1 2 3 4
#1130771
People shouldn't have the right to harm each other..... but you think rape should sometimes be legal?
WHAT THE FUCK?????
3/10/2010 9:34:05 AM
#1130788
pob14
Well, we can all see why he is on a "dating-challenged" board . . . .
3/10/2010 9:57:05 AM
#1130888
Badfish
I followed him up until the third sentence. The he took a hard right turn into asshole territory.
3/10/2010 12:55:52 PM
#1130890
Zeus Almighty
I ... just ... what?
3/10/2010 12:57:15 PM
#1130898
Your mother must be -so proud-
3/10/2010 1:20:53 PM
#1130909
gotpwnt
A Libertarian by definition is someone who is Fiscally Conservative and Socialy Liberal. You are a gigantic conservative faggot in both regards, get out.
3/10/2010 1:28:44 PM
#1131103
DANEgerous
Wow, someone with less political Knowledge than Glen Beck.
That is beyond pathetic.
3/11/2010 8:27:26 AM
#1131133
Zits
3/11/2010 12:20:24 PM
#1131156
Doctor Whom
You fail both libertarianism and interpersonal relations forever.
3/11/2010 2:39:56 PM
#1131164
Pro
@ gotpwnt --
A Libertarian by definition is someone who is Fiscally Conservative and Socialy Liberal.
Not really. At all. People who are socially liberal, progressive, or leftist tend to support limitations on what reasons an employer can give for firing an employee (or a landlord for refusing to rent to a potential tenant, etc.) -- hence anti-discrimination laws regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. To the Libertarian Party and the like, these laws represent unacceptable restrictions on the "liberty" of the employer, landlord, etc. Same for businesses who take the socially-conservative positions of only dealing with people who fit their particular reactionary doctrines -- under the Libertarian Party model, it's perfectly acceptable for a business to require any workers or customers to adhere to any arbitrary set of behavioral standards in or outside the workplace. Yes, people can theoretically find others to do business with -- unless the owners of the private means of communication or transport also set reactionary "standards", or if someone lives in a small town with a reactionary population and no way of affording an exit (or even communication with someone who might help). In each of these cases, though, since the only involvement of the government in imposing right-wing social norms is to enforce the ownership by which the nominally non-state actors demand conformity, this is a non-oppressive situation by Libertarian Party standards.
3/11/2010 3:12:01 PM
#1131213
Zodiac
What is this I don't even.
Forgive me, I just learned that meme two days ago. But it applies to this post so perfectly.
3/11/2010 9:00:25 PM
#1131342
Anon-e-moose
@Zodiac
"What is this I don't even.
Forgive me, I just learned that meme two days ago"
Heh, I like to go against 'convention':
Pisses off the subhumans at 4chan no end!
3/12/2010 9:58:01 AM
#1131529
Marc
@Pedantic Twit
Also, I'm registering my pedantic solidarity with campbunny (#1130072). The use of fundy/fundie on this site is getting so broad as to lose any real meaning. If you want to have a section that focuses on nutjobs in general, go right ahead, but fundy has a specific meaning in common speech, and it's disingenuous to use this expanded "everyone who says something stupid or hateful" meaning. Srsly.
Except this site has used the broader definition since it's inception back in 2000. It doesn't have to be religious to be fundie. An unquestioning stance on stupid beliefs, or a hateful attitude towards people who disagree with you is sufficient.
3/12/2010 1:51:11 PM
#1131981
thejebusfire
Voting itself isn't really a right as much as a privilege that should be reserved for intelligent men.
Yes, because doing reasearch on politicians and checking a name on a box is so fucking hard....
Also, it's a good thing you don't vote, because you're not one of those intelligent men.
3/13/2010 11:10:48 PM
#1132007
fschmidt
@Marc
you wrote:
"Except this site has used the broader definition since it's inception back in 2000. It doesn't have to be religious to be fundie. An unquestioning stance on stupid beliefs, or a hateful attitude towards people who disagree with you is sufficient."
Gee, sounds like you are perfectly describing the members of this site.
3/14/2010 1:00:29 AM
#1132264
Mick
Voting SHOULD be reserved for intelligent people (of either gender), I can actually sorta agree with that. Well... maybe not... but damn, it's kind of tempting!
Just fschmidt won't actually have any voting rights under that system, so I'm not sure why he suggests it.
3/14/2010 5:17:13 PM
#1133330
NoriMori
@fschmidt:
"Gee, sounds like you are perfectly describing the members of this site."
If you're the real fschmidt: What? If you're referring to the people — such as yourself — whose quotes are posted here, then I wholeheartedly agree; but if you're referring to the people who COMMENT on the quotes, then seriously...what?
If you're not the real fschmidt: Nice. *thumbs up*
3/16/2010 6:39:49 AM
#1133675
God
> I do not think people should have the right to harm each other.
Yes.
> My libertarian solution to enforcing modesty of dress in women would be to only make rape illegal if it is unprovoked based on local community standards.
... thus giving people the right to harm each other.
> Voting itself isn't really a right as much as a privilege that should be reserved for intelligent
Yes.
3/17/2010 7:24:08 AM
#1140409
And raping women is not harming them?, in which alternative universe?
3/30/2010 2:03:38 AM
#1141080
Andre
Well, thank God you've stopped counting yourself as an intelligent man... there's hope yet.
3/30/2010 7:43:21 PM
#1154907
Evil Left-Wing Feminist
Voting itself isn't really a right as much as a privilege that should be reserved for intelligent men.
Well then I guess you won't be voting.
The rest is really just too disgusting for me to begin with.
5/4/2010 12:17:22 PM
#1175136
lisamariefan
So...you shouldn't be one of the people voting, then?
7/2/2010 4:55:45 PM
1 2 3 4