Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2016, 07:35 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
Hi Muffs. How much is NZ trading with China? The big concern here now seems to be Trump have said he wished to wage war on Chinese economic policy or something.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 12:14 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
Ahh who cares if abortion is illegal! It just means that women won't have control over their bodies, and be forced to give birth. No big deal, right? Why should they have a right to their bodies. Democracy has decided they shouldn't, and democracy should be what we always go by.

And so what if gays are discriminated against? They'll survive it! Nevermind the fact that gay teen suicides will be on the rise, and those people can't be brought back to life. Or the fact that it'll embolden hompophobes to allow discrimination.

50% of this country... well actually more like 25%, and even then it's more like 24%.... because half the people didn't even vote, and Trump didn't even win the popular vote... will it, so obviously we should just go along with it. Yep. If half the country wants to deny rights to people on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation, they should TOTALLY go for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Ash's post
16-11-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(16-11-2016 12:14 PM)Ash Wrote:  Ahh who cares if abortion is illegal! It just means that women won't have control over their bodies, and be forced to give birth. No big deal, right? Why should they have a right to their bodies. Democracy has decided they shouldn't, and democracy should be what we always go by.

And so what if gays are discriminated against? They'll survive it! Nevermind the fact that gay teen suicides will be on the rise, and those people can't be brought back to life. Or the fact that it'll embolden hompophobes to allow discrimination.

50% of this country... well actually more like 25%, and even then it's more like 24%.... because half the people didn't even vote, and Trump didn't even win the popular vote... will it, so obviously we should just go along with it. Yep. If half the country wants to deny rights to people on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation, they should TOTALLY go for it.

I'm on your side, basically, but there's another way to look at this "half the country" stuff. First, we have the people who voted for Trump. These people actively support him. Then we have all the eligible voters who didn't bother to vote at all. These people may not be enthusiastic about Trump, but they weren't upset enough about him to vote against him either. I have to assume that they are at least "OK" with a Trump Presidency -- because if they're not, they damn well should have gotten out and voted for someone else. When you add those two groups together, it's way more than half the country that either actively supports him or is OK with him. And that's disgusting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
16-11-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(16-11-2016 12:37 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  These people may not be enthusiastic about Trump, but they weren't upset enough about him to vote against him either. I have to assume that they are at least "OK" with a Trump Presidency -- because if they're not, they damn well should have gotten out and voted for someone else. When you add those two groups together, it's way more than half the country that either actively supports him or is OK with him. And that's disgusting.

I think there are a lot of people who are most definitely not OK with a Trump presidency but who were also not OK with a Clinton presidency or any of the minor candidates either. If we had a 'none of the above' option it could have been a strong contender this time around.

I wish more people in the swing states had decided that Clinton winning and being gridlocked by a Republican House would have been the best possible outcome but I fully understand people not being able to vote in good conscience for Clinton. I just do not understand how anybody could vote for Trump.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
16-11-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
My second favorite fag (just below muffs, one above George Takei, Two above Freddie Mercury) essentially saying the same thing as the anti-muff diver, but, you know, better cause muffs ain't the well-spoken.





And yes, I keep a list. Better try harder next year Stephen Fry!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
16-11-2016, 12:55 PM
Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
Whats Jesus's tits got to do with it?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
16-11-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
Trump is not and never was going to do any of the crazy stuff he said in his campaign. He was just throwing red meat to the far right of the GOP.
Besides, there are three branches of government, not just one, you know the checks and balances thing that we learned about in civics class, or did some of you sleep through that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(16-11-2016 04:25 PM)doc88401 Wrote:  Trump is not and never was going to do any of the crazy stuff he said in his campaign. He was just throwing red meat to the far right of the GOP.
Besides, there are three branches of government, not just one, you know the checks and balances thing that we learned about in civics class, or did some of you sleep through that?

Have you heard about his top pick for scotus?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/pol...tices.html

In 2003 the dude affirmed a law in Texas that would lock up gays for having sex.

Trump said in the 3rd debate that he would only pick justices for the Supreme Court that were staunchly pro-life.

Try to find one that isn't also anti gay. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

All it takes is one good court case for the Supreme Court to reverse themselves. If another justice dies or retires...we are screwed.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
I have no doubt that Roe v. Wade is gone. Pence will make sure of that.

"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu."

[Image: parodia-michal-aniol-flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, calm your tits.
(16-11-2016 12:14 PM)Ash Wrote:  Ahh who cares if abortion is illegal! It just means that women won't have control over their bodies, and be forced to give birth. No big deal, right? Why should they have a right to their bodies. Democracy has decided they shouldn't, and democracy should be what we always go by.

And so what if gays are discriminated against? They'll survive it! Nevermind the fact that gay teen suicides will be on the rise, and those people can't be brought back to life. Or the fact that it'll embolden hompophobes to allow discrimination.

50% of this country... well actually more like 25%, and even then it's more like 24%.... because half the people didn't even vote, and Trump didn't even win the popular vote... will it, so obviously we should just go along with it. Yep. If half the country wants to deny rights to people on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation, they should TOTALLY go for it.

*Little off topic here.*

Sarcastic paraphrasing is a lazy rhetorical device.

"This device is discourse cancer. Seriously. If you mapped the downfall of a forum relative to how frequently this device is used, I would bet money you could get a strong positive correlation going. There is this mistaken assumption that satire, including this kind of satire, is intelligent or witty or indicative of intellectual sophistication. It is none of those things. Satire is easy. Writing like The Onion isn’t hard. The sarcastic paraphrase is one of the laziest ways to argue, because it doesn’t require a clear and coherent logical structure — the terms of argument are implied. As such, fallacies are harder to expose.

The sarcastic paraphrase presents a loud or obnoxious mocking paraphrase of the opponent’s position with a counter-position implied through the sarcasm. (It does not have to be in all caps. You can sound sarcastic if you write with exclamation points, too!) This should be easy to visualize, but as an example:

Megan: I don’t think we can sustain social security into the 21st century.

Christina: HHAAHAHA BECAUSE LETTING POOR PEOPLE STARVE IS SO PROGRESSIVE AND FORWARD-THINKING.

Here, Christina thinks defunding social security will make poor people starve and mocks Megan because, in Christina’s view, Megan’s position so fails to live up to this criterion that it is worthy of derision. That is, Christina’s actual position can be rephrased this way:

Megan: I don’t think we can sustain social security into the 21st century.

Christina: Social security prevents people, chief among them poor people, from starving. Defunding it will make poor people starve.

“Wow, Christina is pretty bad at debating,” you might say.

Sarcastic paraphrase is not invalid in and of itself. However, it is to argumentation what myspace angles are to beauty what playing fast is to piano what added sweetening is to wine: it makes imperfections harder to recognize.

When phrased in a direct way, Christina’s position has more transparent flaws. Even if Christina’s position were true, if social security is unsustainable — that is, funding it perpetually will eventually collapse the economy — Christina would have a lot more to worry about than poor people starving, because poor people would starve either way. (This assuming Megan’s claim is true; I don’t know whether or not social security is unsustainable.)

A more direct refutation would attack the sustainability issue itself, asserting that it is sustainable, that the concept of economic sustainability is somehow flawed, etc. — but through sarcasm, the faults of the counterargument are harder to see."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: