If Mort Divine ruled the world

[TechnicalBarbarity]

You have a hard time separating the comment from the commentator, don't you? This must be why you suck when it comes to having debates about challenging topics.

funny coming from the biggest armchair know all nitwit on this forum who eludes to gifs every time someone slaps him up with facts.

"BUT I DIDNT SAY I THOUGHT HE WAZ A RAPIST ONLY THAT ITS OKAY TO VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE WAZ ONE"

no one said you thought he was a rapist you imbecile(not sure how you can even came to that conclusion), im pointing out that your spine is made of jelly because you implied that you would support him even if he was one. That TDS is clouding your feeble little mind

Anyway, can try to squirm your way out of this ... but you already admitted that you would have no problem voting for a rapist.

 

[Einherjar86]

What point? I was addressing your comment about what's rational. I never pretended it was a decision based on rationale, it's a decision based on moral standards, which is exactly what #MeToo and #BelieveWomen is in the first place; moral condemnation. As HBB already pointed out, opposing someone because you believe they're a rapist isn't rational and this stands whether coming from me or the legions of #believers.

HBB said that those people might be irrational, but not insincere. They might be (or might not be) failing when it comes to weighing options rationally, but they're not failing in their sincerity. You said that even if both candidates were rapists, all things aren't equal; that's absolutely true, and I assumed (perhaps presumptuously) that you were acknowledging that as a sincere point of departure for some voters.

blahbady blahbady blah blah blub blub i have raisins in my head

I miss the days when Dak would say something like "I assume you're playing devil's advocate" or "I assume you're adopting a difficult position."

If Biden were a rapist--i.e. admitted or convicted, or proven beyond reasonable doubt--I wouldn't vote for him. That shouldn't matter, because my personal opinions aren't what we're debating. You feel it necessary to make them the center of every discussion because your conclusions don't turn on facts or arguments, but on your perception of your opponent's character.

But as I said, I wouldn't vote for him if that were the case. The reason I plan to is that I'm not convinced he's a rapist, and because "#believewomen" means that Tara Reade has the right to have her accusations investigated, not taken as truth in and of themselves.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

The political leaning of a political candidate is the most important consideration to make.

Look at this genus, lmao. You can apply that logic to jsut about every single professions there is. Im saying i wouldn't support anyone that i think is trash regardless of what his political leanings are. I dont blindly buy into the system like moralles cunts and sociopaths like yourself. There is no consideration if i think the man is a rapist. Rapists should be dead or in jail, including your buddy who jammed a champagne bottle up your ass years ago.

If you cared about not serving rapists you wouldn't live miles from Hollywood.

i dont "serve" anyone. Politicians serve us, we don't serve them. And i live in a rather conservative pocket of the LA county right now.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

HBB said that those people might be irrational, but not insincere. They might be (or might not be) failing when it comes to weighing options rationally, but they're not failing in their sincerity. You said that even if both candidates were rapists, all things aren't equal; that's absolutely true, and I assumed (perhaps presumptuously) that you were acknowledging that as a sincere point of departure for some voters.



I miss the days when Dak would say something like "I assume you're playing devil's advocate" or "I assume you're adopting a difficult position."

If Biden were a rapist--i.e. admitted or convicted, or proven beyond reasonable doubt--I wouldn't vote for him. That shouldn't matter, because my personal opinions aren't what we're debating. You feel it necessary to make them the center of every discussion because your conclusions don't turn on facts or arguments, but on your perception of your opponent's character.

But as I said, I wouldn't vote for him if that were the case. The reason I plan to is that I'm not convinced he's a rapist, and because "#believewomen" means that Tara Reade has the right to have her accusations investigated, not taken as truth in and of themselves.

all this means nothing to me when you just said you think its irrational to not vote for someone you think might be a rapist just because you think the other dude who you dislike also might be a rapist. Go play devils advocate with yourself you dumb cunt.

 

[Einherjar86]

all this means nothing to me when you just said you think its irrational to not vote for someone you think might be a rapist just because you dislike think the other dude who you also think might be a rapist. Go play devils advocate with yourself you dumb cunt.

I highlighted the key words for you. Spend some time with them. For what it's worth, I think you might be a rapist.

I knew my statement wouldn't mean anything to you. Few things seem to. But I thought it might be helpful for me to say what I would do, for whatever reason.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... you can keep repeating yourself babe, doesn't change a thing. You dont think there's a problem with voting for someone you think might be a rapist. That's where my argument began and that's where it ends.

For what it's worth, I think you might be a rapist.

i think you and your wife are both murderers. No "might be" there. If it was up to me id gas both of you

 

[CiG]

HBB said that those people might be irrational, but not insincere. They might be (or might not be) failing when it comes to weighing options rationally, but they're not failing in their sincerity. You said that even if both candidates were rapists, all things aren't equal; that's absolutely true, and I assumed (perhaps presumptuously) that you were acknowledging that as a sincere point of departure for some voters.

Again, in the context of the #believe crowd, I think they're being insincere when they claim that sexual crimes are of paramount importance and then say they'll vote for Biden. I wouldn't say the same for the average normie voter because they aren't holding themselves to such a constant and public standard like the hashtaggers are.

It's a distinct moral standard that they're then going directly against in the same breath. To then go ahead and play the rationale card ignores the entire point of those hashtags, because believing someone who makes a claim isn't rational in the first place. Unless of course it's all just insincere and politically motivated, which is what I think about them anyway.

"#believewomen" means that Tara Reade has the right to have her accusations investigated, not taken as truth in and of themselves.

No that would be #ListenToWomen or something. How the fuck does the hashtag mean that? lmao.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... implying that people who wouldn't vote for a rapist because of morals being irrational is ridiculous. Its perfectly rational to not vote for someone who is a criminal.

 

[CiG]

Believe women = treat their claims with skepticism and investigate them?

That's not what it means at all.

... implying that people who wouldn't vote for a rapist because of morals being irrational is ridiculous. Its perfectly rational to not vote for someone who is a criminal.

I'm separating belief and knowledge of a fact here.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I'm separating belief and knowledge here.

ahh, got it. Just making sure you didnt mean that not voting for someone who is a rapist or a murder or whatever is irrational.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I don't think either of them are rapists tbh. People who are so loosely tossing that word around are the problem.

 

[CiG]

I miss...Dak

 

[HamburgerBoy]

View attachment 24894

Tech on the left, me on the right

 

[CiG]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Tech on the left, me on the right

 

[Einherjar86]

No that would be #ListenToWomen or something. How the fuck does the hashtag mean that? lmao.

I'd encourage you to actually read more about what's behind it. You probably won't change your mind, but it's more complicated than you're making it out to be.

I'm separating belief and knowledge of a fact here.

But as you already said, there are more facts at play than whether someone has possibly committed sexual assault. In your own words, even were two candidates both rapists, that doesn't make them equal. So rationality goes beyond this possibility.

View attachment 24894

Pretty sure that's actually you and TB.

 

[CiG]

Pretty sure that's actually you and TB.

Whatever you need for the wankbank I suppose.

I'd encourage you to actually read more about what's behind it. You probably won't change your mind, but it's more complicated than you're making it out to be.

Because before the hashtag accusations made by women were never investigated? It's a stupid hashtag.

But as you already said, there are more facts at play than whether someone has possibly committed sexual assault. In your own words, even were two candidates both rapists, that doesn't make them equal. So rationality goes beyond this possibility.

Not really sure what your point is anymore in relation to what I've been talking about, which is belief. Anyway the original point I made was that I wouldn't vote for anybody I believed to be a rapist and I still stand by that.

 

[Einherjar86]

Whatever you need for the wankbank I suppose.

Because before the hashtag accusations made by women were never investigated? It's a stupid hashtag.

If you bothered to read about it, you'd discover that no--many of them weren't.

Not really sure what your point is anymore in relation to what I've been talking about, which is belief. Anyway the original point I made was that I wouldn't vote for anybody I believed to be a rapist and I still stand by that.

I wouldn't rest so easy on my beliefs or suspicions--but I also wouldn't vote for someone convicted of rape, or proven beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed it.

Glad we sorted that out.

 

[CiG]

I agree you're a softcock.

If you bothered to read about it, you'd discover that no--many of them weren't.

The majority?

I wouldn't rest so easy on my beliefs or suspicions--but I also wouldn't vote for someone convicted of rape, or proven beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed it.

Neither would I, but I'm not part of a movement based around belief.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree you're a softcock.

You gotta earn it.

The majority?

So if 51% of cases were investigated, you'd be satisfied?

Neither would I, but I'm not part of a movement based around belief.

Neither am I.