Save The Mosquitos I know text doesn't convey tone very well, but I was trying to be sarcastic, and I hoped that stringing a line of nonsense would make that clear.
Well to be fair, every time Libertarians open their mouths, they just make it so easy to make fun of them. "The free market! Hurrr Durr! Mah Freedhums!"
luvbotany..... Noooooooooo, PLEASE! You must have nerves of steel or be masochistic.... 2 minutes is too long... I don't know how Sam stands it. I honestly think I would rather listen to the stuff Trump has said that listen to a Libertarian.
How many fewer would have died if Bernie Sanders had been president? Choosing to vote for neither of 2 terrible options is still a conscientious choice someone can make. Obviously the caller here can't make that point, but I think Sam's thinking is wrong as well.
@@randomlobster5566 Bernie was not a candidate in the general election. There was literally zero chance that someone other than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would have been elected at that point. Vote with your heart in the primary and your head in the general election.
@@wvu05 That would be fine logic if the primary wasn't undemocratically rigged by literal oligarchs (super delegates). But the long game is to force the democratic party to adapt or to dissolve. If their candidate is someone I cannot support, and few are as unsupportable as Clinton, then I'm not going to vote for them just because their opponent is a clown. Ask yourself why we prop up this flawed voting system and what you can do to change it so that your voice is actually heard.
Ricky Mort Not really. It just shows he knows he doesnt have the answers. It shows that he's not confident enough in his stance to go off the script he had planned in his head bc he knows he can't think on his feet and most likely won't be ready to counter anything without having time to Google shit.
He's not psychic, he's barely conscious! LOL! What's he even trying to say? Can't he at least acknowledge that there's no real chance of anybody outside those two being President?
It is pretty telling that this guy thinks Hillary's support of the Iraq was was disqualifying but Trump's support for the Iraq war wasn't even worth thinking about. It is always a double standard with these people rationalizing their Trump vote. There wasn't a single criticism leveled at Hillary during that election that didn't apply to Trump even better. From her being a war-hawk to being corrupt, Trump was always worse in those areas, but the double standard allows for all kinds of rationalizations from people like this.
Limbaugh or Savage would have hung up and ranted for 5 minutes without telling anyone and would pretend that the caller was silent. He lets the caller dig his own hole.
There is a word in German (and Swedish) for feeling embarrassed on behalf of someone else: _Fremdschämen_ (external/extrinsic + shame); or in Swedish _sekundärskam_ (literally "secondary shame"). And this "second-hand embarrassment" was exactly what I felt during this call. Sam even had to explain to the caller what the caller's own point was/would be - unreal.
LOL...this tell you the quality of voter for Trump. One thing has been planted in his head about Clinton and he's got nothing else.... Probably couldn't have said a thing about Trump just the one thing about Clinton. Which, by the way, she didn't have the power to pull off by herself.
We all laugh at this guy, but we should forgive him. It is hard to rationalize a vote for Trump or the republican party. In doing so, one inevitable becomes a Pentecostal tongue speaker.
I suppose it's wrong to some extent, because there are people who use those terms to point out legitimate cases of flawed arguments. I see where you're coming from, though. People like this caller use the terms without having any clue what they mean, and that gives those terms a bad reputation. I feel the same way when people talk about their opinions being "common sense"... you know right away that those people are horribly ignorant about something.
Yeah, but I have to admit it's only mildly annoying when compared to someone going the extra mile and inappropriately rapid firing every single fallacy they know the Latin word for all at once in the hopes that maybe one or two might possibly apply and successfully fool their counterpart into believing they are in an intelligent discussion with a regular modern day Aristotle, instead of stuck in a hamster wheel of incoherency with a typical shit flinging libertarian who learned 2 fancy new words today and can't stop using both of them in every sentence. 😝
Not at all. Its most likely a new atheist or a libertarian, or both, so there is nothing wrong with taking it as a marker of a pseudointellectual moron.
@@Kromblite2 Indeed. I am convinced that most invocations of "common sense" are just done by stupid people when they feel cornered. "There is no such thing as common sense. If it was really common, wouldn't everyone have it?"
I think he thinks that what an ad hominem strawman means... You could hear the "oh shit" wheels in the back of his head going off "wait... what if I say thats what ad hominem strawman is and I'm not 100% sure that I'm right... panic!!.. stammer.. you-you-you are making baseless claims. The ironic part is, now while I don't care to go pull the whole episode and listen for 90 minutes this clip came from, I'm willing to bet 20 dollars though that when he called in and made his opening volley he was actually strawmanning what Sam had said during those 90 minutes he was on hold.
Huh, been binge watching Sender's Libertarian debate videos, and I literally came here from that other video. I'm not surprised it's the same guy at all.
This guy called in about 1 year before this, and he was drunk, it was funny af. Raymond Gleeson I believe was his name, its the guy who forgot why he called in
You can tell he's ur typical anonymous alt-right internet troll who now realised that he _isn't_ anonymous calling in to a radio so now he has to take responsibility for his words... hence you wont get a str8 answer from him.
airthrow He used it wrong but it's indicative of how their minds naturally operate. It's actually impossible to NOT ad hominem on the internet because you don't know who people really are behind their anonymous posting. Someone when they are anonymous because they can easily say "Fallacy!! I'm not x guy, you're ad homineming me!" eg. Aurini's white nationalist 'on paper' remarks. However, when he's on the phone, identity exposed, he's afraid to express himself cuz he can't dodge cuz hes not anonymous.
Ray sounded _very_ displeased, we all should know, that he had to wait and endure so much! He was, we should all know, making such a _great sacrifice_ :p
This same argument applies to some of the Bernie or bust people. They would rather maintain their own sense of self superiority and criticize people who would vote for Biden(even if those people voted for Bernie in the primary) than WOMAN or MAN up and pull the only lever we have to remove Trump.
Watching Sam make the end video we need to get to 100K subs after them reaching 1.18M subs is rather nostalgic. Also it never stops being bitter sweet listening to Micheal's laugh... Dude would have been a fantastic dad. (context for future people for the dad part: it's dad day today)
It's amazing how cognitive dissonance works. People not trained to to engage in critical thinking really just can't handle being wrong, and they will commit logical atrocities in defense of their preconceived notions.
this video makes me literally cry laughing. something about 6:21 when sam waits to see if he's going to answer, the guy starts rambling about peanut butter, and then sam just quietly presses play on the music SENDS me
This Libertarian caller in 3rd grade: Teacher: "Which sum is bigger - seven plus ten, or twenty minus five?" Libertarian: "You're trying to corner me into an answer you wanna hear. Stop with these ad hominem, straw man questions!"
I also hate when the caller thinks that they are being unfairly treated or censored, etc. But in this case, if you won't answer a simple "yes" or "no" to "Will either Clinton or Trump be the president next year unless one of them dies?", then you probably won't answer any other question that would bring light to a discussion worth having. I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary either. They have both disqualified themselves massively from earning my vote. But I'm fully aware that my not voting for them will not prevent one from becoming president, and that I do have a luxury of my vote not really mattering. If they were exactly tied in the tie-breaking swing state and I was somehow the deciding vote, I would have to make a real decision and I am privileged to be able to vote my conscience rather than pragmatically. But you can't have a political discussion if you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic material.
I commend Sam for his patience and humanity. No anger, no bad language. Despite the caller being semi coherent. I think compassion and intelligence is an incredibly powerful & rare combination of attributes.
God this is every fucking conversation with a 19yo white conservative/libertarian male. All they do is claim you’re using a straw man or ad hominem or silencing them somehow just by asking them questions. The others day a guy said I was silencing him because I....disagreed with him.
I’m 100% certain this caller doesn’t care about the Muslim lives he pretends to be so concerned about. (That’s known as sophistry or concern trolling, not ad hominem, in case he ever happens to read this comment 😉) This discussion is a good example of why I don’t put much stock in the concept of debate. I’ve never ever seen a mind changed and that’s understandable; our core beliefs are who we are. To change one’s mind is to have lost at a game which you loose at by changing your mind. Just hold firm and you can’t lose! Look at Stephen Crowder; he has a segment called “Change My Mind” But he brags about how no one has ever changed his mind!. He’s set up a game he can’t lose at (like, literally he can’t: he may lose Patreon backers if he does). This caller was speaking in such bad faith. He wouldn’t concede that it came down to a choice of two serious candidates, but then again, it was a waste of time for Sam to try to get him to admit it. He couldn’t admit it because it would undermine his point (as disingenuous as it was) but The thing is, he didn’t need to admit it! We knew it’s true, so Sam should’ve just pressed forward. Instead, the guy didn’t end up so much as learning what ‘ad hominem’ means or even properly understanding that he didn’t know!
Ray was telling me in the chat that if I wanted to know about how libertarianism works, I should look at medieval Iceland. An Island which had a federation of groups totally 50k people.
