|
Jizz Festival posted:I can't believe Jrod pretended to be supportive of BLM after posting poo poo like this: Jrod is willing to ditch anything resembling NAP and all that claptrap about people being able to use whatever drugs they want consequence free the moment hunting dark skinned people enters the picture?! No way! It's like he's virulently opposed to anything resembling rights for non whites...Like, he's advocating for some kind of society with clear privileges delineated across boundaries predicated on skin tones...
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
LOL jrod "just asked questions" about lean. I had either forgotten that or pushed it out of my mind. jrodefeld I wish you lacked even one thing in common with white supremacists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
A furtive negro in my subdivision? Check his pockets for tea
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Jrod, please answer this question: you're a fraud emotionally, ethically, and intellectually speaking. You're a failure of a human being with literally not a single redeeming quality, not charming, funny, compassionate, empathetic, or clever. If I had to put money down, I'd wager you have never had a positive impact on a single person you have ever come into contact with and that you have never succeeded at anything of note. The only things you're good for is stealing money off the nightstand when mom wasn't looking, taking other's food out of the fridge when the company break room was empty, and getting scammed. You're embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
If you want to play another round of "what's different" scroll through his posts in that thread and look at the benefit of the doubt given to Zimmerman's reason for being suspicious of Trayvon versus Trayvon's reason for having skittles and fruit drink
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Again, you all are mixing up different things. If someone sells you something that they claim is cancer medicine, but turns out to be nothing of the sort, then they have committed fraud. Knowing deception in a supposedly "voluntary" transaction would be illegal in a libertarian society. The person who sold you the "medicine" has stolen your money because you never would have parted with it if you knew the truth about the product that was sold. What if someone sells something that they believe is cancer medicine, but it's actually just Zima? What if I think that forcing bleach into an autistic kid's butthole will cure their autism. Maybe I market it as something goofy-sounding, like Miracle Mineral Supplement, and then I instruct desperate parents on how it will cure their child's autism. I have no reason to believe that it works, but I believe that it does and I'm happy to sell this poo poo to people who are just as gullible as I am 1) Who's going to stop me? Certainly the parents won't, since the kind of person who would actually buy and use my magic potion on their child is gullible enough to keep on believing that everything's fine even while their child is crying and thrashing around from having bleach forced into their rear end in a top hat. 2) Even if someone decides that I'm a fraudster, how the gently caress are they going to prove that I defrauded them? I believe that it works so we're just two adults engaging in a voluntary transaction, right? The tragic thing is that this is not an absurd hypothetical, Miracle Mineral Supplement is a real thing being sold by real people to real, real gullible parents as an autism cure. Obviously it doesn't work. In your ideal world, people selling this poo poo to each other wouldn't face repurcussions, since they're just engaging in voluntary interactions with each other. jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? Don't you have any concern for the millions of people who have died from diseases because the FDA wouldn't allow them to access medical treatments that are widely available in other countries? I could see this problem occurring if 1) the FDA had worldwide jurisdiction and 2) the FDA controlled all drug-related information. But in reality, the FDA doesn't actually have that kind of power. In reality, researchers have enormous incentives (prestigious and economic) to publicize amazing new medical treatments, especially if they're effective. Why do you suppose that it's always the people who refuse to subject their treatments to scientific review who complain the loudest about FDA regulation? Here you are claiming that the FDA prohibits the sale of drugs that would have saved millions of lives. Can you cite, specifically, these drugs? I bet that you can't. That's a totally bullshit claim. I'm willing to admit that there is some number of lives lost due to experimental treatments having to go through a scientific gauntlet, but the fact that you immediately jumped to "millions of lives lost" instantly tells me that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're just pulling numbers out of your rear end. It also tells me that you haven't weighed the lives lost against the lives saved by requiring drugs to be proven safe before they're widely marketed and sold. quote:If you are dying with cancer or some other horrible disease, what moral justification is there for preventing them from trying cutting edge, but yet experimental treatments? No one stops you from trying such treatments. The FDA only prevents you from marketing and selling unapproved treatments. You're free to treat yourself in whatever way you want, the FDA won't stop you. This just makes it seem like you don't know what the FDA actually does. quote:It takes a long time sometimes for new treatments to become widely acknowledged as effective medicine, especially if they are radically different from the prevailing orthodoxy. For example, in cancer treatment today, Chemotherapy is a mainstay of treatment. It is very expensive (ask Caros) and the providers can make a lot of money by selling it. Newer treatments that are in their early stages of development will do away with most, if not all, of radiation therapy towards a more targeted approach. There are three big problems with your hypothesis 1) You're assuming that the people selling the current cancer drugs are not developing new cancer drugs, and that they wouldn't benefit from the sale of such drugs. You've made an incorrect assumption. 2) You're assuming, again, that the FDA controls whether or not information about new treatments or drugs gets published. They don't. They only restrict the sale of drugs. Publishing is something else entirely that the FDA has no control over. 3) If a publicly-funded organization like the FDA is going to be pressured by big drug manufacturers to not approve new treatments, then what do you think is going to happen if drugs are rated by privately-funded organizations? The pressure will be the same, but without public money there will be way more incentive to follow the edicts of drug manufacturers. It doesn't matter if you have a dozen or a hundred rating agencies, ultimately a few will rise to the top as the most popular and these agencies will wind up getting corrupted by monied interests because they won't be able to exist otherwise. That's how the real world works and shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "FREE MARKET" over and over doesn't change that. The best way to reduce the corrupting influence of monied interests is to create publicly funded organizations that aren't beholden to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Maybe Libertarians believe that everything outside of the USA is just literally the Soviet Union. Or maybe they don't believe in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
I love that JRod chided me for "supporting the war on drugs" (I don't) while at the same time using drug use as validation and justification for stalking and murdering a teenage boy. Way to go JRod! I guess drugs are a privilege for the white?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Since no one has jumped on this yet, let me.jrodefeld posted:Take a look at this graph in particular: Oh, look, you again show you don't know how to do something as basic as read a graph. This graph actually shows that the teenage unemployment rate stays the same until the economy crashes, at which point it goes up like most other kinds of unemployment (http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf). The fact that they found a spurious correlation is as meaningless as the relationship between Nicholas Cage movies and pool drownings.  Or do you have an argument for why minimum wage hikes in the U.S. caused unemployment in the UK?  I'll help you out. It wasn't their own minwage increasing:  The fact that you can look at a graph of unemployment increasing during the biggest economic collapse in recent history and go "I know!  It's the minimum wage increase's fault! This is strong evidence." is exactly why people are accusing you of regurgitating your sources without critical thought of your own. And generally being dumber than a doorknob.jrodefeld posted:And exactly how familiar are you with the Davis-Bacon Act, which was a Jim Crow era minimum wage law which explicitly was intended to harm blacks and keep them out of the labor market. This is history that we really ought not to forget. Cool, now please show me the current white-only unions campaigning for higher minimum wage and applying pressure to make companies and the government only hire their white union workers at that minimum wage. Because that's the mechanism that was used for racist oppression in the Jim Crow era. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What if someone sells something that they believe is cancer medicine, but it's actually just Zima? Aren't drug companies able to offer experimental treatments as part of studies if they've moved to human trials? Just not sell them? Like you can get experimental cures, but being EXPERIMENTAL it's in the context of proving they work which is why it's not just sold to the general pop. Jrod's whole anti-vax anti-FDA thing is really making me imagine a super credulous dude getting taken in by all those "secret treatment THEY (!) don't want you to know about!" ads
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Jrod; What do you think causes cancer? What treatments do you believe exist that are being suppressed in favour of chemo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, those Trayvon quotes. What thread is that, for people who don't have archives? With all this "alt med" and conspiracy crap though, I have a question. JRod, what's your opinion on Alex Jones?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahaha I forgot about that thread. Jrod: "Libertarians aren't racist. Now let me tell you about how 13 year old black kids need to work at McDonalds so they stay out of gangs but only get paid $0.15/hr so they can't afford to make purple drank"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Jrod; The only real cancer is The State.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod: "Libertarians aren't racist. Now let me tell you about how 13 year old black kids need to work at McDonalds so they stay out of gangs but only get paid $0.15/hr so they can't afford to make purple drank" We really need a :candiesay: smilie for any occasion that JRode opines on race and race-relations. Jesus, I'd forgotten what a terrible trip that was. Edit: I mean... This is from his opening post in that thread: jrodefeld posted:I have been following this trial pretty clearly and, without any preconceived or ideological bias, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman should NOT be charged with murder. If he is acquitted, it should not be taken as a sign that "racial profiling is now okay", nor should it be seen as a victory for bigots and white people, nor should it be taken as a broad setback for African American "progress" or anything like that. It should be taken as the reality that a preponderance of evidence shows that Zimmerman, for whatever his faults, did not commit murder. Sometimes an individual event is merely an individual event and we cannot draw large societal implications from a tragic situation. "Hey, y'know, sometimes the black kid ends up getting shot and we can't draw any wider conclusions from that, you guys! These things just happen!" ... loving hell. I need a drink. And it's only Wednesday. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Maybe Libertarians believe that everything outside of the USA is just literally the Soviet Union. Or maybe they don't believe in Europe. The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America quote:In World War II, American soldiers went overseas to rescue England from the Nazi menace. Now, with America threatened from within by the specter of social democracy, British politician Daniel Hannan returns the favor. The New Road to Serfdom is a must-read rallying cry for Tea Party activists, fans of Mark Levin’s Tyranny and Liberty, and anyone who has seen Hannan’s hard-hitting interviews with Hannity & Colmes, Neil Cavuto, and Glenn Beck. A former president of the Oxford Conservative Association, and a member of the EU Parliament, Hannan has the insight and experience to help America recapture its distinctive ideals and avoid turning into a socialist state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:The fact that you can look at a graph of unemployment increasing during the biggest economic collapse in recent history and go "I know! Also, the real value of the minimum wage has declined from its 1969 peak and the increases to the nominal value has only kept it around the average level it's had for thirty years  But whatever, jrod knows this since I brought it up last time he made this same argument, and he obviously remembered I did so because he made sure to shift his black teenage employment argument to the 40's rather than the 50's after I pointed out that today's real minimum wage is about the same as it was in the 50's. In reality of course teenage unemployment didn't change much from the mid 40's to the mid 50's despite the minimum wage hikes, and it continued its post 1958 rise despite the fall in the real minimum wage after 1969, but he's incapable of making a data-driven argument that's not lies through and through. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Since no one has jumped on this yet, let me. Ahaha, wow I'd skipped over his post but you're right, that's loving atrocious editorialising of that data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Aw, gently caress. You guys busted out actual data that Jrod won't be able to argue with. I guess his social life is about to conveniently get "very busy" for another two months. See you in March, jrodey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Aw, gently caress. You guys busted out actual data that Jrod won't be able to argue with. I guess his social life is about to conveniently get "very busy" for another two months. See you in March, jrodey. He can just not respond to it and then start another tangent to pursue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
I gotta warn you jrod, first it's a social life, eventually it'll be a social democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I gotta warn you jrod, first it's a social life, eventually it'll be a social democracy. Did he ever step back his comments about how democracy can't be that good since it gave us Hitler
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Jrod, I've been following your posts without preconceptions or ideological bias and have concluded you're a white supremacist, a misogynist, and a classist. You are free to act or not act on this information as you see fit. It is the objective truth however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Did he ever step back his comments about how democracy can't be that good since it gave us Hitler Has he ever stepped back anything, really, other than from a used melon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
It makes sense that someone who could be convinced their fillings were poisoning them could also be convinced that soda and skittles are drug paraphernalia. Although, only a huuuuuuge racist would further think they were grounds for justifiable homicide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
I still can't believe an idiot who got his fillings nicked has the audacity to try and proselytise their favoured economic theory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
BaurusJA posted:Switzerland is unique that it CAN even be nuetral. The natural defense, political maneuvering, the loving bunker under the swiss alps, and heavy experience of their armed forces at mountain combat allow them to get away with it. You know a country that tried to be neutral too? Poland. For the last two and a quarter centuries the Polish nation wanted not much to do except live on their land. The Polish nation has been dissolved and recreated 5 times in that span. Switzerland has not had to re-create its since its nation came into being around the late 19th century. Lets also not forget that it took until 1991 before every women in Switzerland could vote. Truly a libertarian utopia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the price of oil goes up, would you expect people to drive less? Would you expect them to buy more fuel efficient cars? No to both, because often the price of oil is very disconnected from the price of gas: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No to both, because often the price of oil is very disconnected from the price of gas: If you're trying to argue the correlation between two variables (or lack thereof), you should graph them against each other, instead of against a third variable like time. Doc Hawkins posted:It makes sense that someone who could be convinced their fillings were poisoning them could also be convinced that soda and skittles are drug paraphernalia. You barbarians want to take people who use drugs and throw them in a cage! Why can't you just shoot them in the street, like civilized people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Lets also not forget that it took until 1991 before every women in Switzerland could vote. Truly a libertarian utopia. They were liberated from the burden of voting, my good fellow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Lets also not forget that it took until 1991 before every women in Switzerland could vote. Truly a libertarian utopia. Have you considered that perhaps the freely-determined market value of women might just be naturally lower than that of men due to their weakness, frailty, and vulnerability to becoming pregnant?  (Alternately, black people, impulsiveness, violence, yadda vile racist poo poo yadda)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Jrod, by Tom Woods, do you mean Thomas E. Woods, Jr? If so, I'm a big fan of his works and would like to partake in an intellectual discussion of them. What have you read by Tom Woods? What talks of his do you find most interesting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:If you're trying to argue the correlation between two variables (or lack thereof), you should graph them against each other, instead of against a third variable like time. You have to graph against time. There is no other sensible way to graph the ongoing relation between gas prices and oil prices, most particularly how significant jumps in oil prices get followed by much less significant jumps in gas, and how a lot of the time oil can jump around a lot while gas barely budges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You have to graph against time. There is no other sensible way to graph the ongoing relation between gas prices and oil prices, most particularly how significant jumps in oil prices get followed by much less significant jumps in gas, and how a lot of the time oil can jump around a lot while gas barely budges. Isn't that because of the intervention of the federal government in the form of subsidies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Isn't that because of the intervention of the federal government in the form of subsidies? Subsidies are a bit of it, but more important are things like how in most countries including the US, taxes which are not proportional to the actual cost are a large amount of the price, and also there's ways that even expensive crude oil can still produce cheaper gasoline from the crude then you might expect, and how there's always a bunch of bought oil and gasoline sitting around in reserve, outside things like the 70s oil crisis. Take a look at the end of 2015/beginning of 2016 on the chart - notice how there's a significant bump in the otherwise downward trend of oil prices, but the gas prices continue an unbroken downward slide? Basically, the realities of producing gasoline on its own mean there's less linkage between crude prices and refined gas prices than you expect, even before you get into all the government intervention in the market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Ahaha, I had no idea about jrode's Trayvon quotes. The real question is if he got there on his own (because libertarians are overwhelmingly inclined towards white supremacy) or some mises article or YouTube video led him to that conclusion (because he just follows whatever the libertarian media he's skimming says and doesn't notice when it contradicts itself when the opportunity to poo poo on minorities presents itself). Not to give him the benefit of the doubt, but jrode really doesn't seem of sound mental faculties to realize the correlation between white supremacy and libertarianism, and I really can believe he's clueless enough to take all of it at face value without actually understanding the dog whistles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No to both, because often the price of oil is very disconnected from the price of gas: Those show a really strong relationship and connection. Are you parodying yourself now? It is super easy to see that they aren't disconnected by looking at that graph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Those show a really strong relationship and connection. Are you parodying yourself now? It is super easy to see that they aren't disconnected by looking at that graph. Are you parodying your own obtuseness? The price of gas fluctuates much less widely than the price of oil does, and the price of gas often barely responds to major shifts in the oil price. There are a whole bunch of factors behind this. Over the course of that graph, oil's highest peak was at 5.2x its lowest point, while gas's highest peak is at 2.53x its lowest point. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
So Scott Horton seems a little more palatable than most at first glance, with his consistently anti-war, anti-drone, and anti-cop-overreach stance. Let's take a bit of a deeper look at his twitter. Oh, look. He constantly hates on Sanders, Hillary, and (Rand) Paul, for their "hawkish" foreign policy, but not Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. And supports a Bloomberg run. Shocker, I know. He also cheerleads Trump insulting people, argues with people insulting Trump, and hates Megyn Kelly. He is campaigning for Ron Paul 2016. He calls the government the enemy and calls for it's end without anything I can find (I'm not going to go through all his tweets) about what things look like without it. . . . Yeaaaaaaah, I can see why he's Jrod's favorite. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Rodimus, an important question has arisen in the ruins of the old thread, and it requires your answer! ...what did you think of the TV series Andromeda?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:14
|
|