|
GunnerJ posted:Capybaras are cool animals. This should be the thread title.
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
Libertarianism: SA does not consent to joinder with Jrodefeld
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Capybaras are cool animals. It is known.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If someone shortly bans my account for no stated or rational reason, and furthermore asks me to pay AGAIN $10 for un-banning my account, I will go to my credit card company with a fraud charge and re-coup the $10 I just spent for the privilege of telling you how I feel about unfair moderating practices. As several people have already pointed out, but it bears repeating: No, jrode. This is not how the free market works. This forum, being a private community, get to set its own rules and standards for behavior and get to enforce those rules. That you feel ill-used by this has no bearings on anything, except as a - frankly hilarious - confirmation that I was absolutely right way, way back in this thread: The worst thing that could ever happen to you is that you get exactly what you want, because judging from your bitchy, whiny reaction to being out  you wouldn't be able to survive in Libertopia for more than a day or two at the very most.Again, this forum is privately owned and operated. Mods get to decide what flies and what doesn't. Your opinion doesn't enter into it. You pays your money, you takes your chances. or, in other words: Caveat emptor, canicula. You want the entirety of society to run on the principle of private property and contract, and the fact that you can't stand the results once someone actually exercise their property-rights ( by banning you ) after you paid the sign-up fee and signed on the dotted line, even with the rules explicitly stating the risk you're running? That gives me a warm, toasty, lovely feeling of contentment. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 01:09 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
jrode's neg hole delenda est
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Man, I take a several month break from the libertarian thread and of course Jrod comes back right when I feel like dropping by  TLM3101 posted:You want the entirety of society to run on the principle of private property and contract, and the fact that you can't stand the results once someone actually exercise their property-rights ( by banning you ) after you paid the sign-up fee and signed on the dotted line, even with the rules explicitly stating the risk you're running? That gives me a warm, toasty, lovely feeling of contentment. This especially warms my heart as I fondly remember that time he described Sundown Towns as natural and allowed under the NAP
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Jrode, I have news! I have convinced the Posting Cabal to lift your posting death warrant on the simple condition of you proving yourself an honorable man by engaging Literally The Worst A.K.A. Dickeye in manly fisticuffs! What say you? Are you worthy or a mere mewling braggart?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
jrod is just going to reinterpret the terms of the fight: instead of fisticuffs it is now a contest to see who is most handsome, a contest that jrod knows for sure he will win
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Personally jrod I just don't think your complaints here have much merit. I mean this forum is willing to tolerate posters who write absolute mountains of self-referencing/mentally ill political analysis as long as said writers are willing to keep it to its own thread.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Jrod I bet my penis is bigger than yours. If we're gonna have dick measuring contests let's do it right.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Man, I take a several month break from the libertarian thread and of course Jrod comes back right when I feel like dropping by It really is lovely, isn't it? It's like JRode's sheer existence as well as his every reaction to things happening to him is a monument of disproof of everything he claims to believe in.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod is just going to reinterpret the terms of the fight: instead of fisticuffs it is now a contest to see who is most handsome, a contest that jrod knows for sure he will win actually im pretty as gently caress all the ladies want my nuts
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:actually im pretty as gently caress all the ladies want my nuts dude you're a statist shill so obviously you're penniless and on welfare, whereas jrod has like tens of dollars in disposable income, women can't resist that kind of wealth 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Personally jrod I just don't think your complaints here have much merit. I mean this forum is willing to tolerate posters who write absolute mountains of self-referencing/mentally ill political analysis as long as said writers are willing to keep it to its own thread. Aren't you just so relieved that your analysis about Ted Cruz being the Republican nominee was wrong ? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:dude you're a statist shill so obviously you're penniless and on welfare, whereas jrod has like tens of dollars in disposable income, women can't resist that kind of wealth christ i wish i could get on welfare im basically too broken to be able to really function on my own, but too competent to get any help capitalism fuckers
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
dickeye is the troubled guy smoking in a leather jacket, jrode's pedestrian aesthetics stand no chance.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
jrode has a weird mental debilitation where he is extremely dumb but communcates like a man of average intelligence so he'd probably win on a technicality by accidentally breaking his own nose
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:jrode has a weird mental debilitation where he is extremely dumb but communcates like a man of average intelligence lol no he doesn't, the average man can at least type coherent sentences most of the time whereas jrod has a compulsion to poo poo out a billion words instead of something concise
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:christ i wish i could get on welfare I know that feeling, bro. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Aren't you just so relieved that your analysis about Ted Cruz being the Republican nominee was wrong ? I find myself in the position of having written a schizophrenic 60k or so wandering rant about the impending collapse of the Republican party because of a loss of control of its extremists, and it turns out the only real problem with what I wrote is that I genuinely gave the GOP too much credit. I figured they would be able to react to the situation better than they have, and I figured there were fewer nutcase extremist in the past and there actually are. When a mentally ill person who has a fully justified grudge against your organization (after having had their childhood quite thoroughly poo poo upon by your organization's political ambitions) is still unable to accurately predict and describe the sheer level of your ineptitude, your organization is entering some genuinely interesting territory- from a historical perspective that is. What I'm saying is somehow the GOP is even worse than my own extremely cynical projections, which is kind of saying something. I'm not sure what it's saying, but it's definitely saying something. I did call the primary for Trump though the day after the first debate, which was well before anyone else but maybe Matt Taibbi called it for Trump. When I wrote the thing about Cruz I was mostly writing about the potential for some sort of Uprising from the crazies waiting to propel a candidate it through the primary if said crazies were pandered too in a specific way. I viewed Cruz as the most likely person to do that at the time comma largely because this was three or four months before Donald Trump announce. I think it's quite arguable that Vruz attempted to do exactly what I thought he was going to do, he just wasn't anywhere near as good at it as Trump was. But before I break the Very rule where it discussion here by cross contaminating the crazy, I'll just say that this topic is actually part of one of several updates I'm working on for my own thread. Updates on that thread have become a bit slower, as it has become much harder for me to engage with that material as my recovery has progressed. That said, even though the updates are getting slower, my new piece of writing has allowed me to apply much better quality control and I think the updates will be well worth the wait when they're finally ready. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:23 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:and it turns out the only real problem with what I wrote is that I genuinely gave the GOP too much credit. I figured they would be able to react to the situation better than they have, and I figured there were fewer nutcase extremist in the past and there actually are. You're not the only one. I guess lesson learned.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
I know I missed it last page, but thread title: NAP for me, Force (applied to your face) for theeGunnerJ posted:Capybaras are cool animals. Or that. That works too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:The worst thing that could ever happen to you is that you get exactly what you want, because judging from your bitchy, whiny reaction to being out Yeah jrodefeld have you considered supporting the state out of self-interest, because its regulatory functions like mandating chargebacks are your only hope of obtaining a better outcome than mailing away all your gold/Bitcoins to buy magic beans? Also I am not a lawyer but I imagine that posting "yes I voluntarily paid for this service which was delivered to me exactly as promised but I will do a chargeback anyway out of spite" is probably going to hurt your case in arbitration should lowtax dispute your chargeback? I mean you might want to edit that out if you are serious.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
*begins swinging arms in circles* I'm just going to swing my arms around like this while walking forward, and if you happen to get struck then you're the one violating the NAP and you'll have to give me all of your bitcoins!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah jrodefeld have you considered supporting the state out of self-interest, because its regulatory functions like mandating chargebacks are your only hope of obtaining a better outcome than mailing away all your gold/Bitcoins to buy magic beans? *posts five thousand word, meandering diatribe about contract and joinder, which inexplicably also includes lengthy passages about the constitutionality of secession and questionable IQ statistics on non-whites*
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Well then. I see that jrod has the same ability to use logic and reason and to integrate new information into his worldview when it comes to how to be part of a forum as with economic theory. Any normal, sensible person can post here without more than the occasional probation. Thousands of people manage it every day.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:lol no he doesn't, the average man can at least type coherent sentences most of the time whereas jrod has a compulsion to poo poo out a billion words instead of something concise I mean they are at least grammatically correct and spelled right. Markov Chain Americans have rights too you know.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Jrode posting a bunch of poo poo and then loving off for days to weeks is a big part of why you get banned. And don't try the "Oh I'm so busy" tack because if that was the case you wouldn't have time to write up thousand word screeds about nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Jrodefeld is allowed to post in the Jrodefeld thread due to being Jrodefeld. When Jrodefeld goes onto other people's
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Fans posted:Jrodefeld is allowed to post in the Jrodefeld thread due to being Jrodefeld. can we start a NEW jrodefeld thread though
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
theshim posted:I'm still a fan of A Rustling Thicket of White Supremacists I'm voting for this, or Power to admit or exclude should be ... reassigned to ... private property owners and their voluntary associations (except where it inconveniences Jrod) from that Hoppe quote.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:can we start a NEW jrodefeld thread though I feel like the pages upon pages of nonsense we've got here is too beautiful to end and must be allowed to continue as is. So no.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Fans posted:I feel like the pages upon pages of nonsense we've got here is too beautiful to end and must be allowed to continue as is. So no. Move this thread to the Cool Chat Crew forum (because let's be honest, that's what this thread is at this point) and make a new, fresh thread here in the D&D.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Fans posted:I feel like the pages upon pages of nonsense we've got here is too beautiful to end and must be allowed to continue as is. So no. change the name to Lolbert Thread: Jrode Won't Fight Dickeye
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Move this thread to the Cool Chat Crew forum (because let's be honest, that's what this thread is at this point) and make a new, fresh thread here in the D&D. Given Jrod's steadfast adherence to
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Libertarian Thread: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children (to work as slaves in garment factories).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Jrode posting a bunch of poo poo and then loving off for days to weeks is a big part of why you get banned. And don't try the "Oh I'm so busy" tack because if that was the case you wouldn't have time to write up thousand word screeds about nothing. The most hilarious thing is that he repeatedly says "I welcome debate" but then never, ever actually debates. He just plain ignores well-reasoned responses, hard truths about what he believes, and actual goddamned historical, scientific, and economic evidence that his ideas are terrible while going after the arguments he perceives as easiest. Then he completely fails to take down those as well. I don't think I have ever in my life seen somebody that's so enthusiastically bad at arguing. His main premise is "I will quote people I believe are automatically right all the time forever. Because I believe this you must too. If you do not you are obviously a stupid, misinformed, lefty statist that must be educated."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The most hilarious thing is that he repeatedly says "I welcome debate" but then never, ever actually debates. He just plain ignores well-reasoned responses, hard truths about what he believes, and actual goddamned historical, scientific, and economic evidence that his ideas are terrible while going after the arguments he perceives as easiest. Not to mention that he constantly bemoans the fact that he can't have a 1-on-1 debate despite the fact that he has multiple standing offers to do just that (and one standing offer to be met in the Octagon). Caros even offered to buy recording equipment for him! And I'm so stupid anyone who can string together a grammatically correct sentence could out-debate me, and still he's too chickenshit to accept.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Here's the deal with my participation on this website going forward. I have now been banned twice for no apparent reason. The first time I was banned, the reason stated was because I was "arguing in bad faith". Now, I recall vividly the particular posts I had made which got me banned and I was being as genuine in my beliefs as I could be. I looked through the rules, and there is no rule pertaining to the entirely subjective charge of bad-faith arguing. I emailed the moderator who banned me and he flatly refused to give me any explanation for why I was banned.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
As I stated earlier, I'm over criticizing the moderators. I felt I was treated unfairly, others felt differently. But one thing I am fairly certain of is that if I feel I am banned for unfair reasons in the future and not given an answer when I contact mods, and I am asked to pay $10 for the privilege of unbanning my account, I won't do so. I'll spend my time debating people elsewhere. Just remember that in such an event, I didn't walk away because I was afraid of a debate. I walked away because I will not keep paying $10 to be mistreated by moderators. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt this time. That's the last I will say on that matter. I want to go back to my post on the Climate Change thread and elaborate on what I had said, but allow me a bit of a detour. I want to briefly touch on the election season, since such talk dominates the news and the kitchen table for most Americans. I am interested to know where each of you stand regarding the 2016 Presidential candidates. Even if you live outside of the United States, I'd like to know who you agree with most and who you'd vote for IF you lived in the United States. If I had to guess, I'd suspect that most of you are Bernie Sanders supporters. But, will you be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election? I shouldn't have to tell you that I will not vote for Trump or Hillary no matter what. And don't get me started on how asinine the so-called libertarians who are supporting Trump for President are. The notion that Trump would be quantifiable better as president that Clinton is un-proven and un-knowable. A Trump campaign promise is even more worthless than the average politician's campaign promises given how schizophrenic his positions have been. I am carefully looking at the Libertarian Party nomination this cycle. I haven't yet decided if I will vote, but if I do it will almost certainly be for the Libertarian Party nominee. None of the candidates running for that nomination are close to ideal in my eyes, but my preference would be, from best to worst: 1. John Mcafee, 2. Austin Petersen, 3. Gary Johnson. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and I personally like him. He's a good fellow and an honest man. The problem is his delivery is incredibly weak. He doesn't seem like he prepares that well for debates and he doesn't seem that well-read about libertarianism in general. John McAfee is the closest to an anarchist and he has a certain gravitas to his delivery which is why I like him. He is a little crazy, but crazy in a good way. He is the more revolutionary and controversial candidate which, in an election where loud-mouth Donald Trump won the GOP nomination, doesn't seem to be a downside. Austin Petersen, on the other hand, is much more pragmatic. He is more knowledgeable about libertarianism than is Johnson and has a polished delivery, but he is very young which can make him seem inexperienced. He is less radical than McAfee but he could peel away quite a few conservatives who hate Trump but are scared away by McAfee and are hesitant about Johnson's more liberal positions. I think there has never been a better time for a third party candidate to break through than this season. Hillary and Trump are two of the most hated candidates in modern political history. There will be millions of angry conservatives who hate Trump and millions of Bernie supporters who hate Hillary. With the right candidate and the right exposure, a third party candidate could get into the Presidential Debates and REALLY shake things up. The Libertarian Party candidate has the best shot at doing so, which is why I will probably support whoever is the nominee. I am curious about your take on this election season, who you will vote for and who most closely aligns with your personal views.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:09
|
|