The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
I don't give a shit.

That's nice, but why should anyone give a shit about you not giving a shit?

If you don't give a shit, why do you care to come voice your opinion?

You do give a shit, but you appear frustrated that

Nope. Every case. There is no institutional power that holds back women anywhere in the West, but plenty in their favor.

I've already outlined that the first claim you made is disingenuous and actually hurts your point more than it actually helps it my friend. Do you have a source for it being every case?

Women wouldn't hold presidential office. A woman would. Just like men being president so far doesn't empower men everywhere. That is what's nonsensical.

Okay? I said a woman would, not that women would.

Of course it empowers men. Presidents were often inspirational figures to men and give them the hope that they can do anything. It could do the same for women.

Nor would it give anything to women.

Read above. Sorry friend, you're wrong.

No it shouldn't. The one with the best qualifications is what should be considered for the job. Genitalia shouldn't even factor in one way or the other. Something outside of one's control is not a qualification anymore than religion, sexuality, or place of birth(inside this union obviously). Next we should take hair and eye color into consideration. It would empower people with green eyes if we vote one of them in.

You seem to be having some trouble reading my friend. Let me go a bit more in detail for you to understand.

I have acknowledged that it is by far one of the least important things to consider, possibly the least.

Only that, if all other things are equal to one's perception, being a woman is obviously a factor to be considered in their favor.

If someone was on the fence about Trump vs. Hillary (viewing both as equally good or bad), but ultimately decided to go with Hillary because hey, at least now we'll get a female president, there is nothing wrong with that choice. 👆

The best you can claim is that maybe that person should have done more research on both candidates to find some flaw or quality to tip the scales, but the actual decision itself isn't faulty in reasoning.

Originally posted by NemeBro
If someone was on the fence about Trump vs. Hillary (viewing both as equally good or bad), but ultimately decided to go with Hillary because hey, at least now we'll get a female president, there is nothing wrong with that choice. 👆

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Lmfao, demanding impossible evidence is also a logical fallacy though.

Good try though. 😂

No, asking you to prove your claims is not a logical fallacy. It is arguably a bit mean-spirited and manipulative, but logically? No, me asking you to prove your claim despite knowing that you can't is not a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Isn't this also an appeal to tradition? 😂

It is only an appeal to tradition if you assume that I am going with the logical rules we've had in practice because they are "old" or what I know.

The reality is that I can not logically disprove them.

Take for example your appeal to tradition. You say something should be some way because that's the way it always was. This is a logical fallacy, because it assumes two things:

The old way of doing things were correct at the time.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid or existent as of now.

You can certainly prove that a tradition has value, but only if you can prove both that the tradition was ever the "right" way of doing things, and that the justification for it is still relevant.

I make use of old logical principles because I can't refute them.

Do you understand?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
That's blatant sexism, lol.

See, I'm not saying people who voted for Trump are necessarily sexist or that they all should have voted for Hillary because she is a woman. Just that that being a deciding factor (or a "tie breaker", so to speak) is not sexist or particularly illogical.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Election time, come on grab some pussy friends.
We're goin to verrrry.... distant lands
with Fate the librul and Ziggy the conservative
the fun... it never ends.
Election time.

LMAO.

I'm more of a mix of everything lol

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Only the best episodes baby.

Noice. What'd you think of Stakes?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
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.

You aren't answering the question. Implying that porn stars don't have "prestige and dignity" just begs the question of why they don't (and reality TV stars do). It's also a pretty hilarious statement given Trump's own background.

Try providing your case on more first principles grounds.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66

That being established, I'm not sure what you're expecting from me.

Are you a f*cking idiot?

If you were to ask me why, say, someone pathologically guilty of financial fraud shouldn't be president, I could answer that easily. I could point out that you couldn't trust this person with our nation's economy, that they're probably generally untrustworthy, that they'd be likely to fraud us on other areas as well, that it sets a bad precedent for encouraging fraud, etc.

If you were to ask me to justify any of my policy or ethical positions, I could easily do so. I could do a cost-benefi analysis of the situation based on a set of premises of this or that moral philosophy, etc. You know, there are entire academic disciplines dedicated to this.

So either I'm just a far more competent debater than you, or your entire case is full of hot air, which is why you can't present a semi-coherent argument and are just sucking up to your internal prejudices and insecurities.

Spoiler:
The answer is both.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Something outside of one's control is not a qualification anymore than religion, sexuality, or place of birth(inside this union obviously).

I love how you have to slip in the "inside this union" qualifier when it's just as beyond your control as the others. And when asked to justify it, your only case is to circularly say that that's the law, as if pointing out that something's the law answers the question of whether it should be.

Are you cognitively capable of coming up with arguments that wouldn't be used in a textbook on logical fallacies?

Would you two stop? Honestly this shit is done and over with. Let's move on and make a change for ourselves and this world instead of typing away angrily at this shit. Honestly. There are better things that are actually worth both of you and your time than this. You two idiots are too talented to waste your precious time on this.

Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
Would you two stop? Honestly this shit is done and over with. Let's move on and make a change for ourselves and this world instead of typing away angrily at this shit. Honestly. There are better things that are actually worth both of you and your time than this. You two idiots are too talented to waste your precious time on this.

Is the problem that these issues aren't important? That would be an incredibly stupid thing to say. Is it that debating on KMC won't change anything? Pretty much nothing on KMC would anyway. Is it that it isn't fun for you to read? I mean, too bad lol.

It's better than Skillz's basketball talk.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
It's better than Skillz's basketball talk.

What's the 10 percent

gay stuff

Bart, as a Hitler admirer how do you think Trump can best emulate him, especially his treatment of Poland?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Is the problem that these issues aren't important? That would be an incredibly stupid thing to say. Is it that debating on KMC won't change anything? Pretty much nothing on KMC would anyway. Is it that it isn't fun for you to read? I mean, too bad lol.

None of the above.

Just think it's a waste of your time.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
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.

So f*cking ironic.

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.

Ant, do you even know what "classical values" you're after? Also, lol @ you wanting another Andrew Jackson now. Or Trump being Andrew Jackson.