued about nothing, then.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

what i called "invalid" was the stance "theoretically speaking, from a libertarian perspective, the ideal situation is a country with closed borders enforced by the government."

"practically speaking (i.e. accepting that the government exists), from a libertarian perspective, the preferred situation is a country with closed borders enforced by the government because this adheres to the libertarian principle of property owners having the right to decide who is allowed on their property" could be a valid stance, i guess. i think that's pretty damn weak too, though, because then you're arguing that your "libertarian stance" is "super big, forceful government." all other things being equal, a country with open borders would require less big and forceful government, yet somehow that's "less libertarian"...?
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

yup
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

i didn't quit but yeah, gonna skip this week.

was going to listen to everything this weekend but i ended up watching a lot of best of NES instead. and tomorrow i'm going to be very busy so even if steiner would still accept my vote that's not gonna work either :-/
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

"if the majority of people think anarchy is fine we'll probably have anarchy."

what a poignant conclusion.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Inviso posted...

For the record, MWC is DEFINITELY full of shit.

you don't say
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SmartMuffin posted...

It forces us to associate with those we'd rather not.

are you doing that thing again where you're calling driving past a muslim on the street "association"?
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

foolm0r0n posted...

Just because reality has government doesn't mean we can't talk about a theoretical non-government society and learn applicable things from it. Just because we want a non-government society doesn't mean we're not allowed to talk about how to make government better.

sure. i don't recall saying liberatarians aren't allowed to talk about how to make the government better.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Jakyl25 posted...

Crash Bandicoot: November 9th 1996
Super Mario 64: June 23rd, 1996

oh yeah i only looked up the US release date lol. didn't even consider that it came out earlier in japan.

jumping flash! 2 was still earlier, though - it was released in april '96 in japan.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

been kinda busy.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

yeah, nothing sad about someone answering with parappa.

kick, punch, it's all in the mind
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

foolm0r0n posted...

This is the dullard's mindset which prevents all form of debate because it requires the theory to be 100% applicable to reality, which is impossible

i don't get what you're saying. elaborate? are you saying it's impossible for a society without government to exist?
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

well yeah, that's more of a semantics argument. if southern would argue "open borders are against libertarianism in principle" i'd agree with her.

but i know her well enough to know that her argument is going to be "the government should close the borders because muslim immigrants are evil and threatening." which is also an argument you can make. just don't call yourself a libertarian when you argue this.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Reg posted...

Can you guys not quote mwc posts?

I mean really now...

---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Paratroopa1 posted...

despite being one of the very first 3D platformers ever (I think there might have been something that qualifies before SM64 but I don't remember what),

crash bandicoot came out before it.

but if that one doesn't count (because it's more 2.5D) i'm pretty sure SM64 is the first one.

edit: oh, i didn't see jakyl's post. yeah, i guess jumping flash! was earlier. jumping flash! 2 was earlier too, actually.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

yeah, but the libertarian position is that the government shouldn't exist.

like, what the hell kind of logic is this? "something shouldn't exist, but it does, so we're just going to take that as a given in an argument"? how does that make sense?

the libertarian position on open borders is "there should be open borders because closed borders are created by the government and the government existing violates the NAP and is immoral" (i assume kokesh is going to argue this because he's, you know, an actual libertarian), not "the government shouldn't exist, but it does, so whoops."

being a libertarian is not cherry picking one core principle of libertarianism ("property owners have a right to decide who comes on their property") and completely ignoring another core principle ("we should adhere to the NAP"). that makes 0% sense. and if anything, the NAP is MORE important than the "property owner right" stuff. correct me if i'm wrong but i've always been under the impression that the NAP is the single most important principle to libertarians.

also, it's not like kokesh is arguing that property owners don't have a right to decide who comes on their property. he doesn't think that it's fine for random strangers to come into your house. his position isn't "the government has no right to decide who comes on their property so we should open the borders," it's "the government should be eradicated (which would also eradicate the existing borders, because they exist by virtue of the government existing) and when that's done property owners should have the right to decide who comes on their property." so kokesh and southern agree on the "property owner right" thing - kokesh is just arguing this position while not accepting the government as a given (libertarian) while southern does accept the government as a given (not libertarian).
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

in b4 dylan
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SmartMuffin posted...

What core principle of libertarianism suggests that nobody has a right to decide who can and cannot come onto their property?

none.

one core principle is the NAP, though. if you accept that governments have a right to exist - which we clearly do in this debate - you're doing away with that principle.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

mr lasastryke

i have a birthday party and i'm not going to dress up for that sorry.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

i do think it's invalid.

when you say "we're doing away with one of the core principles of libertarianism but OH WELL" you're not to be taken seriously anymore.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

and yeah this topic made SHM close his account so people saying "not a single thing was gained" can shut the fuck up :-)
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

he can be pretentious but he's not when he's shitposting.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

The only concession of value to me is conceding foolmo is a hypocrite.

eh, i can't agree with that since i don't think shitposting is the same thing as attempting to add something to a conversation and failing.

like, if i called the moderate guy in my analogy out for not adding anything to the political debate and he would say "but lasa you've shitposted in a lamejokealt topic! you're such a hypocrite!" i wouldn't think that would be a fair attack.

you can think it's all the same but i do think there's a difference. the shitposter isn't being pretentious.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

And it's obvious that some people think the car driver is more in the wrong. And it's obvious that some people think the protesters are more in the wrong.

Let's just not non-shitpost at all! Everything's obvious!

well yeah, just saying "the driver is right" or "the protesters are right" doesn't add anything either.

but looking back at your post you didn't just say that both sides were wrong, you were saying it because you wanted to make clear that you didn't side with the driver. so yeah, i'll concede that foolmo was being unnecessarily harsh on you.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

Like we've got people saying "people have the right to protest" and we've got people saying "the car driver is a hero" but supposedly "they're both idiots" is the obvious thing.

not THE obvious thing, it's obvious that people have this stance.

like, i just explained it?

it's like saying "democrats and republicans were yelling at each other for 100 posts and somehow being a moderate is the obvious thing?" yes, it's an obvious thing.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

Really? It was that obvious? Then how come no one was saying it?

that doesn't mean anything. it's like how if a politics topic is a 100 posts underway and some pretentious douchebag comes in saying "well actually democrats and republicans are BOTH bad that's why i'm a moderate because i'm super nuanced and smart." that's incredibly predictable even if nobody in the topic has said it yet. just because nobody has said it yet doesn't mean it's a super original and insightful and non-obvious stance.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

it depends on what you mean. like yeah, they're not going to agree on what the best movie ever is or whatever. but in the case of the core principles of libertarianism, i don't see how libertarians can disgree while actually being libertarians in the first place. in this case, lauren southern thinks closed borders and an anti-immigraiton mentality are good, which is a clear and flagrant violation of the NAP. hence, she's a faux libertarian.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

foolm0r0n posted...

no libertarian even agrees 75% with another

sure, but that's because a lot of "libertarians" are actually faux libertarians or hypocrites, like i said before. like lauren southern.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

sure but they have to disagree somewhat. can't imagine it being much of a debate if they're both going "according to libertarianism open borders and immigration are A-OK!"
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

at the moment probably q-tip. been listening to a lot of a tribe called quest lately.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

during the GWB years there wasn't nearly this much political discussion on B8, at least not since i started posting. obviously there was a lot of discussion in '04 because of the election, but after that people didn't seem to care that much anymore. that could just as well be because we were all way younger and didn't care as much about politics back then, though.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

wait, who's arguing open borders and immigration are bad? pretty sure they both self-identify as libertarians so one of them is being a hypocrite.

it's southern right
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

"if most people think it's good, it's probably good." - the libertarian position in 2017
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

I mean I must point to the fact that you took 'always' completely literally in my post as rock solid evidence that you kinda have a bit of a block on this.

i didn't take it completely literally.

i know you meant "the majority of the time" and i'm saying that's bullshit too.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SmartMuffin posted...

yeah, have you considered he might just have a shit personality?

uh duh
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

95% of the time foolmo's posts are shitposting.

completely untrue.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

I mean it's not like "being a libertarian" magically means you know what someone's stance is going to be on any given topic anyway. I'm not even talking politics I'm just talking... posting in general. You can keep trying to horoscope some sort of meaning out of every statement he makes because you have some sort of respect for his posts (probably because he doesn't correct you when you misunderstand his point unlike most people, because that would involve actually taking a position) but perhaps if he wasn't always spouting pseudointellectual drivel you wouldn't need Lasa to explain everything he says.

ok so you're just going to be an asshole again.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

Yes Lasa I know you think foolmo has some profound meaning in all of his posts, we've gone over this. You're just as wrong as you always were.

what the actual fuck is this post?

i've been reading foolmo posts since day 1 in the freedom topic (i should point out again that i've never seen you there) and in all those years i've never, ever seen him compromise on his libertarian beliefs. he's extremely consistent.

and your response is "LOL YOU THINK HE HAS PROFOUND MEANING IN ALL OF HIS POSTS"?

1) no, i don't think that. in the discussion you're referring to i backpedaled and said "well yeah, he obviously shitposts from time to time too." nice to see that that apparently didn't register with you at all.
2) what on earth does his shitposting have to do with my post? just because he shitposts doesn't mean you're not hilariously wrong about him "never taking a stance on anything."
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

Lopen posted...

Imagine the self esteem one must have to make this post when their entire posting style is "never take a stance for either side, instead just make masturbatory jabs at everyone so no one can actually engage you in discussion"

lol this is laughably wrong. foolmo is (arguably) the most hardcore libertarian on the board. as far as politics goes his stances are incredibly firm.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SmartMuffin posted...

Imagine believing that your political preferences are important enough to delay hundreds of thousands of commuters, costing the city tens of millions of dollars of lost productivity.

is taking a different road than the one where the protesters are that big a deal? philadelphia must be a weird city.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

foolm0r0n posted...

Oh yeah both sides were equally bad. That's an epic and intelligent position that no one has ever heard before.

there must be a SMBC comic about people who think they're super smart for always taking the middle ground position and politically identifying as "moderate." (in fairness, lisel has this attitude way more than lopen.)
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

SmartMuffin posted...

A slow moving car is incredibly easy to avoid.

not when you're standing in a huge crowd.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

and go
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

...ok...
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

not really, because the assumption is that the bullying in the analogy takes place for no reason.

timjab has been acting like an asshole for forever here, so he shouldn't whine about getting "bullied."
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta

i forgot this album was out. this is what i get for not following new music releases anymore.
---

Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta