We need to get rid of the christcucks from our politics
https://i.postimg.cc/v8Jqkc4x/1734433041654705.jpg
shareWell... did you read it?
share
MovieChat Forums > Politics > We need to get rid of the christcucks fr...
So you don't want any elected representatives that believe in God? Aren't they supposed to represent the people that voted for them? Not just you atheist asshats?
shareshould we vote for ppl that believe in santa clause as well?
shareWhat a retard...
share5.8 billion people, or 84% of the world's population are religious. I know you dipshit atheists love to throw your little puerile insults at Christians but it would seem you're in the minority.
share5.8 billion people, or 84% of the world's population are religious... would seem you're in the minority.
'Religious' can mean much. In the UK for instance, 'Jedi' was included in the census as an option under that heading. The argument from popularity, incidentally also known as the ad populum fallacy, is a logical fallacy that claims something is true, or right, because many people believe it..
I know you dipshit atheists love to throw your little puerile insults
Oh dear. share
Despite whatever bullshit fringe reference you pull from your posterior orifice, the vast majority of human beings believe in a higher power.
sharethe vast majority of human beings believe in a higher power.
I agree, and did not say otherwise. My point was simply that, just because something is believed in by the many, it does not necessarily make it true. And that is still the case.
bullshit fringe reference you pull from your posterior orifice,
You mean reminding you of a common fallacy? An ad hominem is another. Glad to help. share
It wasn't in response to you, dumbass.
Doesn't make it untrue either. The existence of a God-like creator cannot be proved or disproved.
No, dipshit, the Jedi reference.
It's not ad hominem if it's true.
When he can’t refute, he goes for the fallacy excuse.
shareThe telltale signs of false intellectuals. They think I say they're too stupid to argue with because I can't win the argument. I say it because it's true. They only 'think' it's "ad hominem" because they are stupid. Which is hilarious.
shareThe telltale signs of false intellectuals.
Unfortunately, this sounds like a Scotsman.
https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/no-true-scotsman/
They think I say they're too stupid to argue with ... They only 'think' [blah]
Don't tell me what I think. It is presumptuous. But ... didn't you just call me 'dumbass' on a previous message?
They think I say they're too stupid ... because they are stupid.
Read the above slowly. Can you see what you have done? lol
They only 'think' it's "ad hominem" ...
Websters:ad hominem: marked by, or being ,an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
Perhaps you have your own definition?
share
I'm not attacking your character, I'm questioning your intelligence. You are stupid. Stupid cannot be reasoned with.
shareI'm not attacking your character, I'm questioning your intelligence. You are stupid. Stupid cannot be reasoned with.
I don't think you understand, any attack on an opponent directly, rather than on what she or he says is an ad hominem. Insults btw have little or no affect on me, and ultimately they reflect more on you than they do me while not advancing the discussion, as we see at present. But, keep going, you're on a roll with 'stupid' at the moment. Very clever. share
The intent is not to insult. It's an observation. Again, I'm not saying you're too dumb to argue with because I can't win an argument and have to resort to insults. I'm saying it because it's true. "Ad hominem" is not a shield. It's not your get out of jail free card for being intellectually deficient. You prove this with half your posts. I'm about to quote another.......
shareThe intent is not to insult
Yeah right.
I'm saying it because it's true.
As already told, and demonstrated, an insult does not have to be untrue.
you're too dumb... intellectually deficient
oh dear. share
It wasn't in response to you
This is a public message board, sorry about that.
dumbass... dipshit
oh dear.
Doesn't make it untrue either. The existence of a God-like creator cannot be proved or disproved.
I agree. But this is a different point entirely from asserting that because something is popular it is likely to be true.
Also, the onus is always on those asserting a position, such as saying a deity exists, is to prove it. Soft atheists like myself, btw, do not make any assertions; we just don't believe in a deliberate supernatural.
It's not ad hominem if it's true.
So if I call an overweight person of low IQ 'fat and stupid' or come to that, right wing Christians with their characteristically regressive world views 'Christards' that is not insulting?
Have a good Christmas, my friend. Sounds like you need it. share
Case in point. You said, "I agree, and did not say otherwise."
If I wasn't talking to you, how is that even a relevant statement?
Like I said, too dumb to argue with. You have no business questioning the intelligence of others.
If I wasn't talking to you,
On a public message there is no privacy of discussion. And I see that you did not rebut either of my two main points.
too dumb to argue with
And yet so far today, you have replied to me 6 times so far lol .... share
the Jedi reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon share
Yes, 0.7% of dumbasses in the UK put that on their census report. Compared to 70% Christian and only 16% stated "no religion". You have a real argument there. Or something.
shareMy point was that 'religion' is quite a wide and varied term. And the Argument from Popularity is still a fallacy.
shareThe "popularity" comment was to counter the sarcastic and condescending tone of the post I was responding to. Ya know, the one that had nothing to do with you?
sharethe one that had nothing to do with you?
The one on a public message board? Got it.
The "popularity" comment was to counter the sarcastic and condescending tone of the post
Shame you didn't think of a reply that was fallacious then. share
And did you know that, of those 5.8 billion, xtians make up less than 10% of the religious-minded? Talk about a minority!
shareSo? The vast majority of people in the US are Christian. The question remains. Is someone supposed to disregard their beliefs because they're voted into office? Do you know what separation of church and state means?
shareIs someone supposed to disregard their beliefs because they're voted into office? Do you know what separation of church and state means?
You may wish to dwell on the reconciliation of these two statements. share
The answer to my second question is obviously a resounding NO, you do not know what it means. The question was rhetorical anyway.
shareYou need to dwell some more, my friend.
But if the question was rhetorical, then, er, why do you provide an answer?
Yep, too dumb.
Comical that a Brit without even a firm grasp of the language is going to lecture me on the Constitution and specifically, the separation of church and state. Absolute comedic gold.
a Brit without even a firm grasp of the language
Examples please.
going to lecture me on the Constitution and specifically, the separation of church and state.
As I said, one still needs to reconcile that separation with those, who you admit, may need to put their beliefs to one side.
Absolute comedic gold.
Don't flatter yourself.
share
[deleted]
What is "ppl"?
sharePeople
shareToo exhausting to type that out?
shareI think these abbreviations started as shorthand for texting, back when typing everything out on older phones was tedious. Over time, they became part of internet culture and are now just common ways to communicate quickly. Here are some examples:
brb: be right back
idk: I don’t know
smh: shaking my head
tbh: to be honest
imho: in my humble opinion
omg: oh my God
btw: by the way
irl: in real life
jk: just kidding
wtf: what the fuck
ngl: not gonna lie
imo: in my opinion
They’re convenient and have just stuck around, even when typing isn't as difficult anymore.
I'm amazed how many people believed Joe Biden would make a good president.
shareelected representatives can believe in God as much as they want, as long as they keep it out of their job.
They're supposed to check their core beliefs at the door? You dumb shits have no idea what "separation of church and state" actually means.
shareWe don’t need wackos in politics that believe in magic invisible sky fairies
shareYou're an incredibly stupid human being. The basis for all morality lies in religion. Including those you hate. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it triggers you so much that other people believe in God. Do you hate all religions and mock all religious people or just Christians?
sharelmfao, ever heard of Aristotle? He predates your dumb satanic cult.
Religion is the basis of all ignorance and immorality
It triggers me you believe in an invisible sky-daddy who’s magically gonna solve all your problems, because you’re too incompetent to.
You don't know what I believe. All you bring to the table is pure ignorance, hatred and judgment. If anyone needs Jesus, it's people like you. I'll pray for you.
shareI like your Christ. I don’t like your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your Christ.
shareDon't conflate real Christians with fake Christians.
shareDon't conflate real Christians with fake Christians.
Still with the Scotsman fallacy I see. LOL
https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/no-true-scotsman/ share
George Carlin "Do you believe in God?"
https://youtu.be/uSDGKKSiG8E?t=38