If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

Missing the point quite epicly. I'm not talking about whether rape precludes one from being a great anything, I'm saying I personally wouldn't vote for someone I believed was a rapist.

Sure, I'm not saying you are obligated to, I'm just saying that being a rapist isn't negatively correlated with presidential performance, so if both candidates are rapists but one of them is preferable for other reasons, then "wadayagonnado?" holds up.

 

[Einherjar86]

I believe that CIG is making an appeal to normative moral standards rather than an "all things being equal" assessment of presidentiality.

In this case, one of the accused assaulters is already in office; so voting for Biden is virtually the same thing as voting Trump out. I don't think there's a morally sound choice, but that doesn't mean it's rational to abstain from making one.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... the fact that you're buying into the politically weaponized version of what rape is, and not the actual act of raping someone, is amazing tbh.

And im not suprised that a sociopath like you, or a spinless cunt like ein would take the "whatyagonnado" route, even if these people were actual rapists. You guys are trash.

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[CiG]

Sure, I'm not saying you are obligated to, I'm just saying that being a rapist isn't negatively correlated with presidential performance, so if both candidates are rapists but one of them is preferable for other reasons, then "wadayagonnado?" holds up.

Talking about belief here. I don't believe Biden or Trump raped someone (doesn't mean I don't think it's possible) and if they were actual rapists the law would step in and at the very least they wouldn't be running. What you're talking about is whether being accused of a sex crime is negatively correlated with performance.

The context is that the left broadly speaking holds to a #believe ideology and so wanting to vote for someone they believe is a rapist because they believe the other guy is a rapist exposes a hypocrisy in their worldview.

I believe that CIG is making an appeal to normative moral standards rather than an "all things being equal" assessment of presidentiality.

In this case, one of the accused assaulters is already in office; so voting for Biden is virtually the same thing as voting Trump out. I don't think there's a morally sound choice, but that doesn't mean it's rational to abstain from making one.

Setting aside the morality of the choice (yes I'd abstain if deciding solely on moral grounds) I think it's rational not to vote in a warmonger with the blood of hundreds of thousands of lives on his hands (not to mention the trillions of dollars wasted in Iraq). If they're both rapists, all things are still not equal.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

so voting for Biden is virtually the same thing as voting Trump out. I don't think there's a morally sound choice, but that doesn't mean it's rational to abstain from making one.

dat critical thinking doe

if you think they''re both rapists then voting in Biden is still you basically voting in a rapist

but that doesn't mean it's rational to abstain from making one.

it means you're a spinless fuck who cant put aside his political bias and cares more about the political leaning of a candidate than anything else. Im just glad that you're approaching this in a such a shameless attitude, now maybe others can see what kind f person you really are.

The only person person who had a respectable response was CIG.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

if they were actual rapists the law would step in and at the very least they wouldn't be running

sshhhh. That seems to irrelevant here

The man is a serial rapist because he said "he grabs women by the pussay". If that kind of talk makes you into a rapist then 85% of men would be in jail right now. I dont think ein has ever been in a locker room with men before. Probably spent more time in dressing rooms at with his momma.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The political leaning of a political candidate is the most important consideration to make. If you cared about not serving rapists you wouldn't live miles from Hollywood.

Talking about belief here. I don't believe Biden or Trump raped someone (doesn't mean I don't think it's possible) and if they were actual rapists the law would step in and at the very least they wouldn't be running. What you're talking about is whether being accused of a sex crime is negatively correlated with performance.

The context is that the left broadly speaking holds to a #believe ideology and so wanting to vote for someone they believe is a rapist because they believe the other guy is a rapist exposes a hypocrisy in their worldview.

Setting aside the morality of the choice (yes I'd abstain if deciding solely on moral grounds) I think it's rational not to vote in a warmonger with the blood of hundreds of thousands of lives on his hands (not to mention the trillions of dollars wasted in Iraq). If they're both rapists, all things are still not equal.

Rape and other sex crimes are only brought up to prevent other political actions from taking place. That #BelieveHer is a thing doesn't inherently imply that voting against rapists is a #1 priority. There are countless rapes every day and the few more that might take place by a rapist president do not necessarily offset the potential rapes that result from his non-rapist opponent's policies. For example, war is universally associated with rape. Every president that has sent troops into a war zone has facilitated mass rape on a scale that a Bill Clinton could not achieve even with a free one-year-pass to Epstein Island and lifetime supply of Viagra. Every governor that refuses to allow women to ccw on streets or that refuses to pass one-party-consent recording laws is enabling mass rape, while creating an image of a strong police state. Arguably, even bans on prostitution result in an increase in rape (e.g. Rhode Island's rape rate went down during a loophole period where prostitution was legal for a few years).

 

[Einherjar86]

Setting aside the morality of the choice (yes I'd abstain if deciding solely on moral grounds) I think it's rational not to vote in a warmonger with the blood of hundreds of thousands of lives on his hands (not to mention the trillions of dollars wasted in Iraq). If they're both rapists, all things are still not equal.

Sure, but warmongering and foreign spending are other issues, which I'm saying a hypothetical voter would take into consideration. It sounds to me like you're conceding the point.

you think they''re both rapists then voting in Biden is still you basically voting in a rapist

I never said I thought he was though. I knew your blind rage would get in the way of your reading comprehension eventually (not that it's very good to begin with).

it means you're a spinless fuck who cant put aside his political bias and cares more about the political leaning of a candidate than anything else. Im just glad that you're approaching this in a such a shameless attitude, now maybe others can see what kind f person you really are.

I'm pretty sure you're the only one who cares this much.

 

[CiG]

Sure, but warmongering and foreign spending are other issues, which I'm saying a hypothetical voter would take into consideration. It sounds to me like you're conceding the point.

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.

Rape and other sex crimes are only brought up to prevent other political actions from taking place. That #BelieveHer is a thing doesn't inherently imply that voting against rapists is a #1 priority. There are countless rapes every day and the few more that might take place by a rapist president do not necessarily offset the potential rapes that result from his non-rapist opponent's policies. For example, war is universally associated with rape. Every president that has sent troops into a war zone has facilitated mass rape on a scale that a Bill Clinton could not achieve even with a free one-year-pass to Epstein Island and lifetime supply of Viagra. Every governor that refuses to allow women to ccw on streets or that refuses to pass one-party-consent recording laws is enabling mass rape, while creating an image of a strong police state. Arguably, even bans on prostitution result in an increase in rape (e.g. Rhode Island's rape rate went down during a loophole period where prostitution was legal for a few years).

So we agree the #believers are insincere and inherently politically motivated then.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I never said I thought he was though. I knew your blind rage would get in the way of your reading comprehension eventually (not that it's very good to begin with).

You forgot to quote the IF in my statement, you spinless faggot. You implied TWICE that you would have no problem voting for someone if they happened to be a rapist. WACHAGONEDO BRAH lulz

I'm pretty sure you're the only one who cares this much.

oh yes, says the guy who literally just said hes cool with voting for someone who he thinks might be a rapist just because he aint trump

I would never even entertain the idea of voting for someone that i actually thought raped a woman. Regardless of their political views.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Not necessarily insincere. If you are a #Believer and vote for one neoliberal warhawk rapist over another, then you're probably insincere. If you are a #Believer and vote for a neoliberal warhawk rapist over an antiwar pro-lynching non-rapist, you could also just naive or stupid.

 

[Einherjar86]

You forgot to quote the IF in my statement, you spinless faggot. You implied TWICE that you would have no problem voting for someone if they happened to be a rapist. WACHAGONEDO BRAH lulz

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.

literally

 

[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.