The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

If it's not moral for an individual to pursue their self-interest at the expense of others, then it's not moral for a country to pursue its self-interest at the expense of other countries.

Any moral foreign policy should put universalist goals to the forefront.

So you approve of China dumping steel on American markets?

[Figueira]

The semi-competitive races I care about most apart from just the Senate majority and the Electoral College:

-McCrory vs. Cooper
-Rubio vs. Murphy
-Toomey vs. McGinty
-Burr vs. Ross
-Johnson vs. Feingold
-NO on all marijuana initiatives
-Not allowing any Southern state (other than Virginia, which is a given) to vote for Clinton
-Utah going for McMullin
-Mike Lee winning by at least 50 over Mr. Snow

[Figueira]

The semi-competitive races I care about most apart from just the Senate majority and the Electoral College:

-McCrory vs. Cooper
-Rubio vs. Murphy
-Toomey vs. McGinty
-Burr vs. Ross
-Johnson vs. Feingold
-NO on all marijuana initiatives
-Not allowing any Southern state (other than Virginia, which is a given) to vote for Clinton
-Utah going for McMullin
-Mike Lee winning by at least 50 over Mr. Snow

Pretty much everything he's ever posted belongs here.

True, but that was especially egregious.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't support gay marriage. Civil union yes. Marriage no.
I think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children either.

I think gay campaign groups have to much money and influence on politics today.

Am I homophobic?

I think that these kinds of questions can be answered by taking the original question and applying it to other groups. Is not supporting women's sufferage ... sexist?

This really isn't applicable unless you think gays shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't support gay marriage. Civil union yes. Marriage no.
I think gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children either.

I think gay campaign groups have to much money and influence on politics today.

Am I homophobic?

I think that these kinds of questions can be answered by taking the original question and applying it to other groups. Is not supporting women's sufferage ... sexist?

This really isn't applicable unless you think gays shouldn't be allowed to vote.

We are putting statements that should be self-evident in this thread now too?

[Kingpoleon]

Well, do you mean you don't support gay marriage, or you think it's okay to discriminate against people for any reason? The latter could obviously be a liberty issue.

Just to be clear, libertarianism doesn't think it's okay to discriminate. We just think that it shouldn't be the government's job to force you to be a decent person as long as you're not hurting anyone.

So you support anti-discrimination laws then?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If it's not moral for an individual to pursue their self-interest at the expense of others, then it's not moral for a country to pursue its self-interest at the expense of other countries.

Any moral foreign policy should put universalist goals to the forefront.

There's literally nothing wrong with this post.

A morality-driven foreign policy is more likely to do harm than actual good, I'm afraid.

Still, it's hardly a "Absurd, Ignorant, Bigoted and Just Plain Awful Post".

[Figueira]

If it's not moral for an individual to pursue their self-interest at the expense of others, then it's not moral for a country to pursue its self-interest at the expense of other countries.

Any moral foreign policy should put universalist goals to the forefront.

There's literally nothing wrong with this post.

A morality-driven foreign policy is more likely to do harm than actual good, I'm afraid.

Still, it's hardly a "Absurd, Ignorant, Bigoted and Just Plain Awful Post".

By definition, the most moral foreign policy is the one that does the most good.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If it's not moral for an individual to pursue their self-interest at the expense of others, then it's not moral for a country to pursue its self-interest at the expense of other countries.

Any moral foreign policy should put universalist goals to the forefront.

There's literally nothing wrong with this post.

A morality-driven foreign policy is more likely to do harm than actual good, I'm afraid.

Still, it's hardly a "Absurd, Ignorant, Bigoted and Just Plain Awful Post".

By definition, the most moral foreign policy is the one that does the most good.

OK, I should've said missionary-style foreign policy then.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

Ugh... While I (reluctantly) believe making prostitution illegal does more harm than good for the prostitutes, HisGrace's explanation of why people oppose it is pure nonsense,

[DC Al Fine]

In the 'Bigoted' category

representatives of religious organisations have no business in an hospital.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

In the 'Bigoted' category

representatives of religious organisations have no business in an hospital.

It's also one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this forum.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

It's actually not a terrible post that makes good (if albeit somewhat crude) points until it gets to that last paragraph.

[Figueira]

Well, do you mean you don't support gay marriage, or you think it's okay to discriminate against people for any reason? The latter could obviously be a liberty issue.

Just to be clear, libertarianism doesn't think it's okay to discriminate. We just think that it shouldn't be the government's job to force you to be a decent person as long as you're not hurting anyone.

So you support anti-discrimination laws then?

Could someone explain why this is a bad post?

[Figueira]

Republicans should pass a law mandating that a Republican be appointed to any vacancy.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

It's actually not a terrible post that makes good (if albeit somewhat crude) points until it gets to that last paragraph.

I second that motion.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I think this is entirely accurate. We need to do everything we can to avoid this nightmare.

This is why the War on Terror has been a bad idea from the start. Just like the War on Drugs. It creates a breeding ground for authoritarians.

But that's no excuse for anyone to actively support someone who says they will be a dictator.

I'll agree with the first paragraph.

The second part of this is a stretch.  We survived Nixon, and Hillary is far more Nixonian than Trump.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This should be a wake up call to all renegade Republicans to flock to Trump and help prevent this wicked witch of the east from becoming the next president.

If they fail to do it, they will have no one but themselves to blame for their own ruin.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Too many people take our federal republic, democratic institutions, and our status as a free, self-governing people for granted, it seems.  We have long forgotten what it was like to be ruled by despots....  

We will remember that, if Clinton wins.

Only if Hillary is elected we will sink into anarchy. If the chief executive is someone who is breaking the law how can they enforce it?

I need to up my standards for posts that belong in the bad post gallery. This is from like 5 minutes browsing the 2016 board.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

[Antonio the Sixth]

oh ffs

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

oops wrong gallary. This one is funny.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Context:

HP. He was a literal fascist.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Context:

HP. He was a literal fascist.

Uh, it's true. He allied with all sorts of loony quasi-fascist people and organizations in opposition to the New Deal.