One more thing: What is it with him and that god damn “Anarchist FAQ”?!! I mean does this guy have any other sources besides that FAQ and Naom Chomsky?
That’s a lazy argument.
thats not an argument,… its a bet
who’ll take odds?
His nose doesn’t bother me, its mainly his eybrow and lip movements and his widely spaced lazy eyes I guess?
I’d bet against this one, mr1001’s nose still has its foreskin.
Alright, I’ll bet 1001 internets. Could someone PM Nights and ask him for a DNA sample?
It’s also irresponsible ammo for mr.1001nights to blast away at via ad hominem attacks, which could’ve been avoided in favor of the argumentive high ground.
Bad form, I say.
More dribble from our friend:
PS - mr1001 - no offense intended in prior posts, they were made in jest
First off, I was only kidding around with people on the forum. I doubt Nights will ever read my offhand comments intended merely to lighten the tone of discussion. The fact is many people have discredited this man countless times and there is no point to take him seriously anymore.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that due to the fact that he is reading from a comic in a weird voice, that he is clearly running out of things to say and is beginning to lose it.
bakhurin at least made a response to the marginalists. this guy is stuck in the 19th century.
So today after lunch I posted a few comments on two of his videos (first time I ever bothered in a pseudo-debate on youtube). Had some lively discussions with a few of his fans in the comments box full of ad hominums, ad nauseums, and circles (someone at mises.org/community mentioned that youtubers are generally very immature and ignorant, seems he/she was right). Sadly no responses were posted by HIM.
All of my comments were civilized, appropriate, and on topic. My last published comment, however, was overflowing with sarcasm in a anti-devils advocate way, which might have been the one that riled HIM?
This afternoon, I noticed that most of my comments were given soooo many ‘thumbs down’ that they were no longer viewable, just blanked out. (sortof made me proud … lol)
This evening I discovered that my subscription to his channel was terminated by HIM without notice or explanation. I can not resubscribe or post any viewable comments on his vids now. Curse and a blessing I suppose?
So it seems this is the way he handles stuff he can’t handle? Watta wuss.
edit - (LS is right, my emotions took over my reasoning, thread closed for me)
[:#]
removed to complete cleanup [;)]
You guys really need to ignore this guy. He’s a punk. Find the self-discipline to ignore him and focus on pushing back on the state. Some marxist wannabe on YouTube is not worth your time.
interesting. what makes someone a real marxist? i always thought he was a marxist
He’s a marxist and a wannabe. Not a marxist wannabe. But who cares? Barack Obama is cutting the defense budget according to Lindsey Graham. That means that America will be weak, and all of her enemies will be on her doortstep.
Barack Obama. Think about it.
He actually tried PMing me one of his stupid polling videos about capitalism once. I told him to get lost and stop consuming my time. Does he seriously think people have time to spend on the rubbish he churns out on a daily basis?
This video of his is just sad…In it he claims that he refutes marginalism and modern economics. I could only watch two minutes of his smugness before turning the video off.
I don’t understand why you keep giving him your attention.
At first I respectfully disagreed with you, LS, seeing that he was spreading so much logical fallacies. With that said, I am rapidly moving to your position. It seems that many of his viewers were on his side long before he was making videos and had no intentions of hearing opposing views.
You’ll see in my preceding post that I am no longer going to pay this man attention, but this video was on a whole new level of smugness, and I thought I’d reinforce the fact that Nights is full of himself.
I’ve heard that anti-marginalist argument elsewhere. It goes something like: “marginal utility sought to explain prices, however prices were necessary in order to explain marginal utility. This is circular reasoning.”
Anyone know how to address this point?
marginal utility does not seek to explain things, and the people that first explored it and understood it didnt necessarilly intend it as an explanation of prices.
The truth is praxeological inquiry into action discovers marginal utility and subjectively valued costs and imagined profits ; and this does go onto explain the mergence of ‘market prices’. minor point; not all prices are market prices so the critiquing sentance is unhelpfully vague.