Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 254: Pete's Whine Cave

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik, really what Im getting at here is that trying to say that labeling the other side as immoral is a trademark liberal arguing point completely ignores reality. All sides do it
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yep! It kind of implies she thinks its immoral for the people who made the show to have a different opinion about gay affection

Sounds like liberal outrage culture trying to justify their reactions by trying to project it onto someone else! Nowhere did I say she said the person who made the movie is immoral and should go to hell. I said she is flipping out because she thinks the content is inappropriate for her child to see. (To be fair, it likely is because it is PG13. She didn't like the language or adult wisecracks either.) She also thinks scantily clad women making out with bare chested men in cartoons is inappropriate for our kid! How immoral!

The reason I brought it up at all was because it was an issue I said I personally believed being taught in school at a young age was inappropriate. Her belief process is that it is inappropriate even in media.

I mean, my response was basically "what ya gonna do? It is what it is.". Lol.

---

You realize these cartoons have parental guidance information right?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik, really what Im getting at here is that trying to say that labeling the other side as immoral is a trademark liberal arguing point completely ignores reality. All sides do it

Liberals consistently do it. Some of you literally at no point can debate sides without going out of your way to do it. I have been called how many different variations of evil by you all now at this point because I disagree with you. How many times have I said that in turn? Yinz can't help yourself, however.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Nowhere did I say she said the person who made the movie is immoral and should go to hell.

Yeah, its called inference. Did anyone literally call Wang immoral like you claimed? No, you inferred it from other words used.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You realize these cartoons have parental guidance information right?

Yes. I don't think it's a big deal since it's PG13. Every superhero movie is.

Her biggest complaints in order were.

1. The girl on girl stuff.
2. The language.
3. Batman's son made a wisecrack to use protection to Batman when he was apparently going to get his groove on.



---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah, its called inference. Did anyone literally call Wang immoral like you claimed? No, you inferred it from other words used.

You are inferring what you want to based on projecting your own behaviors, bud.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are inferring what you want to based on projecting your own behaviors, bud.

Generally if someone doesnt want their kid to see something, its because they think theres something morally wrong about it that the kid isnt old enough to process correctly
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wang where do you stand on Trump and the GOPs insistence that Ukraine is hiding a CrowdStrike server

false and BS. whether they all know they're spreading active BS, i don't know, but i'd assume some do and are willing to go with the idea that since there's some element of truth it's good enough, which is obviously wrong. you'll note that all i've stuck with is specifically stuff that is directly tied back to the Ukraine. i did not zero in on US heavy info in either direction, i purposefully stuck with Ukrainian information because that's a lot more valid of a source than anything else we're gonna find on the subject. if top prosecution (who we can verify as an anti-Russian activist) is willing to say it on record, if a court is willing to rule on it, it's a valid and a legitimate point to make. going further from that gets into much more murky waters that nobody but those involved can really detail since even higher level dems are willing to admit that there was involvement of some people but try to leave it at that, without specifying who. so instead of dealing with US politicizing, i'll stick with the most direct sources.

Corrik7 posted...

To be fair, liberals can't really argue without likening you to a monster, acting like you lack empathy, or are immoral because you don't agree with them. It is a consistent playbook in arguing with them.

eh, while i'm aware that is something the left has done a lot this is mostly just red being red. he also considers stuff like Epstein not committing suicide - the last time he flipped out on me - to be one of these crazy and harmful conspiracy theories. so take that as you will.

---

I mean, Corrik has said in the past he can't/doesn't bother with distinguishing who is saying what as individuals here so he simply guilt-by-association's us by picking what he takes as the "worst" of us and applies it to us all with his collective "you all/yinz/liberals/in this topic"

---

you done being an asshole or are you gonna continue rambling for another six posts about how i'm a terrible person? you know what you can do to avoid that? use that nifty gamefaqs feature to ignore me. then you'll never have to see a post of mine again and never have to stress yourself out.

To be fair, liberals can't really argue without likening you to a monster, acting like you lack empathy, or are immoral because you don't agree with them.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Generally if someone doesnt want their kid to see something, its because they think theres something morally wrong about it that the kid isnt old enough to process correctly

She doesn't think it is morally wrong to have sex when married. She doesn't want our kid to see it.

You are not making sense at all. Again. You are trying to project and failing miserably.

---

God, Corrik you are the worst at arguing
---

Wanglicious posted...

false and BS. whether they all know they're spreading active BS, i don't know, but i'd assume some do and are willing to go with the idea that since there's some element of truth it's good enough, which is obviously wrong. you'll note that all i've stuck with is specifically stuff that is directly tied back to the Ukraine. i did not zero in on US heavy info in either direction, i purposefully stuck with Ukrainian information because that's a lot more valid of a source than anything else we're gonna find on the subject. if top prosecution (who we can verify as an anti-Russian activist) is willing to say it on record, if a court is willing to rule on it, it's a valid and a legitimate point to make. going further from that gets into much more murky waters that nobody but those involved can really detail since even higher level dems are willing to admit that there was involvement of some people but try to leave it at that, without specifying who. so instead of dealing with US politicizing, i'll stick with the most direct sources.

eh, while i'm aware that is something the left has done a lot this is mostly just red being red. he also considers stuff like Epstein not committing suicide - the last time he flipped out on me - to be one of these crazy and harmful conspiracy theories. so take that as you will.

Epstein 100% committed suicide. Though I believe he was definitely helped to be able to do it.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

God, Corrik you are the worst at arguing

Yep. I bet I am.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yep. I bet I am.

You literally used Wangs interpretation to prove your point of what the people talking to Wang were doing, and then you highlighted a completely different premise you said that Im not even debating like it proves youre right.
---

red13n posted...

You are here spouting debunked conspiracy theories and I am telling you that you are a gullible conspiracy nut.

no, i'm here saying what the Ukraine has said on it.
you're over there throwing a fit and calling other people gullible while not connecting why, in a nation known to be very corrupt, someone would get a million dollars a year when their dad holds the most influence on the military. glad to see we've stamped out nepotism in the world.

---

Corrik7 posted...

She doesn't think it is morally wrong to have sex when married. She doesn't want our kid to see it.

You are not making sense at all. Again. You are trying to project and failing miserably.

So youre gonna tell me that I am incorrect in my assumption that your partner thinks being gay is immoral
---

Jakyl25 posted...

So youre gonna tell me that I am incorrect in my assumption that your partner thinks being gay is immoral

She goes back and forth on it personally.

---

Corrik7 posted...

She goes back and forth on it personally.

/topic
---

Jakyl25 posted...

/topic

Still making no sense.

---

Wanglicious posted...

when their dad holds the most influence on the military

whoa obama is on this too?

Burisma almost certainly hired Hunter hoping they'd gain influence in the Obama administration. However there remains no evidence that the administration's policy was influenced.

I agree it looks bad optically but there has never been any substance there and it continues to be used alternatively as a means to attack a political rival because the optics aren't great or as a smokescreen to try and distract from Trump's misconduct in the impeachment hearings.

---

I did get a hell of a chuckle though and the random announcing of victory in an argument out of nowhere for no reason though. That was funny.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Epstein 100% committed suicide. Though I believe he was definitely helped to be able to do it.

that's a fair take. do also consider that to be a very possible result, though of course that's put in same harmful conspiracy category by him.

reminds me that i'm still amused by the recent finding that the tapes of his initial failed attempt also magically disappeared so now we don't even know how that one went either. the man just had bad luck with cameras no matter where he went!


---

I successfully inferred what your partner believes about gay people (and also people that might put gay people in a cartoon, by extension)

A claim you deemed faulty initially purely because you never explicitly told us her feelings on the matter
---

xp1337 posted...

whoa obama is on this too?

Burisma almost certainly hired Hunter hoping they'd gain influence in the Obama administration. However there remains no evidence that the administration's policy was influenced.

I agree it looks bad optically but there has never been any substance there and it continues to be used alternatively as a means to attack a political rival because the optics aren't great or as a smokescreen to try and distract from Trump's misconduct in the impeachment hearings.

Why would they keep paying him then

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I successfully inferred what your partner believes about gay people (and also people that might put gay people in a cartoon, by extension)

A claim you deemed faulty initially purely because you never explicitly told us her feelings on the matter

You are literally making up what you want as you are going, bud.

Victory!

---

Wanglicious posted...

reminds me that i'm still amused by the recent finding that the tapes of his initial failed attempt also magically disappeared so now we don't even know how that one went either. the man just had bad luck with cameras no matter where he went!

Actually I saw a headline tonight that they found some tapes? Not sure which ones. I did not look further.
---

Wanglicious posted...

no, i'm here saying what the Ukraine has said on it.

Just a PSA: people from Ukraine find the phrase "the Ukraine" offensive because it dates back to when they were a part of the USSR. They've requested that the rest of the world use "Ukraine" since gaining independence.

---

because hope never dies

Also because if you're the kind of person who thinks you can get influence by hiring the guy you're probably the kind of person who fears you might get negative influence if you fire the guy.

But we don't need to wonder about their motivations to determine if US policy was influenced we can just look at US policy.

---

xp1337 posted...

because hope never dies

Also because if you're the kind of person who thinks you can get influence by hiring the guy you're probably the kind of person who fears you might get negative influence if you fire the guy.

But we don't need to wonder about their motivations to determine if US policy was influenced we can just look at US policy.

So you are saying Biden's position of power was used to garner wealth for his son.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Just a PSA: people from Ukraine find the phrase "the Ukraine" offensive because it dates back to when they were a part of the USSR. They've requested that the rest of the world use "Ukraine" since gaining independence.

That's from the USSR era? I always thought it was weird.

---

There's probably some intrinsic signaling value in saying "hey we got the VP's kid on our board" too even if they're not getting any actual favors from the US government (and again, all evidence points to the fact that they didn't).

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are literally making up what you want as you are going, bud.

Victory!

Okay lets take this back to the top.

Your claim was that its the liberal playbook to label people they argue against as immoral.

My counter claim was that its every sides playbook, and offered you the example of your partner. Im pretty sure youve said in the past that she thinks supporting abortion is immoral too! Correct me if Im wrong.

Is she just one anecdote in the grand scheme of things? Yes. But I can point you to many examples of conservatives arguing their message from the morality point of view; that they are right and liberals are leading America down the path to Satan
---

Are you saying Joe Biden did anything wrong? How did he use his position of power to "garner wealth for his son."

---

Wanglicious posted...

you're over there throwing a fit and calling other people gullible while not connecting why, in a nation known to be very corrupt, someone would get a million dollars a year when their dad holds the most influence on the military. glad to see we've stamped out nepotism in the world.

So tell me again, what did Joe Biden do that was corrupt exactly?

Because the guy that was known to be corrupt was fired at the doing of Joe Biden.

And again, I already told you the guy probably got the money because that company -thought- they could buy influence(On top of the fact that lawyers are expensive).

You are the one ignoring facts and trying to make a story that isn't there. Then you are getting upset(And saying I'm throwing a fit) at me telling you that you are just spouting nutso conspiracy theories.

---

xp1337 posted...

Are you saying Joe Biden did anything wrong? How did he use his position of power to "garner wealth for his son."

He had the prosecutor fired. It was a classic quid pro quo.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So you are saying Biden's position of power was used to garner wealth for his son.

Joe didn't have anything to do with it (beyond existing, I guess). It was Hunter's mistake and Joe isn't responsible for the independent actions of his adult son.

---

Please. If Ivanka was being paid a million dollars a year by Russia you guys would all think she was colluding with her father.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Joe didn't have anything to do with it (beyond existing, I guess). It was Hunter's mistake and Joe isn't responsible for the independent actions of his adult son.

To put it in Corrik-ese, Hunter Biden used his status as the son of someone with power for personal gain
---

red sox 777 posted...

That's from the USSR era? I always thought it was weird.

Yeah. There's debate over the etymology but the mainstream position is that it stems from "the borderland" from Russian.

Ukraine itself, since its independence, has rejected "The Ukraine" as incorrect politically and grammatically.

---

red sox 777 posted...

He had the prosecutor fired. It was a classic quid pro quo.

Also I know red sox is being facetious here but I know Wang is in deep so let me just refute this real quick. The prosecutor had stopped investigating the company(and others unrelated) Hunter Biden was working for at the time he was fired. He had said publicly a long while(A year+) that he would prosecute corruption but it had been a case of his words being far from his actions(He was, in fact, corrupt).

---

xp1337 posted...

Yeah. There's debate over the etymology but the mainstream position is that it stems from "the borderland" from Russian.

Ukraine itself, since its independence, has rejected "The Ukraine" as incorrect politically and grammatically.

And yet, from the most perfect phone call ever made

The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Okay lets take this back to the top.

Your claim was that its the liberal playbook to label people they argue against as immoral.

My counter claim was that its every sides playbook, and offered you the example of your partner. Im pretty sure youve said in the past that she thinks supporting abortion is immoral too! Correct me if Im wrong.

Is she just one anecdote in the grand scheme of things? Yes. But I can point you to many examples of conservatives arguing their message from the morality point of view; that they are right and liberals are leading America down the path to Satan

Yes, she thinks you are killing babies if you have an abortion. You should probably repent and forgiveness will be granted if you go down that path.

This wasn't even the initial argument. The argument was that you can't help yourselves when debating politics to do it on almost every single topic.

I can start talking about how giving illegal aliens licenses in New York or whatever is insane and should not be allowed. And, it will bog down to someone saying I don't care about human beings because I think that for example. It is nonstop across the board politically with a huge number of liberals. It has been done repeatedly on so many different topics over and over at this point.

Cop in right. Evil Corrik!
Should have work requirements. Evil!
Illegal immigrants should be deported. Evil!
Welfare should be stricter and a temporary stopgap. Evil!
I mean, I could go on for a long time with this and the responses are generally in the same ballpark before long every time.

You are trying to find, desperately I might add, a single topic or such where my fiancee may found it immoral of someone to justify a completely different thing I am describing. It is you trying to project to justify.

The correlation doesn't exist for what you are trying to do, despite your /topic victory pose!

---

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to argue with The Perfect Phone Call!

---

xp1337 posted...

Are you saying Joe Biden did anything wrong? How did he use his position of power to "garner wealth for his son."

Read what I said. I said so his position of power was used.

You said, they likely hired him with the expectation of it paying off dividends with the US government because he was the son of Biden.

So the position of power was the reasoning for the hire. Correct?

Now, are we going to act like Joe Biden didn't know his son was hired by a company in a country he dealt with for a job he had zero experience or knowledge regarding in an extremely high paying job?

I mean, we aren't going to go that route right?

So, Joe either knows something is fishy there or he is incompetent, right?

So, if he knows something is fishy in the country that he supposedly is trying to root out corruption in, you would think he would advise his son to leave the job, refuse it, or investigate the company itself right?

Correct?

Yet, it was the investigator that was investigating the company for corruption that Biden had reason to believe was corrupt right before his eyes that he forced out of the Ukrainian government, while his son continued to draw his paycheck from said company.

---

xp1337 posted...

whoa obama is on this too?

Burisma almost certainly hired Hunter hoping they'd gain influence in the Obama administration. However there remains no evidence that the administration's policy was influenced.

I agree it looks bad optically but there has never been any substance there and it continues to be used alternatively as a means to attack a political rival because the optics aren't great or as a smokescreen to try and distract from Trump's misconduct in the impeachment hearings.

Biden repeatedly insisted on being the point man for issues around Ukraine and Russia and did eventually get it, so he was the defacto #1. i think that predates Hunter's time but not entirely sure. not that i think it matters as he was always much more interested in foreign policy so that's consistent with his mannerisms.

and i mostly agree with the last paragraph but do need to make a clear distinction, back to my original point: while it is a bad look, most people don't actually care. not only would nobody be surprised, this is the president whose daughter and son in law are making tens of millions while sitting in the white house. business as usual, soft corruption like this isn't actually cared for right now so if the dems had just left it alone, wouldn't have mattered. especially as there's no way a normal outsider sees that situation and goes "yeah totally on the up and up," just let it ride with Joe saying he wasn't influenced, don't let Hunter do another interview, and if it ever gets brought up counterpunch with Trump's family because if people object to a million a year they sure as fuck are gonna have a problem with 83 million.

the fact that this is what they chose to impeach trump over, however, becomes bad optics for the dems. ya had a ton of other things and your objection came because... the son of a political rival was making a million bucks a year in another country as we were heavily involved with them politically. everything else trump's done was cool, this is your objection? it's a shitty premise. even those on the left have issue with that, so as you expand outwards you end up getting another reason why impeachment keeps dropping in favorability and why trump keeps going up.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You are trying to find, desperately I might add, a single topic or such where my fiancee may found it immoral of someone to justify a completely different thing I am describing

But its not a completely different thing. Its the EXACT SAME THING. And finding one counter-example on its own is enough.

You could have shut me down easily enough by just admitting that conservatives do it too! I was never trying to argue that liberals DONT.
---

corrik it is honestly evil of you to argue with jakyl like this
---

Corrik7 posted...

So, Joe either knows something is fishy there or he is incompetent, right?

Now youre getting it
---