How do I convince my "anarchist" friend he's an idiot? - General

ask him to have gay hot anal with you then swallow his sperme

Why do you feel the need to prove him wrong? Just leave him to it.

[QUOTE=Master117;19406446]Apparently in this new society, you pay a service fee for your police protection, along with other emergency services.[/QUOTE] Well tell him thats the most retarded thing I have ever seen in my short life. Tell him "What about poor people?"

[QUOTE=Master117;19406446]Apparently in this new society, you pay a service fee for your police protection, along with other emergency services.[/QUOTE] tell him that is blatantly retarded I know you're looking for logical arguments, but if your friend needs a logical argument to see why that is a dumb as hell idea: he is beyond saving

[QUOTE=Kyle902;19406495]Well tell him thats the most retarded thing I have ever seen in my short life. Tell him "What about poor people?"[/QUOTE] they die, social darwinism :downs: he's really retarded already if he doesn't understand that anarchy is just a dream-state that would only work if humans were perfect, like communism or laizze faire capitalism.

Boot him off a cliff.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;19406495]Well tell him thats the most retarded thing I have ever seen in my short life. Tell him "What about poor people?"[/QUOTE] I reckon he'll say something like, "Well that's too bad for them they deserve it for being poor"

Your friend is a media-whore. Plain ,and simple. In most cases what I do too counter-act these arguments is with an anarchist argument of it's own. Let us say this. Company A realizes Company C refuses to go with any form of agreements with Company A. On the other hand, Company B can play a fall guy ,and Company C will make small time agreements with Company B. These small time agreements are tracked back to parent company (Company A) who then gets Company B to get Company C make an agreement which makes it so they both can make the antidote but Company C is to take the fall if any Health Risks are found ,and it becomes a serious risk to the agreement. For a short period Company B plays easy ,and act on the agreement ,but over a year period Company A opens up a sleeper cell agent who causes systems to malfunction which begin to cause a spill of Chemical A into the antidote. Chemical A is a by-stander ingredient which is used to make a neutralizing ingredient in the first stages of making the antidote but isn't used for a full antidote do to it causing mutations and death. The next few days see no effects of what was going on but then a bribed health inspector comes in for a standard inspection only to realize the problem. As this happens, Company B withdraws 75% of funding of which is used to make the antidote. Once done, the health inspector calls in the Country A's Bureau of Drugs ,and Crime ,and a full-scale re-call was to be made only to realize that the 25% of funding remaining is not enough to cover law suits on death and mutation. With this Company C unable to call anything do the following of the agreement is forced to go bankrupt ,and must do a merge with Company B. Boom. Done.

Leave it a few years, you're not going to convince him of anything until he's mature enough to listen to reason. Before then, just refuse to discuss politics with him. Example "You know, the fascist regie-" "Sorry, I don't discuss politics with my friends, it leads to stupid arguments."

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;19406585]Let us say this. blah blah Boom. Done.[/QUOTE] The dude can say whatever he wants, will probably come back with Company C was too smart for that. It's like a little kid playing with toy guns, NO I HAVE INVINCIBILITY SHIELD YOU CAN'T HURT ME.

How old is he?

plus there's no government so how the fuck would there be a health inspector and justice system broke my automerge.

If that's the case.... Brainwash him with propaganda to go to war and stuff.

[QUOTE=Luke510;19406469]a very weak government.[/QUOTE] But a government nonetheless, proving that Anarchism is not permanent. What's ironic is that the majority of people in Somalia [B]want[/B] a stable government, yet ignorant westerners use them as an example of Anarchists.

Kill his mom. See if he goes to the cops

Tell him that anarchy won't be possible because people want to be higher than other people. The simple way of saying that is "greed". If he denies, ask him why the fuck is there a government now? Rich people? Brutal maniacs that call themselves as warlords in Africa? If he denies these, just tell him that he's lightheaded idiot who has no understanding of people or the world.

[QUOTE=Luke510;19406533]they die, social darwinism :downs: he's really retarded already if he doesn't understand that anarchy is just a dream-state that would only work if humans were perfect, like communism or laizze faire capitalism.[/QUOTE] Laissez-faire. [QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;19406752]He's not an anarchist, he's a libertarian[/QUOTE] And a pretty fail Libertarian at that.

He's not an anarchist, he's a libertarian

[QUOTE=Luke510;19406687]plus there's no government so how the fuck would there be a health inspector and justice system broke my automerge.[/QUOTE] If a government ceased too exist then most likely their wouldn't be full-time companies in the first place... They're called peddlers/merchants.

[QUOTE=Strider_07;19406751]Lasseiz-faire.[/QUOTE] gah stop correcting me I stayed up all night [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;19406764]If a government ceased too exist then most likely their wouldn't be full-time companies in the first place... They're called peddlers/merchants.[/QUOTE] x1 informative.

Wouldn't the moment that there was any sort of control, it would no longer be an anarchy? Even if that control came from company 'whateverthefuck'. He sounds like a paranoid idiot that speaks without thinking and has a skull thick enough to stop bullets.

[QUOTE=Strider_07;19406751]Lasseiz-faire. [/QUOTE] Laissez-faire :eng101: Laisser ("to let") --> vous imperative conjugation ("you let") --> -r +z

[QUOTE=Splurgy;19406987]Laissez-faire :eng101: Laisser ("to let") --> vous imperative conjugation ("you let") --> -r +z[/QUOTE] I rate you informative for being fucking epic :3

[QUOTE=Splurgy;19406987]Laissez-faire :eng101: Laisser ("to let") --> vous imperative conjugation ("you let") --> -r +z[/QUOTE] I love you.

[QUOTE=Splurgy;19406987]Laissez-faire :eng101: Laisser ("to let") --> vous imperative conjugation ("you let") --> -r +z[/QUOTE] that was rapetastic.

Once you get him out of anarchism, show him the true light of communism! No, but seriously, anarchy is stupid and would never work, and there are far better ideologies out there.

Do a lincoln douglas debate. Much more civilized than arguing Remember there is NO interrupting at all, and you're supposed to use the time that your opponent speak to write down what they're saying 1. The affirmative (In this case your friend, who is FOR anarchy/libertarianism) Gives his/her case. This is called the opening statement. The opening statement is used to explain why your case is right, NOT why your enemies case is wrong 2. The negative (In this case YOU, who is against anarchy/libertarianism) Asks the Affirmative some questions about their opponents case. This is called cross examination. you use this for two purposes: a. To ask important information that you may have missed while they were giving their case so you can write it down b. Ask rhetorical questions insulting them 3. The negative Gives HIS side of the case (don't use the opponents case against him yet) Again, opening statement 4. The affirmative asks questions about the negatives case. Again, cross examination 5. The affirmative now uses this time to explain why their opponents case it WRONG, or why their opponents case supports his/her case. This is called the rebuttle. YOU DO NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW IDEAS INTO THE REBUTTLE. PERIOD. 6. The negative Uses this time to explain why the affirmative's case is wrong, or why it supports his/her case. Once again, a rebuttle. 7. The affirmative gets one last rebuttle. Before your turn, you can use some prep time to collect your thoughts. most judges will give you around 3-6 minutes TOTAL. That means if you use 2 minutes before one turn, you only have 4 minutes before the next. Always use all of your time. If you're about to give your final rebuttle and you still have time left over, don't just end it, look over your notes again and collect your thoughts so you dont end up reading straight from the paper Make good eye contact with the judge, not your opponent AT ALL TIME INCLUDING CROSS EXAMINATION, and speak clearly. Also, use lots of evidence, but make sure you have interpretation of that evidence, so you don't look like an idiot whose just running off of statistics. Remember, you are NOT trying to convince your opponent, you are trying to convince the JUDGE. There's a bit more structure to it, but for now, as you're not doing any real Debating, just for funsies, you can leave it like this Good luck and godspeed

It's not like we're ever going to have an anarchist government. Just ignore it, and spend time with your friend doing other things.

Tell him unless he blows up a United Nations building he isn't an anarchist.

i was not aware that anarchists had friends to begin with