The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
The fact it's completely and utterly unpresidential?

That's circular reasoning.

"A person who did that couldn't be president."

"Why not?"

"Because a president couldn't do that!"

Note: I know that a former porn actress is extremely unlikely to get elected due to people's perceptions on pornography and those who make it (some of the hatred for it is justified btw, there's a lot of horror stories, though very rarely is one of the actors or actresses the perpetrator of the horror). But you said "shouldn't" get elected, rather than couldn't.

I'd agree with the latter, but the former? Why not?

What I think we really need is our first genderfluid president.

They shouldn't because the office holds prestige and dignity that someone who acts like that completely lacks. Whereas they are the lowest of society, the president is meant to be a representation of the people and a symbol of the United States for the rest of world. The notion that a porn star should even be considered for the office of presidency is laughable - and frankly why Donald Trump is now president-elect. He's going to get rid of this cancer, reinstitute classical values, and make America great again.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
At the same time though, is Hillary really who we want to be the first female president? I feel like that would be a mark against women being president in sexists minds lol.

But frankly, her being a woman is a point in her favor. I mean, it's not a very significant point in her favor, and I don't know why that lunatic aayla secura seems to view it as THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON to vote for her, when it's definitely one of the smallest considerations in the reasoning.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
They shouldn't because the office holds prestige and dignity

This might have been a slightly viable argument decades ago, but now? The public perception of the president is not so kind.

that someone who acts like that completely lacks.

Based on?

Whereas they are the lowest of society,

Based on?

the president is meant to be a representation of the people and a symbol of the United States for the rest of world. The notion that a porn star should even be considered for the office of presidency is laughable

Why? You haven't given any concrete reason. All you've given me is vague rhetoric that sounds cute, but doesn't actually use anything concrete to support your position.

- and frankly why Donald Trump is now president-elect. He's going to get rid of this cancer, reinstitute classical values, and make America great again.

When you grow up you will realize that, like most old people, your father is not very smart, and you will learn to stop emulating him. I had to learn this lesson with my own father. I hope you can soon. 👆

The lowest of society, by definition, would be the poorest and most immoral people. A porn star fits both of those descriptions nine out of ten times. The distinction being a porn star running from president compared to, say, a hard worker who once struggled for income is that the former has American principals and values as outlined by the history of this nation (and classically represented by presidents throughout history, such as Thomas Jefferson Andrew Jackson), whereas the porn star is staunchly opposed to what Americans have valued and cherished for the last three centuries of our Union. Only in recent times have individuals (like you, I assume) been pushing for allowing these groups of people to emerge as prominent players in our Democracy. Throughout all the rest of history, they rightfully marginalized.

In short, Trump's going to get away with all these values you hold dear, so I hope you enjoy Canada.

What is your argument for pornographic acts being immoral? Colored people being less human than whites was an American value for several centuries, so an appeal to "how it was before" is not inherently an argument.

Immoral: "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."

So no, it's blatantly immoral, unless you want to argue it is "usually accepted" as the definition above states. That's not to say it has no chance to become moral, but that doesn't change the fact that it's current standing is immoral.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
The lowest of society, by definition, would be the poorest and most immoral people. A porn star fits both of those descriptions nine out of ten times.

All right let me stop you here real quick, I think I was going a bit too fast for you so let me slow it down.

The financial aspect is completely irrelevant, because the premise is "did a porno when she was younger". The average porn actress does indeed make below the median salary of an American, but why are you assuming she is still relatively poor? It would be very hard to run for president successfully as a poor woman.

As for being the most immoral, do you have a source to back that statement up?

The distinction being a porn star running from president compared to, say, a hard worker who once struggled for income is that the former has American principals and values as outlined by the history of this nation (and classically represented by presidents throughout history, such as Thomas Jefferson Andrew Jackson), whereas the porn star is staunchly opposed to what Americans have valued and cherished for the last three centuries of our Union.

Why is that relevant my son?

You're committing an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. That is pretty much all what I just quoted uses for its reasoning, which means I can confidently claim that your quoted point is useless without you being able to claim I committed the fallacy fallacy.

Only in recent times have individuals (like you, I assume) been pushing for allowing these groups of people to emerge as prominent players in our Democracy. Throughout all the rest of history, they were rightfully marginalized.

Why was their marginalization rightful? You can't use an appeal to tradition to support that claim by the way, because I'm asking you why that tradition was right. You'd be committing a circular reasoning inside n appeal to tradition fallacy. Some sort of weird fallacy inside a fallacy. Fallacyception.

In short, Trump's going to get away with all these values you hold dear, so I hope you enjoy Canada.

You can't say "in short" and then summarize your argument with what you believe Trump is going to do when your post literally did not mention Trump or his plans my friend. That is incredibly poor writing. 👆

It is also completely irrelevant. What Trump will do or won't do doesn't support any claim you've made my son. 👇

Pornography is a billion dollar industry in America, and America is the largest market for pornography in the world.

So obviously it's pretty well-regarded.

Why exactly do we need to empower women? Young women out earn young men. They make up more of the people accepted to and in university world wide and have the majority of degrees. They have all the rights of men. The idea that a man can be raped by one is laughable in almost all circles. They usually serve half the jail sentence any man will, and are much more likely to get off than a man. They have just about everyone kissing their asses simply for having a different set of genitalia and accomplishing the same goals. They have shelters to go to when abused. They get grants even when they aren't. They make up almost zero percent of the homeless. Breast cancer receives more government funding and donations than any other type, especially prostate, and to top it all off male suicide is at an all time high. Here in the US, the idea of a circumcision is seen as not only acceptable, but favorable. But if you do the same thing to a woman's clitoris, no the most common form isn't hacking the entire thing off, you'll go to prison.

What exactly do we need to empower women for? They have all the chances, all the motivations, more advantages, and more sympathy. If they wanted these things, they'd take them.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Immoral: "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."

So no, it's blatantly immoral, unless you want to argue it is "usually accepted" as the definition above states. That's not to say it has no chance to become moral, but that doesn't change the fact that it's current standing is immoral.

Different people have different beliefs on morality, and some of those beliefs are superior to others.

Since you have been unable to defend your own moral beliefs, I must assume that my own standards are superior to your own. 👆

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Why exactly do we need to empower women? Young women out earn young men. They make up more of the people accepted to and in university world wide and have the majority of degrees. They have all the rights of men. The idea that a man can be raped by one is laughable in almost all circles. They usually serve half the jail sentence any man will, and are much more likely to get off than a man. They have just about everyone kissing their asses simply for having a different set of genitalia and accomplishing the same goals. They have shelters to go to when abused. They get grants even when they aren't. They make up almost zero percent of the homeless. Breast cancer receives more government funding and donations than any other type, especially prostate, and to top it all off male suicide is at an all time high. Here in the US, the idea of a circumcision is seen as not only acceptable, but favorable. But if you do the same thing to a woman's clitoris, no the most common form isn't hacking the entire thing off, you'll go to prison.

What exactly do we need to empower women for? They have all the chances, all the motivations, more advantages, and more sympathy. If they wanted these things, they'd take them.

Your argument was nice and all, but ultimately nonsensical.

Yes, men do get discriminated against relative to women in a lot of cases.

Yeah, these issues should be addressed so that equality can be achieved on every front.

That does not imply that the fronts that have not been overtaken (like a woman holding the presidential office) shouldn't be done so just because you believe women are overall more privileged than men.

A woman becoming president does not take anything away from men. It's not a very important thing to consider relative to their actual qualifications for the job, but it should be considered.

With that said, I'm moderately sure some of your examples are disingenuous or at least ill-informed.

Do women in their twenties earn more than men? Yes. But once they turn thirty men earn more than women, for example. And before that, in teenage years? Guys make more.

Do you have sources for all of your claims?

@ Nemebro: For one, I have no clue why you're acting like you have remotely more power than me on this board. As it stands, by 2016, I'm by every means your superior in this community. You have absolutely no basis to talk down upon me, although it's amusing for someone like you (who I would also consider among the lowest of society, by the way) to do that.

That being established, I'm not sure what you're expecting from me. Some work from God himself that declares pornography immoral? Obviously anything that I can provide on the subject will be subjective in nature or subject to your "appeal to tradition" fallacy (frankly, there's likewise no omniscient narrator declaring it a logical fallacy - just some people on the Internet, as far as I can tell). However, I can tell you this: a key aspect of America, as evidently seen as early back as the Jefferson administration, was an emphasis on tradition (ex. the agrarian republic). After Jefferson, a great many of other presidents have likewise kept this tradition - a tradition first established by the Founding Fathers of this Union. So frankly, I don't care if it's an "appeal to tradition," since a key aspect of the United States is doing exactly that: appealing to tradition.

Your argument demands evidence that cannot possibly be provided, but then rejects all evidence that can possibly be provided. It's laughable.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Because one thing they haven't ever been able to do is become president. 👇

Your argument was nice and all, but ultimately nonsensical.

Yes, men do get discriminated against relative to women in a lot of cases.

Yeah, these issues should be addressed so that equality can be achieved on every front.

That does not imply that the fronts that have not been overtaken (like a woman holding the presidential office) shouldn't be done so just because you believe women are overall more privileged than men.

A woman becoming president does not take anything away from men.

It's not a very important thing to consider relative to their actual qualifications for the job, but it should be considered.

I also like how pornography, a choice, is comparable to race, something that is not a choice. False equivalency out the ass.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
@ Nemebro: For one, I have no clue why you're acting like you have remotely more power than me on this board. As it stands by 2016, I'm by every means your superior in this community. You have absolutely no basis to talk down upon me, although it's amusing for someone like you (who I would also consider among the lowest of society, by the way) to do that.

That's cute and all, but do you have anything to validate any of your claims besides you throwing your bird chest forward because I wounded your pride?

I'm sorry I hurt your fragile ego by the way. It was an accident.

That being established, I'm not sure what you're expecting from me. Some work from God himself that declares pornography immoral? Obviously anything that I can provide on the subject will be subject to your "appeal to tradition" fallacy (frankly, there's likewise no omniscient narrator declaring it a logical fallacy - just some people on the Internet, as far as I can tell).

Now if you want to take up a career in philosophy or logic and try to successfully convince those within the fields that everything we know about logic is wrong and that you alone have the answer hey man, be my guest! That would be a very cool and ambitious path to take.

But until you do so, I'm afraid you're just wrong my friend.

However, I can tell you this: a key aspect of America, as evidently seen as early back as the Jefferson administration, was an emphasis on tradition.

So you're using an appeal to tradition fallacy to justify an appeal to tradition... it really IS fallacyception.

After Jefferson, a great many of other presidents have likewise kept this tradition - a tradition first established by the Founding Fathers of this Union. So frankly, I don't care if it's an "appeal to tradition," since a key aspect of the United States is doing exactly that: appealing to tradition.

And why is that aspect of the United States important? What makes it "key"?

Your argument demands evidence that cannot possibly be provided, but then rejects all evidence that can possibly be provided. It's laughable.

I am perfectly aware that I am demanding evidence you can't provide my son. That is the point of my lesson to you.

That your claims are rooted not in fact, and are dependent on logical fallacies to exist.

I'm sorry if my cold, hard truths have hurt you so, but reality can be cruel. I am merely preparing you for it.

Lmfao, demanding impossible evidence is also a logical fallacy though.

Good try though. 😂

Originally posted by NemeBro
Now if you want to take up a career in philosophy or logic and try to successfully convince those within the fields that everything we know about logic is wrong and that you alone have the answer hey man, be my guest! That would be a very cool and ambitious path to take.

No.