The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Screw Sansa. If she ends up on the throne or ends up living while Dany dies, I'm gonna be pissed. She'd be dead if it weren't for Daenerys.

If it wasn't for Daenerys, the White Walkers never would have gotten a zombie dragon, and they'd still be stuck north of the Wall, no?  I think Sansa would still be alive in that case.

At the very least Jon and all his allies would be dead. I just hate Sansa for being a world class bitch more than anything. Everyone treats her as if she has every right to be a b!tch because of Ramsey. No. If anything that was karma for the direwolf.

Remember kids, if you get put in an impossible lose-lose situation as a 13 year-old and inadvertently get a dog killed because you arguably made the wrong judgement call, then you deserve to be raped and beaten by a serial killer

Holy sh**t, those posts might be literally the worst ASOIAF/GOT take I've ever seen.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thread: 11 year old rape victim forced to carry to term thanks to Ohio law.

Or: innocent child allowed to live their life thanks to Ohio law.

Yeah this arguably warrants a re-naming of this thread in RI's honor.

I second Mizzouian's suggestion

Thirded, and I'll note all three of us are pro-life.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I showed the relevant US General thread to Antonio and he says "It's amazing how many people think having (what they believe to be) the Right View absolves them from the need to show basic empathy for human suffering, isn't it? It is very much a problem on both sides, but it really shines through in RI's post."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The election : 2016 easily

The year: 2006 pretty easily


The whole 2000s are probably the most Conservative Decade we have had since the 1920s

The 1980s too were so conservative with the Reagan Revolution, Theresa May in the United Kingdom and Brian Mulroney in Canada, notably.

wtf

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

From an outsider perspective, why does the Vatican care so much about immigration all of a sudden? How much leftist billionaire money are they begging for here?

This rapid liberalization of the church's message goes against most of what the Catholic church stands for.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is lower-quality writing than the Turner Diaries.

Dude you know it’s true though.

Republicans would reject a modern day Jesus.

I mean, I'd reject him too since OG Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

I vaguely remember that user saying he was Jewish, so it makes sense that he doesn't see Jesus as the Messiah. Not to mention many other religions and secular people think the same way as well, so it is hardly an "absurd & ignorant" view.

Yes and I would consider the views of all such people to be absurd and ignorant too. And also the views of many Christians too.

It's not "absurd" or "ignorant" to be anything other than a small-o orthodox Christian, even though small-o orthodox Christianity is true. Christianity is a revealed faith, not a self-evident fact.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Friendly reminder that, despite the conventional wisdom that's somehow or other materialized, the President's party has never won the Presidential election immediately following a series of impeachment proceedings.

The Republicans won in 1868.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No more conversations on race, and no more compromise. Peaceful and voluntary separation is probably the best course at this point. Let the nationalist blacks and their white allies live together, and let the normal blacks and normal whites live together.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Friendly reminder that, despite the conventional wisdom that's somehow or other materialized, the President's party has never won the Presidential election immediately following a series of impeachment proceedings.

The Republicans won in 1868.

What's so bad about that post? Sure, it's not entirely relevant to 2019 oh, but it is factually correct. After all, I believe we're only dealing with three separate series of impeachment proceedings in all of American history.

Andrew Johnson was not a Republican.

Yeah, the ignorant part is the (false) assumption that because Johnson was Lincoln's VP he was considered or considered himself a Republican, not the (true) assertion that the Republicans won the next election.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm a little nervous about putting this in this thread, because its underlying normative assumptions are ones that a probable strong plurality of the forum would endorse, but it's just so incorrect in its core descriptive claim.

The impulse to interfere politically in the bodily autonomy of an adult, and the impulse to interfere politically in the romantic and marital relations of adults, come from the same place. It's difficult to see someone having one without the other, at least how both issues are framed today.

20 years ago you could oppose same-sex unions and support abortion rights, but I don't even think that's possible anymore, let alone the other way around.

I can see specific individuals supporting LGBT rights - for low values of "LGBT rights" - and being pro-life - for low values of "pro-life."

"I think people should be free to live their own lives and marry who they want, but I'm against late-term abortion of a viable fetus when it doesn't threaten the life of the mother." If that's what you mean, then that's pretty mainstream.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also I thought Trump was racist so why would he be fornicating with non whites.

This might not be an absurd question, but it's certainly an ignorant one.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An animal's only value is in the utility it provides to humans.

That is an objectively correct statement.

I really hope this is either ironic or a purposeful addition to this thread.

I know you're still in college but hopefully you've taken a philosophy class or at least a critical thinking class and can discern why this statement is ridiculous.

Excuse me? Sorry, but vegetarian philosophy isn't philosophy. Please don't tell me that you are actually under the impression that there is some kind of philosophical consensus that animals have rights. Descartes is one example. There are others.

I was addressing the claim that animals having no value (saying nothing about rights) other than their use to humans was an objective claim, which it obviously is not.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about whether or not animals have rights (which is, of course, a separate question than their value) because it's... wait for it... a subjective claim.

And for the record nobody said anything about a philosophical consensus about animal rights. You're fighting a strawman.

"Value" is a human concept and it is subjective to each individual person. This is indisputable. It then stands to reason that "value" can only be applied to animals inasmuch as humans decide it does. If we've decided that we value Mongolian mountain sheep a certain amount, then that's how much value they have. So the value that any item (including an animal) possesses is contingent upon its utility to humans, whether that utility comes in the form of meat, hunting for sport, or cuddling with on the couch.

If the claim is that animals have no intrinsic value is an objective claim because value is not "objectively" defined, then, nice try, but... nah. Your argument is basically "that's just, like, my opinion, man."

By the same logic the claim "abortion is good" is an obJeCtIvE fAcT because "goodness" varies on an individual basis.

If your argument is that only humans can evaluate value and therefore only things that are valuable to humans can be valuable, then your argument is incredibly circular.

Bad analogy. This would be more akin to saying that "goodness" is a human concept and therefore abortion can only be considered to have the quality of "goodness" when viewed through a human lens. I think it's pretty apparent that in a world with no humans, the question of whether or not abortion would be "good" would be pretty moot-- not only because there would be no humans to have abortions, but also because there would be no humans to determine whether or not something has the quality of "goodness." Yes, goodness is subjective, but that's not the argument I'm making here. I'm saying that human value judgments like "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "valuable," and "non-valuable" literally cannot exist without a human judge to make them.

So, to be clear (yes or no answer would be fantastic) your argument about the objectivity of animals having no "value" except their value to humans depends critically on the fact that only humans are able to discern value?

No. "Discern" still implies that there is something innate and intrinsic in the object being judged, a quality which somehow only humans can perceive. That is not true.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

OP, a lot of Corbyn's reputation for radicalism stems from his views on foreign policy:

But some of the Labour leader’s views have gotten him into trouble in the past. Corbyn has referred to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends” (comments he has since disowned) and likened the actions of the Israeli government to that of the Nazis (comments that he also later condemned). He has called for the disbandment of NATO, dubbing the international alliance a “military Frankenstein,” and opposed foreign intervention in Venezuela, Syria, and Ukraine, leading critics to suggest he has lent support to oppressive regimes in Caracas, Damascus, and Moscow. More recently, Corbyn faced backlash from both sides of the House of Commons for his reluctance to blame Russia for its role in the nerve-agent attack in Salisbury last year.

All of these views sound perfectly reasonable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And if City of London/Westminister can go blue to stop Corbyn, you bet TX-07/TX-32/NJ-07/CA-48/GA-6 will go red to stop Sanders.

Genuinely asking: what's so absurd about my post here? TX-07 has been 60% Republican a lot more recently than even CLWM was 50% Con, though of course there's a different party system there.

There are cultural reasons why the comparison doesn't work that I don't really feel qualified to get into, but sticking purely to the numbers, the victorious candidate in Cities of London and Westminster won less than 40% of the vote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I realize this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

It actually is. While IA has a commission for relatively fair maps, a trifecta can ignore their requests and draw their own gerrymander. By taking an IA state chamber, we can secure the commission's ability to provide a fair map.

“Fair map” =Democratic gerrymander

Next up, elections being fair means that they were rigged by the Democrats.

Reminds me of the short-lived Bevin talking point that Beshear only won because Alison Lundergan Grimes failed to "clean up" (read: purge) the voter rolls.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Correct, it is important to preserve your religion. Christians would be wise to implement similarly strong views against leaving Christianity. (I don't mean not going to church, I mean converting to another faith)

Not my fault you're an Islamophobe.

The vast majority of Muslims dont use a medieval interperation of their religion so they wouldnt be affected by what Im proposing, only the ones who do would.


In fact I would support banning people in general from high-risk nations who have a medieval interperation of their religion(Any religion) from immigrating here period.

"Medieval" is a convenient term of abuse to use for discussions of this but I'm honor-bound to point out that in many parts of the world Islam is significantly more receptive to religious violence today than it was in the Middle Ages.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3) When the EU marked August 23d as European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, there were many angry reactions by far-left parties against it because they considered it unfair to put Stalin in the same sentence with Hitler.

Disagreeing with "red equals brown" historiography is not the same thing as liking Stalin. wtf.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes and you just cited the Communist Party of Greece in an argument about Bernie Sanders.

I'm responsible for what I say, not what other people think I say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1917: 10/10
Ford v Ferrari: 9/10
The Irishman: 3/10
Jojo Rabbit: 10/10
Joker: 7/10
Little Women: 4/10
Marriage Story: 10/10
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: 6/10
Parasite: 6/10

Several of these are terrible takes (I'd rather die than live in a world in which it was consensus that Joker was a better movie than Little Women), but bad subjective opinions about movies aren't absurd or ignorant.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And it is appalling to see that SOME democrats are actually wishing for the economy to crash just to stymie Trump's reelection. Disgusting.

I don’t care what it takes, Trump has got to go. I want another 2008 recession. My job is recession-proof, it’s not going to affect me. I also want another subprime mortgage crisis to bring down home prices because I want to buy a place as soon as the lease is up. I’m a proud functionalist.

Scott just won this thread by posting that one. That post is a real doozy!

Wolverine22 is an odd duck, isn't he? He consistently has some of the most horrifying takes of any red avatar on this site, then he walks them back and profusely apologizes, then weeks or even days later he comes out with something even worse.