Protect children from churches

[Weapon_X]

This is objectively false, and just shows you've never stepped out of your Evangelical bubble. There is an entire world of Christianity out there, and not just globally. Evangelicalism has broken yall's brains.

Yoshi (sorry, not to speak for ya buddy) isn't even a "liberal Christian" probably, he just doesn't follow the Evangelical to MAGA doctrine and pipeline that all of you have been brainwashed to go down. The majority of things he's argued for is very in line with historic Christian doctrine, just not in your Evangelical/MAGA framework.

Your response is packed with logical fallacies instead of actual argument.

Ad hominem in dismissing Jhallen as stuck in an “Evangelical bubble” doesn’t address the point, it just attacks the person. Then there's the genetic fallacy... framing someone’s view as the product of an “Evangelical → MAGA pipeline” is a way to discredit the source instead of engaging the argument. There's also a Straw man fallacy... Jhallen’s original point was that most Christians lean conservative, not that all Christians are MAGA or that anyone here is a “liberal Christian.” Misrepresenting the claim makes it easier to knock down but avoids the actual issue.

I almost forgot the No True Scotsman fallacy in claiming that “historic Christian doctrine” somehow excludes Evangelical convictions, when in reality core Evangelical positions... authority of Scripture, sanctity of life, and Christian sexual ethics... are affirmed throughout church history.

Oh, and there's the bare assertion fallacy saying “this is objectively false” without providing any evidence doesn’t make it true. In fact, Pew and Gallup data repeatedly show that the majority of U.S. Christians lean conservative, and globally, the church is even more theologically conservative in regions like Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe.

Labeling and dismissing isn’t argument... it’s rhetoric. If the claim is wrong, it needs to be disproven with Scripture, history, or data.

 

[tigres88]

Your response is packed with logical fallacies instead of actual argument.

Ad hominem in dismissing Jhallen as stuck in an “Evangelical bubble” doesn’t address the point, it just attacks the person. Then there's the genetic fallacy... framing someone’s view as the product of an “Evangelical → MAGA pipeline” is a way to discredit the source instead of engaging the argument. There's also a Straw man fallacy... Jhallen’s original point was that most Christians lean conservative, not that all Christians are MAGA or that anyone here is a “liberal Christian.” Misrepresenting the claim makes it easier to knock down but avoids the actual issue.

I almost forgot the No True Scotsman fallacy in claiming that “historic Christian doctrine” somehow excludes Evangelical convictions, when in reality core Evangelical positions... authority of Scripture, sanctity of life, and Christian sexual ethics... are affirmed throughout church history.

Oh, and there's the bare assertion fallacy saying “this is objectively false” without providing any evidence doesn’t make it true. In fact, Pew and Gallup data repeatedly show that the majority of U.S. Christians lean conservative, and globally, the church is even more theologically conservative in regions like Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe.

Labeling and dismissing isn’t argument... it’s rhetoric. If the claim is wrong, it needs to be disproven with Scripture, history, or data.

you couch wannabe "theologians" have always been hilarious to me. Let me guess, you've read a few theological texts and commentaries and really consider yourself a biblical scholar

 

[Weapon_X]

you couch wannabe "theologians" have always been hilarious to me. Let me guess, you've read a few theological texts and commentaries and really consider yourself a biblical scholar

Solid move... when you can’t counter the argument, just take a cheap shot about “wannabe theologians.” Cute, but it’s still an ad hominem. The truth of Scripture and church history doesn’t hinge on whether the person citing it has a seminary degree. If you’ve got a real counterpoint, bring it. If all you’ve got is mocking, you’ve already conceded the argument.

 

[tigres88]

Solid move... when you can’t counter the argument, just take a cheap shot about “wannabe theologians.” Cute, but it’s still an ad hominem. The truth of Scripture and church history doesn’t hinge on whether the person citing it has a seminary degree. If you’ve got a real counterpoint, bring it. If all you’ve got is mocking, you’ve already conceded the argument.

Oh, that had nothing to do with your lil rant on my post. But from the posts I've seen from you, it's pretty clear so I just wanted to call it out. Actual theologians always laugh at yall lol

 

[Weapon_X]

Oh, that had nothing to do with your lil rant on my post. But from the posts I've seen from you, it's pretty clear so I just wanted to call it out. Actual theologians always laugh at yall lol

You guys really love logical fallacies. Please don’t ever step into a real debate... you wouldn’t last long. And just so you know, you stacked logical fallacies here... appeal to authority and appeal to ridicule. Impressive. Whether “real theologians” laugh or not is irrelevant... and honestly, nobody cares. You don’t need to be a theologian to understand Scripture, history, or facts. Truth doesn’t hinge on whether some ivory-tower academic chuckles; it rests on the consistency of Scripture, history, and evidence.

 

[tigres88]

You guys really love logical fallacies. Please don’t ever step into a real debate... you wouldn’t last long. And just so you know, you stacked logical fallacies here... appeal to authority and appeal to ridicule. Impressive. Whether “real theologians” laugh or not is irrelevant... and honestly, nobody cares. You don’t need to be a theologian to understand Scripture, history, or facts. Truth doesn’t hinge on whether some ivory-tower academic chuckles; it rests on the consistency of Scripture, history, and evidence.

Sounds good bud!

 

[LafayetteBear]

you couch wannabe "theologians" have always been hilarious to me. Let me guess, you've read a few theological texts and commentaries and really consider yourself a biblical scholar

He considers himself a scientific scholar and legal scholar as well. A veritable Renaissance man, which is pretty fitting, given that the Renaissance is pretty much the era where his world view is stuck.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Sigh ... Claiming to be an expert on all things scientific, religious and legal has to be exhausting for you. I might also note my amusement at your continuing to assert (and in fact attempt to count, in your own fashion) the "logical fallacies" you perceive others as having committed, when your trying to posit your own deeply conservative morality-based views as largely science based is one big, walking logical fallacy. You could submit a hundred additional posts here, and you aren't going to change anyone's view of that.

Calling the embryo at conception “just a collection of cells” oversimplifies biology to the point of distortion. So a collection of cells is not a collection of cells? Mea culpa for calling it what it is. Every stage of human life... zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, adult... is technically a “collection of cells.” A human is a living, respirating, walking, talking, eating, functioning being. In short, a person. A fetus, much less a zygote or a blastocyst, is none of those things. What makes the embryo unique is that it is a self-directing, living, human organism with its own distinct DNA, beginning development immediately. That’s not ideology; it’s the consensus of embryology. The Developing Human (Moore & Persaud) states plainly: “Human development begins at fertilization.” Your continued use of the term "organism" to describe a human fetus is telling. It undercuts your contention that a collection of cells is a person. Is is nothing more than the potential to become a person, which is borne out by the fact that such organisms frequently do not develop into actual persons.

It is not a logical fallacy to recognize that fact. Yes it is. A logical fallacy occurs when reasoning is invalid or deceptive. But here, the reasoning is straightforward: if what exists from conception forward is a living human organism, then the debate is not whether it’s alive or human... that’s established... but whether society grants it legal and moral personhood. To deny that on grounds of size, stage of development, or dependency is what slips into fallacy, because those same conditions apply to newborns, the severely disabled, or the comatose. People who are newborn, severely disabled, or comatose all have in common one thing that fetuses (aka "living human organisms") do not: they were born alive, and are therefore people. Society does not grant personhood to the newly born and deny it to fetuses. The realities of science do that. Everyone recognizes that "one on the way" (aka a fetus, aka a "human living organism") may not develop into a person and be born. That is just objective fact.

The truth is simple: life begins at conception, and recognizing that is neither a fallacy nor a stretch... it’s biology. The philosophical debate begins after that fact, not before it. You can continue braying about life beginning at conception all you want. It does not change the fact that personhood does not begin at conception.

The point isn’t whether Keith Moore ever wrote for the Saudis, or how they tried to frame embryology centuries before microscopes. The point is that his academic work, particularly The Developing Human, is a standard textbook in medical schools around the world. It has been peer-reviewed, widely cited, and used for decades in training doctors... not because of his personal faith or who he consulted for, but because the science is sound.

Dismissing his credibility because of one commission is a textbook ad hominem fallacy... attacking the man instead of engaging the evidence. You don’t have to take Moore’s word for it anyway, because every other embryology text affirms the same fact: human life begins at fertilization. That is the scientific consensus, not “eccentric” or “religious.” Trying to undermine it by smearing the author doesn’t change the biology one bit. "Smearing?" Moi? So it isn't fair game to simply point out the professional "accomplishments" and background of the "authority" you cited?! That constitutes a smear?! I'd say your making that assertion constitutes (surprise!) a logical fallacy.

 

[Weapon_X]

Sigh ... Claiming to be an expert on all things scientific, religious and legal has to be exhausting for you. I might also note my amusement at your continuing to assert (and in fact attempt to count, in your own fashion) the "logical fallacies" you perceive others as having committed, when your trying to posit your own deeply conservative morality-based views as largely science based is one big, walking logical fallacy. You could submit a hundred additional posts here, and you aren't going to change anyone's view of that.

Wow... you’ve managed to pack several logical fallacies in your response, which ironically proves my point that you still don’t understand what a fallacy actually is. A logical fallacy isn’t “an argument I disagree with” or “a conservative view I don’t like”... it’s a flaw in reasoning. And your reply is full of them:

• Ad Hominem: implying I’m “claiming to be an expert on all things” is attacking me, not my argument.
• Straw Man: recasting my position as just “deeply conservative morality-based views” ignores the fact that I’ve cited actual science and history.
• Poisoning the Well: trying to undermine my credibility before engaging my points is an attempt to bias the reader against my argument without addressing it.
• Begging the Question: declaring my position “one big, walking logical fallacy” without showing how is just assuming what you need to prove.
• Appeal to Futility: saying I “won’t change anyone’s view” is not an argument, it’s a way to dodge engaging with the evidence.

Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t about claiming to be all-knowing... it’s about exposing flawed reasoning so the discussion can stay grounded in facts and sound logic. If you want to debate the evidence or the reasoning, I’m all for it. But this kind of response doesn’t refute my points... it just avoids them.

 

[tboonpickens]

this guy loves to call out LoGiCaL FaLLaCiEs

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

What is there to stop trump from tampering with the epstein files?

Nothing that stopped the last gazillion people who have rummaged through the same files as to putting something in them

They are severely tainted

 

[Weapon_X]

Calling the embryo at conception “just a collection of cells” oversimplifies biology to the point of distortion. So a collection of cells is not a collection of cells? Mea culpa for calling it what it is. Every stage of human life... zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, adult... is technically a “collection of cells.” A human is a living, respirating, walking, talking, eating, functioning being. In short, a person. A fetus, much less a zygote or a blastocyst, is none of those things. What makes the embryo unique is that it is a self-directing, living, human organism with its own distinct DNA, beginning development immediately. That’s not ideology; it’s the consensus of embryology. The Developing Human (Moore & Persaud) states plainly: “Human development begins at fertilization.” Your continued use of the term "organism" to describe a human fetus is telling. It undercuts your contention that a collection of cells is a person. Is is nothing more than the potential to become a person, which is borne out by the fact that such organisms frequently do not develop into actual persons.

Yes, an embryo is a “collection of cells,” but so is every human being at every stage of life. That’s biology, not semantics. The difference is that an embryo is a distinct, living human organism... not just random cells, but a complete human at the earliest stage of development with its own DNA, growth trajectory, and self-directed processes. That’s why embryologists like Moore & Persaud state plainly: “Human development begins at fertilization.”

Defining “human” only as “walking, talking, eating” ignores that there are plenty of humans... newborns, the comatose, the disabled... who don’t meet those criteria yet are still fully human. Function doesn’t determine humanity; nature does.

As for the word “organism,” it’s not a downgrade... it’s a scientific term for any individual life form. Calling a fetus an “organism” doesn’t deny personhood; it’s the accurate biological classification for every human being, born or unborn. The fact that some embryos don’t survive doesn’t make them “potential” humans any more than the fact that some infants or adults die makes them “potential” people. Death presupposes life... if it wasn’t alive to begin with, it couldn’t die.

People who are newborn, severely disabled, or comatose all have in common one thing that fetuses (aka "living human organisms") do not: they were born alive, and are therefore people. Society does not grant personhood to the newly born and deny it to fetuses. The realities of science do that. Everyone recognizes that "one on the way" (aka a fetus, aka a "human living organism") may not develop into a person and be born. That is just objective fact.

Birth is a change in location, not in essence. The newborn is the same human being it was minutes earlier in the womb... same DNA, same developmental trajectory, same organism. The only thing that changes is whether we can see it and whether it’s physically independent. To claim personhood appears at birth is a philosophical choice, not a scientific fact.

Science doesn’t say fetuses aren’t human; embryology is unanimous that human life begins at fertilization. What you’re describing is a legal definition of “person,” not a biological one... and laws can be wrong. The fact that some unborn children die before birth no more makes them “potential people” than the fact that some newborns die makes them “potential people.” Mortality doesn’t define humanity; existence does.

You can continue braying about life beginning at conception all you want. It does not change the fact that personhood does not begin at conception.

Saying “personhood doesn’t begin at conception” is a philosophical position, not a scientific fact. Science has already settled when human life begins... at fertilization. Whether we choose to recognize that life as a “person” under the law is a moral and legal decision, not a biological one. But separating “personhood” from human life has been the justification for some of history’s worst injustices, and it doesn’t make the underlying life any less real.

"Smearing?" Moi? So it isn't fair game to simply point out the professional "accomplishments" and background of the "authority" you cited?! That constitutes a smear?! I'd say your making that assertion constitutes (surprise!) a logical fallacy.

My original post isn’t a logical fallacy... it’s calling one out. Pointing out relevant background is fine if it directly supports your case, but you didn’t engage with Moore’s actual evidence in The Developing Human or the wider embryology consensus. Instead, you tried to discredit his conclusions by focusing on one commissioned project for the Saudis, as if that alone negates decades of peer-reviewed, globally used medical research. That’s a textbook ad hominem... attacking the man’s associations or motives instead of refuting the data. If his conclusions are wrong, the way to prove it is with counter-evidence from embryology, not character attacks.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

You guys still not tired of using AI to battle ?

 

[LafayetteBear]

Here we go again. You never give up. do you? Do you think you're going to change anyone's opinion concerning abortion with this litany or posts you're submitting?

You’re right that “murder” is a legal term, but whether abortion is morally equivalent to murder hinges on the science of what’s being ended. If science shows the unborn is a living human organism from conception... and it does... then abortion is the intentional killing of that human life. No. Wrong. Penal (i.e., criminal) statutes everywhere define "murder" with reference to the intentional killing of a person, not a collection of cells or "a living human organism." The law may not call it murder, but morality isn’t bound by legal definitions. "Morality isn't bound by legal definitions." What kind of mumbo jumbo is THAT?!! A far better restatement of your proposition is that, while what is "moral" and what is "legal" are not always the same, moral strictures and standards obviously infuse and inform the definition of what is "legal." And the fact that abortion has been legal, and supported as legal by a broad majority of society both here and in various other countries, suggests that society does not regard abortion in anywhere near the absolutist fashion that you do.

And here’s the inconsistency: under federal and state law, if a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn child dies, it’s often prosecuted as a double homicide. The same life that counts as a victim in one context is dismissed as a “clump of cells” in another. That’s not a scientific or moral distinction... it’s a legal contradiction.
Got this from the Internet for you. Read and learn. In California, the killing of a fetus can be considered murder under Penal Code section 187(a), regardless of whether the fetus is viable. However, the fetus must have progressed beyond the embryonic stage, generally considered to be around seven to eight weeks after fertilization. This means that the law applies to fetuses that have started developing organs and structures beyond the initial embryonic period.
It's important to note that the law specifically excludes acts related to lawful abortions or those performed by a physician to save the pregnant person's life. Additionally, the law does not impose criminal liability on the person pregnant with the fetus for their own actions or omissions that may lead to the fetus' death. What?! A specific exception for abortion?! Imagine that.

Saying the unborn is “just a collection of cells” ignores the obvious: so is a toddler, so is an adolescent, so are you. See my comment above. The difference is stage of development, not nature. From conception onward, we’re dealing with the same continuous human life. Dismissing the earliest stages as “not human” doesn’t align with science or logic... it’s just rhetorical cover to avoid the moral weight of the act. A collection of cells may be a "living human organism," but it is not a person. I'm totally fine with aborting a collection of cells. Totally fine with it. No sleep lost. Plenty of folks who are virulent anti-choice (aka "pro-life") people are also pro death penalty. That seems morally inconsistent (and even logically fallacious) to me. Would that describe you as well? For the record, I am both pro death penalty (in appropriate cases) and pro choice.

Birth is significant legally, yes... but law is not the measure of when life begins. Governments also issue death certificates when a heart stops beating, yet no one argues that legal paperwork is what makes someone alive. Birth certificates mark entry into society, not the beginning of existence. Scientifically, life begins at conception... that’s why embryology doesn’t say “development begins at birth.” Embryology is the study of embryos, not live born human beings So the very title of the field of study you are focusing on undercuts your argument that embryos are "persons."

Your examples (birthdays, legal documents) are cultural conventions, not biological truths. Those cultural conventions arise out of biological truths. A fetus is not, and has never been recognized as, a person. Get over it. SMH ... We don’t celebrate “conception day” for the same reason we don’t celebrate “fertilization day” in a petri dish... but that doesn’t change what life is or when it starts. Even your own words concede that the unborn deserve “some measure of protection,” which undercuts your claim that they’re not meaningfully human until birth. If a fetus truly “does not approximate human existence,” why protect it at all? We appear to agree. A human embryo does not approximate human existence. So why protect it at all? That changes as the fetus has developed and is nearing birth. At that point, it more closely approximates human existence, and can perhaps be a viable person if born at that point. So it merits some additional protection. That works for me, and the majority of Americans. It apparently does not work for you. Such a pity ...

And the claim that unborn children “don’t interact in meaningful ways” is simply outdated. Modern science shows fetuses respond to sound, light, and touch in utero; they recognize their mother’s voice and even show preferences. C'mon now, Weapon_X. The "interaction" between a fetus and any person outside the womb is minimal at best. Fetuses are apparently capable of feeling heat, cold, and pain. And to the extent they do so, they do so at a stage of development where they are already entitled to legal protection. Your argument here is weak at best. The The womb is not a void... it’s the earliest environment of human life. To suggest existence only begins when lungs take in air ignores nine months of proven development. I'm not ignoring "Nine months of proved development." Those nine months are what turn a collection of cells into an actual person.

You’ve actually admitted the core point without realizing it... this entire debate hinges on whether the fetus is “another’s life.” Science has already answered that: from conception forward we’re dealing with a unique, living human organism with its own DNA, directing its own development. That’s not a “pantload,” that’s embryology. The only question is whether we, as a society, recognize that life as a person under the law. You're simply repeating yourself here, and it's boring.

The slavery comparison isn’t about identical circumstances, it’s about principle. Slavery and abortion are both examples of a stronger group defining a weaker group out of personhood to justify ending their rights or lives. Slaves were declared “not persons” for convenience; Wrong. Let's let Google explain it to you:
For the purpose of determining congressional representation and taxation, enslaved people in the United States were counted as "three-fifths of all other Persons" in the U.S. Constitution's Three-Fifths Clause (Article I, Section 2). This compromise, reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, counted three out of every five enslaved people in a state's population count. It is important to clarify that this clause did not declare enslaved people as 3/5ths of a human being in a general sense, but rather dealt specifically with their representation and taxation in government.
the unborn are declared “not persons” for convenience. The logic is the same even if the context differs. Frankly, I don't care if you call it "convenience" or not. Fetuses are not persons. Period.

And to your point about morality: legality doesn’t create morality. History is full of legal systems that enshrined grave injustice. The fact that abortion is legal in many places doesn’t settle whether it’s right... it only underscores that societies, like individuals, are fully capable of enshrining moral wrongs in law.


Sarcasm isn’t an argument. What I said isn’t “ex cathedra” or papal decree... it’s straight from Scripture and affirmed by the scientific consensus on when life begins. Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:41... these aren’t my inventions, they’re God’s Word. You can dismiss it with “yada yada,” but that doesn’t erase the truth. A true follower of Jesus doesn’t get to redefine life or morality around cultural convenience.

Your opinions and disregard for human life don’t reflect Christianity... they reflect the world. That’s not discipleship, it’s play-acting. A true follower of Jesus submits to His Word, not reshapes it to fit convenience. So do you also regard the use of birth control as a sin? A mortal sin? Imagine the number of people who are living in sin, in that case. How about masturbation? If your view of the sanctity of life is as absolute as it appears to be, then you likely regard spermatazoa as sacred organisms as well. I sure hope you aren't killing your own sacred organisms (i.e., flogging the dolphin).

 

[Weapon_X]

this guy loves to call out LoGiCaL FaLLaCiEs

Yep, I call out logical fallacies... because bad reasoning sinks an argument no matter how passionately it’s delivered. And when I point them out, I don’t just toss around the term, I explain exactly which fallacy it is and why it applies. Your meme just shows that, despite clear explanations, you still don’t understand fallacies or the laws of logic. Not surprising.

 

[LafayetteBear]

You go, Weapons_X. Color me shocked that you are a dedicated Trump Cultist.

Wow... you’ve managed to pack several logical fallacies in your response, which ironically proves my point that you still don’t understand what a fallacy actually is. A logical fallacy isn’t “an argument I disagree with” or “a conservative view I don’t like”... it’s a flaw in reasoning. And your reply is full of them:

• Ad Hominem: implying I’m “claiming to be an expert on all things” is attacking me, not my argument. Then perhaps you should cease claiming to be an expert in all things, and rein in your ultra high level of condescension just a tad. It will work wonders in this area.
• Straw Man: recasting my position as just “deeply conservative morality-based views” ignores the fact that I’ve cited actual science and history. You've cited the writings of some folks you claim as scientific authorities, and I have questioned the credibility of one of them. But assuming arguendo the credibility of the scientific authorities you cite, your posts continually blur the line between scientifically based argument and religiously or morality based argument. Mea culpa for having the gall to point this out.
• Poisoning the Well: trying to undermine my credibility before engaging my points is an attempt to bias the reader against my argument without addressing it. So you like to condescend to other posters, but are wounded when you receive negative feedback. Your whine is duly noted.
• Begging the Question: declaring my position “one big, walking logical fallacy” without showing how is just assuming what you need to prove. The very sentence in which I made that assertion begins with verbiage explaining why I believe it to be so.
• Appeal to Futility: saying I “won’t change anyone’s view” is not an argument, it’s a way to dodge engaging with the evidence. Wait. Wut?!! This is perhaps the most amusing of all your assertions. We have just devoted pages to discussing and debating this position, and whatever "evidence" each of us has claimed in support of our respective positions. But somehow, my noting my skepticism that your posts will change anyone's beliefs constitutes an attempt on my part to "dodge engaging with [your] evidence?" Could you be any more pompous and condescending, not to mention mistaken? Rhetorical question, Farley.

Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t about claiming to be all-knowing... it’s about exposing flawed reasoning so the discussion can stay grounded in facts and sound logic. If you want to debate the evidence or the reasoning, I’m all for it. But this kind of response doesn’t refute my points... it just avoids them.

 

[tigres88]

edit- deleted cuz it was mean/stupid.

 

[dpic73]

nm

 

[firegiver]

All that needs to be said was posted by Weapon_X. Just a moment ago....you glossed over it and evidently do not have the discernment to acknowledge it is packed with truth..

Jesus is Lord my brother in Christ

whats in the bible about abortion? Now whats in it about slavery? Now what does it say about you casting the first stone? see your moral superiority out sir. I once drove a baptists woman to get an abortion, her reasoning? No one would accept her having sex out of wedlock. Your ilk reap what they sow, they try to control what they cannot.

 

[jhallen]

whats in the bible about abortion? Now whats in it about slavery? Now what does it say about you casting the first stone? see your moral superiority out sir. I once drove a baptists woman to get an abortion, her reasoning? No one would accept her having sex out of wedlock. Your ilk reap what they sow, they try to control what they cannot.

I do not think i am morally superior to anyone fellow Clemson Tiger. I just came here to profess that Jesus is Lord..in response to OPs thread..and i got questioned..

The issues you mentioned...that is God's business to handle...and to judge ect

 

[jhallen]

You're often right on logical fallacies in arguments that you choose to participate in. And let's be real, in public spaces, the left and the right BOTH do it. Often. But honestly, this board is FULL of conservatives/MAGA's like yourself. After all, it's a Clemson message board, a University in the deep South of South Carolina. So mostly you're just preaching to the choir homie.

I appreciate that you treat each post you engage with, with your full attention and call out the wrongs you see, both from your viewpoint and with logical reasoning. Its admirable. And I know you think you're smart. You actually do seem like a smart guy, and I really do appreciate that. I respect intelligence alot.

But just some unsolicited advice- you just kinda suck dude. Like, you must be the WORST at parties. Chill out a bit. We all believe what we believe and want to defend it.

But you want to pummel people with your view point. You write literal essays trying to argue against people in the hopes they'll believe what you do at best, and shame them at worst- That's insecure as **** homie.

I've been condescending on here, as recently as yesterday. Most that post in here have been. But like, homie, dudes like growls and pig boi and dpic and okclem suck cuz they're SO partisan and just repeat talking points from either sides of the aisle; but you seem like just an ***.

This isn't a recognized debate forum. We argue, we fight, we use different talking points, and we say what we believe. But this is a stupid *** offshoot of what I and many others care about- Clemson football. And if you want to engage in an ACTUAL debate, go on that weird youtube debate channel that people go on. Or like, run for local office. For that same reason, I rarely drop that I have a masters in theology from an Evangelical/Conservative seminary. This isn't really the place someone of my credentials should be "arguing" with people in.

Pummeling people with your views that have ZERO nuance, that are conservative/evangelical talking points wrapped up in self important logic, and that kinda/maybe seem like they are AI generated, and honestly just seem like message board filibustering so that no one can actually respond (other than @LafayetteBear) provides nothing of value to this site. You just kinda suck, dude.

I'll take growls' conspiracy theory/q anon twitter posting every night and pig boi's elon musk dick glazing and tboones hyperbolic liberal social media posts and okclem's far leftist partisanship over your self-important conservative boot licking insecurity any day.

Grow up. Mature a bit. Your immaturity is showing "weapon x." You're more Laura/x-23 than you are Logan/Wolverine.

Good ole censorship?

 

[dbjork6317]

Eight men have accused Christian rock star Michael Tait of sexual assault

Six men alleged misconduct by Tait in June, and now, two more have come forward.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Weapon_X]

You go, Weapons_X. Color me shocked that you are a dedicated Trump Cultist.

None of my responses have contained logical fallacies... you’ve simply mislabeled valid argumentation because you don’t like the conclusions. Let’s go point by point.

Ad Hominem: My calling out your reasoning flaws is not “claiming to be an expert in all things.” It’s applying logic and evidence to a discussion. Pointing out where arguments fail isn’t condescension... it’s debate. Dismissing that as “condescension” doesn’t refute my points, it just sidesteps them.

Straw Man: I haven’t “blurred the line” between science and morality. I’ve cited scientific consensus from embryology and paired it with moral reasoning... two distinct components that work together in forming an argument. Questioning one scientist’s credibility doesn’t erase the fact that the same conclusion is affirmed across the field. That’s not blurring the line, that’s reinforcing it.

Poisoning the Well: Critiquing my tone is not an argument against my evidence. You’ve still failed to address the actual points presented, instead focusing on personal jabs. That’s textbook poisoning the well... trying to prejudice readers against my arguments before engaging them.

Begging the Question: Saying my argument is “one big fallacy” is still begging the question unless you actually demonstrate it by identifying the fallacy and explaining how it applies. Simply claiming “I believe it to be so” is an opinion, not proof.

Appeal to Futility: Yes, you’ve posted replies... but noting your skepticism about changing minds is appeal to futility when it’s used to imply further discussion is pointless. It’s a rhetorical way to dismiss the possibility of persuasion rather than engaging with the evidence on its own merits.

You can disagree with my conclusions all day long... but none of my points have used faulty reasoning. That’s the difference between disagreeing with an argument and proving it’s a fallacy.

 

[Weapon_X]

edit- deleted cuz it was mean/stupid.

Appreciate the backhanded compliments, I guess? I’ll take “smart guy” and “often right on logical fallacies” any day. And yeah, I know this isn’t the Oxford Union... this is a Clemson board. But here’s the thing: if people toss out arguments, I’m going to respond with logic, facts, and receipts. That’s not “pummeling,” that’s participating.

If it comes off as “essays,” maybe that’s just because I care enough to back up what I say. Some folks fire off one-liners, others build a case... you know, different styles. And the whole “worst at parties” thing? Let’s be honest, personalities on a message board don’t translate to real life. I’m not walking into parties with a pocket Constitution and a whiteboard. I'm usually just there for the food, drink and to catch the game.

At the end of the day, if my posts aren’t your thing, scroll past. But if you’re going to throw ideas out in the open, I’m going to push back with what I believe is true... and I’ll keep doing it with logic and consistency, because that’s how you actually test ideas.

 

[Weapon_X]

whats in the bible about abortion? Now whats in it about slavery? Now what does it say about you casting the first stone? see your moral superiority out sir. I once drove a baptists woman to get an abortion, her reasoning? No one would accept her having sex out of wedlock. Your ilk reap what they sow, they try to control what they cannot.

Here’s the problem with that take... it mixes categories and muddles morality.

Abortion: Scripture treats life in the womb as real, known, and protected: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps 139:13–16), “Before I formed you… I knew you” (Jer 1:5). The earliest Christian teaching outside the NT... the Didachē... explicitly forbids abortion. You won’t find a verse cheering it on; you will find a consistent ethic of protecting innocent life.

Slavery: The Bible regulates a fallen institution in the ancient world; it doesn’t canonize race‑based chattel slavery. The seeds that ended it are biblical: Imago Dei (Gen 1:27), “there is neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28), and the moral pressure of Philemon. That’s why the historic abolitionist movement was overwhelmingly Christian.

“Cast the first stone”: John 8 isn’t a ban on moral judgment; it’s a rebuke of hypocritical judgment. Jesus Himself says, “Judge with right judgment” (Jn 7:24). Christians must call sin what it is... without self‑righteousness, and with compassion and restoration.

The anecdote on "sex out of wedlock": A church culture that shames a woman for sexual sin while ignoring the life of her child is doing both wrong. Grace for the mother and protection for the child are not opposites. Legalism is a sin; so is taking innocent life. The answer to hypocrisy isn’t a homicide... it’s repentance, support, and truth.

Calling this “control” misses the point. Laws against killing aren’t “control,” they’re protection. A coherent moral framework defends the vulnerable—born and unborn—while refusing hypocrisy. That’s not moral superiority; that’s moral consistency.

Calling this “control” misses the point on both counts. If you mean the Bible is meant to control, that’s a misunderstanding... its purpose is to reveal God’s truth, set moral boundaries, and point people toward life, freedom, and restoration, not arbitrary domination. If you mean abortion laws are about control, that’s equally off-base... laws against killing aren’t “control,” they’re protection for the most vulnerable. A coherent moral framework defends the defenseless... born and unborn... while rejecting hypocrisy. That’s not moral superiority; that’s moral consistency.

 

[firegiver]

Here’s the problem with that take... it mixes categories and muddles morality.

Abortion: Scripture treats life in the womb as real, known, and protected: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps 139:13–16), “Before I formed you… I knew you” (Jer 1:5). The earliest Christian teaching outside the NT... the Didachē... explicitly forbids abortion. You won’t find a verse cheering it on; you will find a consistent ethic of protecting innocent life.

Slavery: The Bible regulates a fallen institution in the ancient world; it doesn’t canonize race‑based chattel slavery. The seeds that ended it are biblical: Imago Dei (Gen 1:27), “there is neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28), and the moral pressure of Philemon. That’s why the historic abolitionist movement was overwhelmingly Christian.

“Cast the first stone”: John 8 isn’t a ban on moral judgment; it’s a rebuke of hypocritical judgment. Jesus Himself says, “Judge with right judgment” (Jn 7:24). Christians must call sin what it is... without self‑righteousness, and with compassion and restoration.

The anecdote on "sex out of wedlock": A church culture that shames a woman for sexual sin while ignoring the life of her child is doing both wrong. Grace for the mother and protection for the child are not opposites. Legalism is a sin; so is taking innocent life. The answer to hypocrisy isn’t a homicide... it’s repentance, support, and truth.

Calling this “control” misses the point. Laws against killing aren’t “control,” they’re protection. A coherent moral framework defends the vulnerable—born and unborn—while refusing hypocrisy. That’s not moral superiority; that’s moral consistency.

Calling this “control” misses the point on both counts. If you mean the Bible is meant to control, that’s a misunderstanding... its purpose is to reveal God’s truth, set moral boundaries, and point people toward life, freedom, and restoration, not arbitrary domination. If you mean abortion laws are about control, that’s equally off-base... laws against killing aren’t “control,” they’re protection for the most vulnerable. A coherent moral framework defends the defenseless... born and unborn... while rejecting hypocrisy. That’s not moral superiority; that’s moral consistency.

If you don't want to control it then stop passing laws to control it. These laws that are passed are literally killing women who need medical abortions. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get one. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Just bought the Federal Stamp and Hunting License for “USEFUL IDIOTS”.


I was told that is a whole flock hanging out on this site.

Lock and load baby!

 

[Weapon_X]

If you don't want to control it then stop passing laws to control it. These laws that are passed are literally killing women who need medical abortions. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get one. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.

Congrats... that might be the most mindless, baseless post in the entire thread. You just proved how well propaganda works on the willing and the gullible.

 

[firegiver]

Congrats... that might be the most mindless, baseless post in the entire thread. You just proved how well propaganda works on the willing and the gullible.

Buddy, congratulate yourself on being a close minded know it all. You are the propaganda touting one.

 

[Weapon_X]

Buddy, congratulate yourself on being a close minded know it all. You are the propaganda touting one.

If by “close-minded” you mean recognizing facts, science, grounded morals, and calling out nonsense... then guilty as charged. The difference is, I check my sources; you just let the propaganda set up a permanent Airbnb in your head.

 

[firegiver]

If by “close-minded” you mean recognizing facts, science, grounded morals, and calling out nonsense... then guilty as charged. The difference is, I check my sources; you just let the propaganda set up a permanent Airbnb in your head.

lol SCIENCE. Bro, you haven't touched a science

 

[dbjork6317]

7 arrested at Jackson Township hotel sex sting

Seven men are facing felony charges, accused of going to Jackson Township hotel to have sex with a 14-year-old as part of police sting operation.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Weapon_X]

lol SCIENCE. Bro, you haven't touched a science

I've cited 'science' multiple times in this topic. Reading comprehension is a skill... you should acquire it.

 

[firegiver]

I've cited 'science' multiple times in this topic. Reading comprehension is a skill... you should acquire it.

Reading your blow hard diatribe is a chore, not a skill.
YOU responded to my comment to someone else. Also, you are all over the place with your topics. But lets stick to control.

YOU say:

Calling this “control” misses the point. Laws against killing aren’t “control,” they’re protection. A coherent moral framework defends the vulnerable—born and unborn—while refusing hypocrisy. That’s not moral superiority; that’s moral consistency.

It must be real easy being so simple that this is the level of complexity you lend to the subject of abortion. Your powers of moral consistency leave out everyone not the baby.

In Texas right now, are they morally consistent? If a mother has a partial miscarriage does your consistency with PASSING DRACONIAN LAWS pass the smell test? What about the Dr who swore to help people, they could go to prison if they try to save the woman. What about the mother about to die from sepsis as her fetus is already dead inside her? She will go to prison if she terminates it.

You HIDE behind words like morality because you think the word gives you weight and certainty. It doesn't. Morality is dynamic and changes depending on the situation it is tested against. You think the government is being morally consistent? There are americans facing different rules now on how to have kids. With steep consequences.

The real word for what is going on here is CONTROL. The zealot fanatics want to control people by giving them an ultimatum and you are happily encouraging big government to do their bidding.

 

[Dadar]

Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to cushy prison camp is a 'travesty of justice,' ex-BOP official says

The move has sparked shock and outrage among current and former Bureau of Prison staffers.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Weapon_X]

Reading your blow hard diatribe is a chore, not a skill.
YOU responded to my comment to someone else. Also, you are all over the place with your topics. But lets stick to control.

YOU say:

Calling this “control” misses the point. Laws against killing aren’t “control,” they’re protection. A coherent moral framework defends the vulnerable—born and unborn—while refusing hypocrisy. That’s not moral superiority; that’s moral consistency.

It must be real easy being so simple that this is the level of complexity you lend to the subject of abortion. Your powers of moral consistency leave out everyone not the baby.

In Texas right now, are they morally consistent? If a mother has a partial miscarriage does your consistency with PASSING DRACONIAN LAWS pass the smell test? What about the Dr who swore to help people, they could go to prison if they try to save the woman. What about the mother about to die from sepsis as her fetus is already dead inside her? She will go to prison if she terminates it.

You HIDE behind words like morality because you think the word gives you weight and certainty. It doesn't. Morality is dynamic and changes depending on the situation it is tested against. You think the government is being morally consistent? There are americans facing different rules now on how to have kids. With steep consequences.

The real word for what is going on here is CONTROL. The zealot fanatics want to control people by giving them an ultimatum and you are happily encouraging big government to do their bidding.

Hard to take your rant seriously when the argument is clearly made in bad faith. You didn’t try to engage what I actually said... you misrepresented it, emotionally escalated to extreme hypotheticals, and then accused me (and anyone who holds a consistent moral framework) of secretly pushing for “control.” That’s not argument. That’s projection dressed up as outrage.

Saying that defending unborn life = ignoring the mother is just false. A consistent moral view doesn’t pit one life against another... it protects both. The Texas law you referenced has medical exemptions for cases where the mother’s life is in danger. And no, women are not being arrested for miscarriages or doctors for saving lives... that’s media spin, not legal reality. If a law is unclear, vote to fix it... don’t pretend it proves all protections for the unborn are draconian.

You claim “morality is dynamic,” but that’s just moral relativism in disguise. If there’s no foundation for moral truth, then morality becomes whatever someone personally feels in the moment... subjective, shifting, and ultimately meaningless. Without an objective standard, no act is truly wrong... only inconvenient to someone else’s preference. And that’s a dangerous way to build a society.

The claim that this is all about “control” is ironic. Because it’s abortion absolutism that demands zero restrictions, no questions asked. That’s not freedom... that’s license with no responsibility.

BTW, FTR - Your post is packed with logical fallacies... Strawman, Appeal to Extremes, False Dilemma, and Ad Hominem, just to name a few. And I get it… pointing that out probably gets under your skin. But it also proves the point... when you can’t build a coherent, fact-based argument grounded in truth, you default to emotion, feelings, and moral relativism.

 

[tboonpickens]

MAGA guy accusing someone of moral relativism is wild lol.

 

[Weapon_X]

MAGA guy accusing someone of moral relativism is wild lol.

Probably best not to throw around terms you don’t understand... especially when my posts have shown a clear moral foundation backed by logic, not just opinion.

 

[yoshi121374]

Probably best not to throw around terms you don’t understand... especially when my posts have shown a clear moral foundation backed by logic, not just opinion.

LMAO, the "foundation" of your posts is AI and everyone sees it

 

[Weapon_X]

LMAO, the "foundation" of your posts is AI and everyone sees it

If calling out logical fallacies, backing arguments with facts, and actually forming coherent thoughts looks like AI to you… that says a lot more about your circle and intellect than it does about my posts.