Legalized prostitution zones in Taiwan

  1. Straw man is sexist. It’s straw person.
  2. No. I don’t want a genocide pill that will disappear feminists
  3. Don’t insist I answer dumb questions.

I don’t think it’s a dumb question to ask a utopianist who wants the US to have a Supreme Politburo. (Btw what is the correct spelling of that word?)

I once again wish you a pleasant day. :bowing:

Feminism has performed a valuable service to society in helping to free women from the patriarchal shackles of the past. It just didn’t know when to stop rolling the tanks.

I also don’t want nine unelected, unaccountable public officials with lifetime tenure turning the Constitution into a Trojan horse for their pet political projects but when in Rome . . .

It’s Politbureau. Politburo is the Russian version of five to nine, unelected, unaccountable public officials running a country like their personal fiefdom.

in the western/westernized countries. In many of Asian and other countries, it is not yet of the past.

If western feminism doesn’t regain its senses it’s likely to be even longer coming in Asia.

If your “when in Rome” disclaimer is an attempt to say you support it even though you don’t want it, I believe that still meets the definition of should.

I asked because in your previous incarnation as Comrade Smith, you always(?) spelled it the Russian way. :idunno:

You understand the nuance here, no? I don’t make the rules so even if I don’t agree with them I need to learn to play by them or I’ve lost by default.

Why should Asian rely on western feminism?

Btw, on the topic, legal control/protect prostitution is much better that prohibitation or no control/protection.

The concept of lesser evil is known to many. Understanding that life requires compromises isn’t the same thing as knowing which compromises are actually beneficial or even necessary.

With your prison gang analogy, the fact that it’s a false dichotomy should be obvious if you’re not in prison.

Who’s going to murder you in the middle of the night for refusing to join one of the two gangs?

It’s not lesser evil. It’s only game in town.

At least I’m honest about what I’m doing, as your dossier on me illustrates. Your lot is still pretending that the Supreme Court is just following the law with that flapjackery about a “living Constitution.”

My lot? Who are they? (Serious question.)


Of course your position is that there are two sides. You said it very clearly. (Don’t make me dig up the relevant posts…)

I’m saying there are more than two sides to the story that is the state of the world today. In fact, there are more than two sides to almost any story.

Imagine a country where mainstream discourse is reduced to A vs. B. The A’s have the government. The B’s go out into the street to protest. The A’s go out into the street to counter-protest. The protests get so big that the economy suffers. Neither side is willing to compromise.

What’s the solution?

A: We need more A’s!
B: We need more B’s!

If one side wipes out the other, obviously that removes the immediate problem, i.e. the impasse. However, it creates a set of new problems – vengeful widows, orphans, a general s***hole reputation for the country, and so on – and whatever problems the other side was upset about before they got wiped out will still be there, probably to an even greater extent.

But there’s always a C waiting in the wings, and if A and B spend all their energy opposing each other, we should not be the least bit surprised when C rushes in and fills the power vacuum.

Maybe B wanted that to happen, since it couldn’t figure out another way to get rid of A. But fast forward a bit, and we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see C doing its own thing, not B’s thing.

Maybe C wanted A and B to create the opportunity for its coup. Maybe not. Either way, C is the winner.

How does your cunning “we all need to support the racists because otherwise the anti-racists will murder us in our sleep” plan deal with this phenomenon?

Only game in town is in reference to the Supreme Politbureau. Lesser of two evils is whether to go Republican or Democrat, or, in your parlance, racists versus anti-racists.

I choose Republicans as the lesser of two evils because they’re traditional bigots, as opposed to the nouveau bigots in the Democrat party who believe that two wrongs make a right.

I’m just going with how you put things in the other thread.

Well, that settles it.
Kang%20%26%20Kodos%20laughing

Actually it doesn’t. I’ll let you and @Mick settle the question of whether Donald & Co. are “traditional” Republicans or whether we’re supposed to be excited about them because they’re so assuredly destroying the traditional establishment – or as @Rowland would put it, valiantly fighting the Deep State. (It would be quite a feat to be both traditional and iconoclastic at the same time.)

Meanwhile, I really do wish you a pleasant day. :bowing:

Glad you are keeping up @yyy, although no one needs to be excited or a fan of Donald Trump to have recognized the political establishment working hand in glove with the alphabet agencies and MSM pushing what they think everyone should think and care about or be outraged over. It’s been going on for decades, with both parties and it’s bad luck for the Democrats they will be blamed for everything. The fact is that the establishment tried and is still trying to get rid of Trump. Either they eventually win and given the number of resources makes it entirely possible they will win, or Trump exposes them.

You would still cast Donald as C. I’m saying he was C but is the new A (that’s what the peaceful transfer of power accomplished). Politbureau is apparently saying he’s the old A.

I suppose he can be all of the above at the same time, with the right mental gymnastics. (Fair is foul and foul is fair…)

But in the absence of death squads roaming the country – or rather the world, since Politbureau is afraid despite living abroad – and killing anyone suspected of having sympathy for any side other than their own, I don’t see the rationale for Politbureau’s position that you need either to howl with the A wolves or to growl with the B tigers, and anyone who does neither is as good as dead.

Even the real life example I used as the A-B-C model never got that extreme, and that’s a country that actually has had roaming death squads in the current century.

Yes, I am saying he is C. But he needs to operate in A’s world.

If trump is going to take on the establishment, and that looks like what he is going to do. It gets ugly. What it looks like to most people watching, the one agency that had his back from day 1 was the NSA. Which means in all likelyhood, the military have been watching over the FBI and DOJ since at least day one of his presidency. Let that sink in for a while.

Will this exposure be followed by a 3am Twitter rant about “shithole” countries, or which current B-list celebrities he thinks are losers, or perhaps a self-congratulation about how his golf courses are the best in the world? Because he’s such a focused and stable genius. The MOST focused and stable one ever! :joy:

1 Like

Things I couldnt give a shit about.

Syria being turned into a hell hole and other things I can thank Hillary and the Democrats for, I do.

Two scoops of ice cream, nope.

An absolute corrupt American Government that covers its tracks on any scandal no matter how large, yes.

Trump said women let him grab the pussy, yeah thats bad, a corrupt system that is incrementally screwing everyone so corporate interests and donors are happy, kind of out weighs it for me.

Hey, you go for he uses a knife and fork to eat KFC, whatever rocks your boat man.

Different factions within a state fighting each other while large numbers of citizens side with one faction or another, I can understand. Same thing in my example.

But the Khmer Rouge experience? That’s something else. You would need to let the most extreme of the extremists seize power. Which faction do you seriously think would let that happen?

If you continue with the A vs B stuff indefinitely, then ultimately that’s what you’re heading towards. And if the US were some obscure banana republic – like the Khmer Republic arguably was – with most of the population illiterate and thirsty for vengeance after their villages got bombed, it would be plausible.

I have actually seen the US, and while there’s much to criticize, I’m not convinced it’s the next Democratic Kampuchea.

Occasional security scares on university campuses (as if those were a new phenomenon) won’t convince me.

Twitter campaigns won’t convince me either.

Prostitution laws allegedly written for the sole purpose of sexually frustrating men definitely won’t convince me.

For those who are convinced, start renovating your bunkers. Surely the Feminazi Apocalypse will feature fire and fury like the world has never seen – you know what they say about a woman scorned! :runaway:

It’s also kinda corrupt when you overstep constitutional bounds by trying to fire the special counsel for the DOJ because they’re investigating you for possible collusion with a foreign country in influencing a presidential election that you won.

But aside from all that, it’s just funny that you guys think a mentally unbalanced, narcissistic showman with the emotional restraint of a jilted teenage girl is going to be the one to unravel the system. He can’t even keep himself by getting into petty feuds on Twitter for half a day. The other half he’s golfing, so he might be too busy to do much of anything.