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

[RFayette]

Anyone wanting to ban pornography is a fascist who should have no say in a free society. Those feminists have the right to their opinion, but they shouldn't describe themselves as liberal in any way.

I mean, yes, all pornography that is legitimate and doesn't involve any type of exploitation that involves performers who are capable of consenting to be involved should not be banned no matter how little it does for society. Regardless of the content of the second sentence or the use of the word "fascist," I hope the reason that this post is in here isn't about his rightful belief that pornography in general should never be allowed to be banned.

Although I do disagree with his position, the post is here not because of the substance of that position but because muh porn is apparently such a moral shibboleth for him that he calls people fascists for disagreeing with him. That should be reserved for disagreements involving things like racial hatred and banning speech critical of the government.

The term fascist has all but lost its sting for a while now, hasn't it?  I recall it being used for everything under the sun for years now, and there's a reason Goodwin's Law exists.

[RFayette]

You just have to love liberals and their rhetoric.  Scalia had a "burning hatred" for women and gays and hated poor people, and yet the standard of life for the poor in the USA is leaps and bounds higher than the middle class in Cuba.  What does that tell you about Castro's leadership? 

[RFayette]

Peak Wulfric.

The laughable state that YECers get themselves into with their whole "The earth is only 6,000 years old" shtick and the "God made some things look old, or rapidly changed rates of change, to deceive humanity and reveal who REALLY believes" line, and the whole "The flood split up panagea, and created 90% of the entire grand canyon, and created the appearance of magnetic changes, and made all our date methods be off by BILLIONS of years, and...." (the flood was global, but was tranquil in effect, or at least tranquil when compared to YEC assumptions of what it is/was capable of) thing is not science and should be called out for what it is: Utter stupidity. That being said, so is the Darwinist idea that humans are here solely through natural selection and luck. It is very clear that while Microevolution is a natural process, Macroevolution happens only through the direct command of god. Ultimately, the truth is that both Darwin and the YECers are wrong regarding the origins and early history of the earth, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The intersection of science and religion is inevitable due to the bible directly contradicting the idea that the creation of the world, from beginning to end, happened fully through natural processes. NOMA is a joke that, when revealed for what it truly is, is shown to be nothing more than a phrase teachers use to make religious parents less mad when they accuse the teacher of teaching atheism to their child through instruction in the theory of evolution.

As a theistic evolutionist, it's sad to see Wulfric butcher it so badly.  The idea that microevolution is "natural" but macroevolution is only possible via direct intervention from God (which, by the way, I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive, but that's a different story) is silly, considering that the entire definition of macroevolution is that small adaptations over time guided by natural selection eventually lead to the creation of new species (and higher taxonomic classifications).  While it certainly can be the product of divine intervention, the mechanisms of "microevolution" are perfectly sufficient to produce various kinds over time.  

It's also amusing because the genetic similarity between humans and our closest extant relatives (chimpanzees) is closer than that of say, gorillas and chimpanzees, a divergence which many might consider "microevolution."   

[RFayette]

Floor of Obama 2012, ceiling of A sweep except for MS, AL, OK, WY, WV, AR, ID, maybe ND, UT. But he could get UT under right circumstances.

Context.

Every one of sMilo's election prognostications (besides Trump's primary win) has been completely off base, but in his defense he's mostly trolling.

[RFayette]

Oh puhhh-leeezz Santander there is nothing wrong with that post. Stop using this thread for benign posts you simply don't like.

The idea that every student, regardless of their interests and talents, should be forced to take engineering for two years is pretty stupid imo.

I'm perhaps more confused by the fact that math requirements go only up to Algebra 2, which as I understand it, is unchanged from what it is now, yet he thinks he's gonna turn kids into STEMbots. I took Algebra 2 in tenth grade.

Yeah, at our school you had to take 3 years of math, irrespective of whether or not you took Algebra 1 in high school, so Precalc or Trig/Stats is also required for most people.  

[RFayette]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new thread namer.

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Come on man, you know there isn't a single country in the world in which government spending is less than 5% of its GDP besides Sudan?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS?year_high_desc=false

I don't see how you could possibly think eliminating all social welfare spending would make the poverty problem go away.  Don't get me wrong, there are negative incentives to some welfare programs which discourage work (and thus getting out of poverty), but to claim that the problem would go away by going to a third-world-level size of government doesn't seem workable.  

To me, conservative implies a sense of stability and continuity.  Such a radical change (which seems unlikely to work, based on the statistics) seems to be the opposite of conserving anything. 

[RFayette]

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Then please explain how poverty will be eliminated within 5 years if we scrap every last bit of the social safety net, the only thing propping millions of people up right now. If that was the answer all along, why was anyone ever poor to begin with before we had those programs? You didn't even bother backing this statement up. Bootstraps alone won't magically solve everything.

All I can gather from this statement is either 1) you're a troll, 2) you're just heartless and you know damn well poverty will go through the roof, but since you got yours..., or 3) you honestly have no idea how the world works and just blindly think govt is the problem without having a clue why.

And the only thing this proves is how much ExtremeRepublican positions are ridiculed, and rightly so.

In 1950, the poverty rate was around 30%.  From then until the late 1960s, the poverty rate decreased pretty much linearly at a rate of 1 percentage point per year to about 12%.  In the late 1960s, we created a bunch of new social programs and LBJ launched the War on Poverty.  At that point, poverty suddenly stopped decreasing, and it is still at the 1960s levels today.  With the track that we were on, poverty would have likely been eradicated in America by 1980 if the government had never intervened in the first place.  Unfortunately, human nature is that people will not work if they can get almost as much money from the government from numerous different entitlement programs (each one may not be huge, but they add up quickly).  There are, by the way, several points where making one more dollar would result in a decrease in total income after taxes and benefits due to a loss of entitlements and the government stealing a higher percentage of the income through taxation.

The bolded part strikes me as an unwarranted extrapolation of the data.  Overall economic growth was significantly better in the '50s and '60s compared to the '70s.  While it is true that the Great Society programs helped contribute to the inflation of that era, the Oil Embargo would have created problems regardless, not to mention increasing global competition (which was temporarily abated post-WWII) exerting a downward pressure on low-skilled wages.  This just strikes me as a "post hoc ergo propter hoc":  a lot of variables changed in the late '60s and to pin it all on welfare spending seems unreasonable.  After all, if welfare spending is the cause of increased poverty, we would expect countries that spend a higher proportion of their GDP on social welfare programs to have a higher poverty rate, which isn't really the case as seen with the empirical data ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html ).  This isn't to say we should increase welfare spending per se, just that your thesis has some holes in it.

[RFayette]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

Explain exactly why you think Clinton won the Electoral College

- republicans' large-scale illegal schemes to prevent people from voting (some of which were so egregious they were struck down even after the indefensible shelby co. v. holder decision) are very well documented

- i think even the farthest-right of us can agree that at least like, two or three percent of trump voters (i.e. enough to account for the official margins) are nazis, no? (obviously it's substantially more than that but y'know) anyways nazis aren't people and therefore can't vote

Thanks for posting directly into the thread!

It's a great thing we live in a country with actual freedom of speech and conscience rather than a lot of the anti-freedom areas in Europe which don't have basic freedoms.  And now Evangelicals are paying the price in many of those countries.

[RFayette]

Bullying and personal attacks are against the ToS.  It's that simple.

[RFayette]

Bullying and personal attacks are against the ToS.  It's that simple.

so are bigotry and lies, and yet…

Two wrongs don't make a right?  Obviously Classic is wrong about Istanbul, and those posts should be deleted, but that doesn't give license for others to engage in personal attacks.

[RFayette]

cc: Irony ore mine given that it's coming from an embittered failson whose highest achievement in adult life is making the front page of r/cringe when he got his mother to comment on the size of his organ on Facebook.

What is it that makes social Darwinism so attractive to people who would almost undoubtedly be labelled as society's refuse?

What? I'd love to hear this story haha

Check your PM folder.

CC me on this?

me too

I'm gonna ask to be involved in this.

Me as well... o.O

Ditto