The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No idea about OK. But Monongalia, Boone, Kanawha, and McDowell are winnable for democrats under the right circumstances.

I don't think its sarcasm(commies still think WV is left wing at heart) also he mentions Monongolia which could actually flip but lol at Boone and Mcdowell flipping D in 2020.

Also not sure why McDowell was listed over Fayette. Ojeda actually won the latter and he lost the former.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This means in 2011 he would have supported the ultimate sports villans that year the Miami Heat, over the ultimate cinderella story the Dallas Mavericks lol.

How is that wrong lol.


Did you forget how hated the Miami Heat were that year and how they openly acted like Villians too.
and that Mavs team is also the definition of a cinderella team, you had a team that was counted out all playoff long, with a bunch of veterans with reputations of shrinking in big moments who won it all

[Landslide Lyndon]

Biden has a track record of being a racist and this is just part of it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The persistence of the proven-wrong narrative in this thread really is a sight to behold

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=350476.0

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's a friggin' sheep, you guys. Chill.

But something something Cheeto Hitler bad!

What part of "endangered species" don't you two geniuses understand?

Yes, let us devote our energy and outrage to the all-important issue of preserving the existence of the Central Asian mountain sheep, on which all else depends.

You are such a closed-minded fool if that is the way you think about the preservation of animals species on our planet.
They have a right to exist also. We have destroyed many habitats making it difficult for them to survive and live; yet alone just shooting them outright, like Orange Moron Jr.
There is no room for discussion with you on this entire topic (thread). Just exit and stay out.

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

[John Dule]

It's a friggin' sheep, you guys. Chill.

But something something Cheeto Hitler bad!

What part of "endangered species" don't you two geniuses understand?

Yes, let us devote our energy and outrage to the all-important issue of preserving the existence of the Central Asian mountain sheep, on which all else depends.

You are such a closed-minded fool if that is the way you think about the preservation of animals species on our planet.
They have a right to exist also. We have destroyed many habitats making it difficult for them to survive and live; yet alone just shooting them outright, like Orange Moron Jr.
There is no room for discussion with you on this entire topic (thread). Just exit and stay out.

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

That is an objectively correct statement.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

It's a friggin' sheep, you guys. Chill.

But something something Cheeto Hitler bad!

What part of "endangered species" don't you two geniuses understand?

Yes, let us devote our energy and outrage to the all-important issue of preserving the existence of the Central Asian mountain sheep, on which all else depends.

You are such a closed-minded fool if that is the way you think about the preservation of animals species on our planet.
They have a right to exist also. We have destroyed many habitats making it difficult for them to survive and live; yet alone just shooting them outright, like Orange Moron Jr.
There is no room for discussion with you on this entire topic (thread). Just exit and stay out.

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.

[John Dule]

It's a friggin' sheep, you guys. Chill.

But something something Cheeto Hitler bad!

What part of "endangered species" don't you two geniuses understand?

Yes, let us devote our energy and outrage to the all-important issue of preserving the existence of the Central Asian mountain sheep, on which all else depends.

You are such a closed-minded fool if that is the way you think about the preservation of animals species on our planet.
They have a right to exist also. We have destroyed many habitats making it difficult for them to survive and live; yet alone just shooting them outright, like Orange Moron Jr.
There is no room for discussion with you on this entire topic (thread). Just exit and stay out.

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.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

e: there also isn't even a consensus in the vegetarian community about animal rights... I'm a vegetarian but not because I think eating meat is inherently immoral.

[John Dule]

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.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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?

[John Dule]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Since Ed Milliband. Not his fault that he doesn’t have backers with complete control of every and all wealthy donors who AstroTurfed #leavers, the press who made up smears against him, politicians who shifted the Overton window to insanity by frying people’s brains with austerity, and allegiance from a class most willing to rig the electoral process by gerrymandering in a so-called democracy. On top of that, there were ineffectual holdovers places by the elite to provide some opposition in inter-party feuds, who previously robbed the party of a majority by defecting for their lapdogs over the media’s obvious smears.

His only flaw was that, like most of Labour politicians, he has no will to play dirty like his opposition.

And I’m just talking about domestic forces here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

[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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

Oh yeah, just checked results and I forgot the Lib Dems and Labour both decided to be stupid, whoops. My apologies, I thought the Lib Dems had basically bowed out here for some reason.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

In addition to what Nathan said the shifts in Texas are more because of demographic changes than ideology. London and Westminister has never elected a Labour candidate, but TX-07 of 20 years ago wouldn't ever elect a Democrat either. But TX-07 of 20 years ago no longer exists.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

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.

Because it's a completely different freaking continent

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Because it's a completely different freaking continent

Yeah it's kind of akin to saying "If Bolsonaro can win Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo why can't Trump win New York City?"