Things that make you doubt people's credibility

[anvi]

And yes, my income is my income, not yours. I essentially trade my time and skilled effort in exhange for goods/services/savings for me and my family, not you. We are not all in this together.

Right.  Because your income doesn't depend on the success of the company you work for, which doesn't depend on consumption, which doesn't depend on the activity of other salary-earners who do the consuming, which doesn't depend on economic prosperity, which doesn't depend on infrastructure made available to the society, which doesn't depend on tax payments, which doesn't depend on government that is defended by other of your fellow-citizens, which doesn't depend on your fellow-citizens consenting to enter into a socio-political arrangement with you that will give you the opportunity to flourish, which doesn't depend on basic commitments that groups of people living in society make to one another's well-being.  And, on top of all that, your income doesn't depend on your qualifications for the work you do, which doesn't depend on the education you received, which doesn't depend on serviced facilities and teachers, which doesn't depend on the contributions of your fellow-citizens.  And, finally, your ability to show up for work every day to earn your income doesn't depend on your being able to eat, which doesn't depend on reliable food inspection, which doesn't depend on people who are paid to do the work of ensuring that what you eat won't kill you....

Yeah, you're exactly right Politico, we are all in this by ourselves.  In fact, I'm going to call my congressman right now and demand that, whatever tax money I paid last year that happened to benefit you, very specifically, or your family in any way, be returned to me promptly.  It is, after all, my income.

[Politico]

And yes, my income is my income, not yours. I essentially trade my time and skilled effort in exhange for goods/services/savings for me and my family, not you. We are not all in this together.

Right.  Because your income doesn't depend on the success of the company you work for,

If the value of my total product to the company I work for exceeds or meets my salary,  I have earned my income and done my part to contribute to the success of the company.

which doesn't depend on consumption,

The purpose of production is consumption, so if what I am producing is not consumed by the market I need to be rational and find something else to produce. Turning to a government bailout (i.e., Chrysler how many times???) is ultimately not in my self-interest, let alone the self-interest of the economy as a whole.

which doesn't depend on the activity of other salary-earners who do the consuming,

People are largely free to choose what to consume and what to produce. There is no government entity directing, let alone controlling, their behavior.

which doesn't depend on infrastructure made available to the society, which doesn't depend on tax payments,

Yes, highways are an example of a public good that I pay for through taxes. Did I ever say that I am in favor of paying absolutely no taxes, or that nothing good can come from government? Of course not.

which doesn't depend on government that is defended by other of your fellow-citizens,

Yes, national defense is another example of a public good that I pay for through taxes. I essentially trade my time and skilled effort in exchange for goods/services/savings for me and my family. One of those services I pay for is our military.

which doesn't depend on your fellow-citizens consenting to enter into a socio-political arrangement with you that will give you the opportunity to flourish,

Sorry, but there is no "socio-political arrangement" that individuals enter into. There is essentially an arrangement where I, and everybody else, uses and holds money because everyone else uses and holds money. If said money stops being considered sound, everybody will stop using it and use something else for money whatever it may be. The only alternative to facilitate trade is barter, which requires a double coincidence of wants and is therefore much less efficient.

which doesn't depend on basic commitments that groups of people living in society make to one another's well-being.

People are free to choose to live in communes if they do not like our market-based economy. There is no "group" of people that decides to live in "society" and make "basic commitments" to one another's well-being. There is no "society." There are only individuals pursuing their own separate self-interests based upon their own individual characteristics.

And, on top of all that, your income doesn't depend on your qualifications for the work you do, which doesn't depend on the education you received, which doesn't depend on serviced facilities and teachers,

Yes, education is a prime example of a signaling device I have paid for, and will pay for, for my children. Teachers do not work for free. As I put it, I essentially trade my time and skilled effort in exchange for goods/services/savings for me and my family. One of those services I pay for is education. Why? The market looks favorably upon it.

And, finally, your ability to show up for work every day to earn your income doesn't depend on your being able to eat, which doesn't depend on reliable food inspection, which doesn't depend on people who are paid to do the work of ensuring that what you eat won't kill you....

Yes, because mankind was unable to survive before government bureaucrats started inspecting food a few decades ago. Furthermore, you highly overestimate the ability of said bureaucrats to prevent bad food from coming to the market. The truth, and I know it is inconvenient for your ideology, is that food inspectors almost exclusively react to outbreaks of E. Coli, etc. Have you not followed the news about the hundreds of deaths reported in the past couple of years due to outbreaks? By the way, no government bureaucrat ordered those news organizations to report said news (with the exception of PBS, which is considerably funded by public donations anyway). The news is market-driven demand because consumers demand information about such things as bad food, bad products, etc.

I can only imagine what a disastrous economy we would have with people like you in "charge" of your glorious command and control dream. You would be like the type of person who spends every waking minute of their time cleaning their house in order to attempt to rid it of dust. You would get nothing else done. It is impossible to get rid of every spec of dust even if it was all you did. Likewise, some degree of bad things such as bad food, pollution, etc. are a fact of life given our current state of technology.

Yeah, you're exactly right Politico, we are all in this by ourselves.  In fact, I'm going to call my congressman right now and demand that, whatever tax money I paid last year that happened to benefit you, very specifically, or your family in any way, be returned to me promptly.  It is, after all, my income.

The only government services that have benefited me also benefited you (i.e., basic infrastructure, courts/law enforcement, and national defense). You ought to write to your Congressman about the parasites who take from us (e.g., not people who are down on their luck, but the chronically poor who have no desire whatsoever to make anything of themselves; not our men and women in the military, but overpaid government bureaucrats who do work that could be automated by machines in this day and age, etc.).

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Anyone who agrees with the mainstream GOPer on more than 10% of positions.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Anyone who agrees with the mainstream GOPer on more than 10% of positions.

Depends. What about positions like "people should be allowed to vote" or "we shouldn't execute nuns"?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Why shouldn't we?

Also: people who are obsessed with sports.

[Tik]

People who base their voting on narrow social issues.

People who have what I consider really poor taste in their entertainment consumption. And also, hypocritically, snobs about the same things.

People who can contribute and nonchalantly refuse to out of laziness and selfishness.

People who really believe in astrology.

People who scoff at modern medicine and believe that because something came from mother nature that it's safer or more effective.

Oh, and Cambodians. Stupid Cambodians.

[Gustaf]

Hm, lots of stuff.

People who repeat talking points as if they believe them.

People who lecture about stuff based on this fantastic book they just read (regardless of subject).

People who talk with big eyes about foreign cultures or countries.

People who don't get economics, yet still talk about it as if anyone should listen.

People who say they can't stand movies that are black and white or slow or can't read books that "make them sad"

Hm, I'm quite the misanthrope. Which reminds me:

People who are cynical.

[You kip if you want to...]

When someone reads the Daily Mail or the Daily Express, says that the country's gone "down the pan/nick/other appropriate regional slang" and starts sentences with "i'm not racist or anything, but...".

When someone thinks David Cameron "seems like a nice enough guy".

British people who are like "What has Obama actually even done?" - you people know nothing and you probably think Obama liberal and Clegg Liberal are the same things, Cleggmania was your fault and I have no sympathy for you now that you hate him.

Labour supporters who hate Tony Blair (3 elections, ffs).

^ On politics. Rant over. Oh, and people who think Coke is better than Pepsi - it's not.

[Progressive Realist]

People who are fans of "techno" music.

[Ebowed]

I run into this type of person all the time: married, homophobic, and points out one of every four women walking past as someone they wish to have sex with.  Also, anyone who drinks alcohol regularly and criticizes others for using drugs (the inverse of this is less common, but equally as irritating).

I also hate being around people who tell racist jokes, but that has less to do with their credibility as it does with them being a horrible person.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

No offence to ebowed, but I'm adding people who think that " anyone who drinks alcohol regularly and criticizes others for using drugs" makes their credibility doubtful, makes me doubt their credibility.

[Senator Sbane]

No offence to ebowed, but I'm adding people who think that " anyone who drinks alcohol regularly and criticizes others for using drugs" makes their credibility doubtful, makes me doubt their credibility.

Seriously? You do realize Alcohol is a more dangerous and debilitating drug than Marijuana? Or does reality not matter to you?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Nope! If it's legal, it's legal.

[Senator Sbane]

Nope! If it's legal, it's legal.

Oh, so it's the legality that is an issue for you? So if Marijuana was legal you wouldn't have a problem with people using it?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Nope! If it's legal, it's legal.

Oh, so it's the legality that is an issue for you? So if Marijuana was legal you wouldn't have a problem with people using it?

Of course not. I'd probably use it myself in that case.

[Senator Sbane]

Nope! If it's legal, it's legal.

Oh, so it's the legality that is an issue for you? So if Marijuana was legal you wouldn't have a problem with people using it?

Of course not. I'd probably use it myself in that case.

But anyone using it when it is illegal is a horrible person? Do you think the law should be changed in that case?

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

Alas we're not going to get any type of answer or justification for this inane position: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148454.0

[Sibboleth]

People who say they can't standing movies that are black and white or slow or can't read books that "make them sad"

That's a good one, yeah.

[The Mikado]

People who say they can't standing movies that are black and white or slow or can't read books that "make them sad"

Oh God yes.  Add "I hate subtitles."  Though I usually even watch movies in English with the closed captioning on because I'm a visual person and it's easier for me to follow if I'm reading the dialogue than listening to it.

[Sibboleth]

I'm a visual person

Suddenly that thing for Gilbert and Sullivan makes more sense...

[Senator Sbane]

Alas we're not going to get any type of answer or justification for this inane position: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148454.0

Oh well.

[Jack Vance RIP]

People who say they can't standing movies that are black and white or slow or can't read books that "make them sad"

That's a good one, yeah.

God yes. Also add "I hated that book/film/etc because I couldn't relate to any one of the characters" or its sister complaint "None of the characters were sympathetic".

[Oakvale]

To save time when reading terrible posts on internet forums I look for phrases like "sheeple", and the gold standard for proving a wall of text isn't worth reading - "wake up people!"

Either of those being used in anything other than a wholly ironic way is a surefire sign that you shouldn't take whatever you're about to subject yourself to seriously.

[Gustaf]

People who say they can't standing movies that are black and white or slow or can't read books that "make them sad"

Oh God yes.  Add "I hate subtitles."  Though I usually even watch movies in English with the closed captioning on because I'm a visual person and it's easier for me to follow if I'm reading the dialogue than listening to it.

Right. Being a Swede I don't encounter that though.

And I agree on liking subtitles in general. It really helps to follow the dialogue in a lot of cases.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

I'm kind of used to subtitles due to how many video games have them by default.