Protect children from churches
- Thread starter dbjork6317
- Start date
If you need a firm “no” to sleep better at night… here it is... I’m not a bot.
1. So you're not a MAGA guy? You certainly had the rest of us fooled, given your many statements espousing classic MAGA positions, extolling your Orange Master as "God's imperfect instrument," claiming to be a scientific expert, asserting that those who disagree with you are somehow wanting both intellectually and morally, and reeking of (unwarranted) condescension. As I mentioned before, you are one big, walking logical fallacy.
2. So you weren't accusing those who disagree with you of "moral relativism?" BWAHAHAHAHA!!! You can't be dumb and deluded enough to believe that. On second thought, yes you can.
Did any of notice the Bot literally replied to both my comments with the exact same post ... And still didn't admit that he's copying and pasting from AI.
It was basically the same comment. So why change it up when I can copy and paste and save myself time. You really are a dumbass.
Says the "guy" posting AI comments on a message board.
Where did you come to us from? Who are you a fan of?
You can call me whatever label makes you feel better, but responding to ideas with name-calling and lazy stereotypes doesn’t make your argument stronger... it just shows you’ve run out of substance. I’ve consistently made reasoned points grounded in logic, science, and moral consistency. If that reads as “condescension,” maybe the issue isn’t the tone... it’s the discomfort of facing a well-supported viewpoint. Also, calling someone “one big, walking logical fallacy” without identifying even one fallacy… is ironically a textbook fallacy itself.
Yes, I did point out moral relativism. Because when your version of “morality” changes with the situation or the audience, that’s literally moral relativism. It’s not complicated. And mocking it with a “BWAHAHA” doesn’t magically turn it into a valid argument. If you have a better response, make it. Otherwise, thanks for proving my point so loudly.
I’m a Clemson grad and have been a member of this board since I finished school in 2001... back when I was no longer a broke college kid (just a broke working one, but at least I could afford the annual fee). I used to post regularly on the football side until I took a break around 2016. Came back in 2018 (check the join date under my name) but haven't posted much.
Reading some of the posts in the politics board, it needed a strong conservative voice (I'm not even a huge MAGA), so I've been having some fun jumping in... and honestly, I was not expecting this many responses, but here we are. I’ll post more on the football side once the season gets rolling. Looking forward to it.
lol i missed the "God's imperfect instrument" line in his many walls of AI text.
definitely doesn't sound cultish or someone interested in moral relativism.
definitely doesn't sound cultish or someone interested in moral relativism.
Executive at Nonprofit Overseeing Ministries for Children Charged With Production and Possession of Child Sex Abuse Material
An executive at a youth ministry nonprofit in Pennsylvania, Daniel Reed, has been arrested on multiple child sex abuse material charges.
julieroys.com
Classic liberal move. Once you’ve been out-argued, out-debated, and out-smarted, you toss out labels like “AI” or “cultish” because that’s all you’ve got left. You can’t refute the points, so you go for the drive-by sarcasm and name-calling.
Regarding, "God's imperfect instrument". This is where reading comprehension and ability to utilize critical thought comes in... and post after post shows you fail miserably at these skills. You're really, really bad at both. I never said that Trump was God's imperfect instrument. What I did say is that the Bible shows countless examples of God using flawed people to fulfill His purposes. Dismissing Christians who support Trump shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture and how God has worked through imperfect individuals throughout history. You don’t have to like it, but at least know what you’re arguing against.
Calling faith-based conviction “cultish” while tossing around moral relativism like it’s a virtue? That’s a special kind of irony. Maybe try addressing the actual argument instead of running the same tired liberal playbook.
Don't you ever give up?! Why not give your hubris a minute or two off? Your ceaseless efforts to proclaim yourself as this Board's savant, and everyone else utterly unworthy of your pearls of wisdom, grew stale pretty quick. OK, if was good for some laughs at the outset, but the humor faded as we realized you were serious, and the full extent of your delusion became obvious.
I have to hand it to you, though. Your coming up with (what?) six different categories of "logical fallacy" was just awesome. To call it guffaw inducing doesn't do it justice. Keep up God's work.
He makes really insightful posts....instead of telling him to be quiet..you liberals should fight back..go toe to toe..point for pointDon't you ever give up?! Why not give your hubris a minute or two off? Your ceaseless efforts to proclaim yourself as this Board's savant, and everyone else utterly unworthy of your pearls of wisdom, grew stale pretty quick. OK, if was good for some laughs at the outset, but the humor faded as we realized you were serious, and the full extent of your delusion became obvious.
I have to hand it to you, though. Your coming up with (what?) six different categories of "logical fallacy" was just awesome. To call it guffaw inducing doesn't do it justice. Keep up God's work.
If you cannot do that...maybe concede that he is correct
You can't reason with someone who is delusional. You can give him "attaboys," but then that makes you delusional as well. I'm just sayin' ...
Pete Hegseth just came out in favor of eliminating womens' right to vote. He did so while praising a video of a prominent evangelical nut job (name of Doug Wilson) who was expounding on this point. I'm not joking. Here is a link on the subject:
Pete Hegseth amplifies pastors with a message: Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote
The Pentagon chief already had a reputation as a far-right culture warrior. Then he promoted a video featuring pastors opposed to women voting.
www.msnbc.com
Do you agree with Hegseth? WWJD in this case?
Last edited:
Clearly in bad faith he says.
Why in bad faith? I'm being deceptive or dishonest? About what? I honestly have no clue what you would be talking about. So... seems like you misunderstand my motives. But if you want to have some high level discussion on issues, then address the issues and stop clutching your pearls.
We disagree about moral relativism. We only have to look at the bible to find examples, like eating shellfish and pork in the bronze age was 'WRONG' while now its morally acceptable. Are you saying thats not true? Are you saying moral relativism isn't real? Because you will lose that argument very quickly.
"Because it’s abortion absolutism that demands zero restrictions, no questions asked. That’s not freedom... that’s license with no responsibility." What? Now you are going off on an extreme stating its either control or the wild west. Roe v Wade was a compromise, because people's personal freedoms and the moral relativism of health care met and decided it was best to leave it up to the individual in these cases.
If your outlook were applied 'consistently' you would then be ok with denying Jehovah witnesses' of their freedom of religion. For example: They do not accept life saving blood transfusions. If you are consistently applying your moral absolutism, then denying them their freedom of choice in this matter is what should happen. Yes?
"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."
I'm not sure you've mastered the meaning of the words you are throwing around. Also, I don't think just denying that moral relativism's existence helps you in this debate.
Moral relativism is very much a real thing and is documented over and over again. What you seem to think is that your personal beliefs are better than someone else's. Which is why I state you wish to control people.
You think hes delusional? Well....you obviously know there are roughly 80 million people in Anerica....much more worldwide. who would say youre delusional...who cares
You cant reason with him??.
OR..
You cant change his opinion to align with yours??..that is the REAL reason you want him to quit posting. ...AND...he constantly whips you fellas in debates
Why not ALLOW EVERYONE to speak on this open message board...not just the libs?
My issue is he is clearly copying and pasting from AI sites. He isn't making arguments of his own.
He also hasn't denied this when I've called him on it.
jhallen: Changing anyone's mind is not among the reasons I post on this Board, or other internet Boards. That would be the most outlandish of objectives. I post on Boards where there is a majority of Conservative posters, because I want to be entertained. These Trump Cultists are typically so dumb and deluded that they refuse to accept even basic facts if they run counter to their Orange Master's narrative. For that, and for their mockery of liberals, they deserve mockery. I'm only too glad to extend them that courtesy.
And please explain how I am preventing anyone from speaking.
Last edited:
You keep using “moral relativism” like it means, “people have different opinions.” That’s not it. Moral relativism is the idea that there’s no fixed moral truth... that right and wrong shift entirely based on personal or cultural preference. If that’s the standard, then morality has no real anchor at all.
Your shellfish and pork example isn’t proof of moral relativism... it’s a misunderstanding of context. Those Old Testament food laws weren’t moral absolutes for all people for all time; they were part of the ceremonial law for ancient Israel. The moral law... prohibitions against murder, theft, lying, etc.... didn’t change. So no, that’s not “morality shifting,” that’s a change in covenant and context.
On Roe v. Wade, it wasn’t some perfect “meeting in the middle.” It was a judicial overreach that short-circuited the legislative process and set arbitrary viability lines that even pro-choice legal scholars have called shaky. And abortion absolutism is real... there are many activists and lawmakers today openly calling for zero restrictions, up to birth. That’s not an “extreme I invented,” it’s happening in actual legislation.
As for the Jehovah’s Witness analogy... it falls apart because refusing a transfusion is a decision that primarily risks one’s own life. Abortion is a decision that intentionally ends another distinct, developing human life. The moral framework changes because the second case involves two lives, not one.
Lastly, pointing out logical fallacies isn’t “pearl clutching,” it’s keeping the discussion honest. You can disagree with me all day, but misrepresenting terms, shifting definitions, and ignoring the distinctions I’ve just laid out isn’t debating in good faith.
Please explain to me how you believe my posts here constitute me this Board's "czar." I have zero interest in telling you what to post. I may express my disagreement with something you post, and if your post is sufficiently crazy or factually unsupported, I may even mock it (and/or you), but that is hardly novel for political chat boards.
Don't you ever give up?! Why not give your hubris a minute or two off? Your ceaseless efforts to proclaim yourself as this Board's savant, and everyone else utterly unworthy of your pearls of wisdom, grew stale pretty quick. OK, if was good for some laughs at the outset, but the humor faded as we realized you were serious, and the full extent of your delusion became obvious.
I have to hand it to you, though. Your coming up with (what?) six different categories of "logical fallacy" was just awesome. To call it guffaw inducing doesn't do it justice. Keep up God's work.
Give up? Not my style. And if catching six fallacies in one post cracked you up, that probably says more about what usually slips past here than it does about me. It’s not hubris to call them out... it’s just keeping the conversation on logic instead of improv. If that kills the joke, maybe build it on a better setup.
Let’s clear something up... if you go back through all of my rebuttals in this thread, did I ever say I’m MAGA or a die-hard Trump supporter? No. I’ve been speaking about morals and values in general, not pledging allegiance to a political party or “Orange Master,” as you put it.
I’ve let you call me MAGA and “Trump Cultist” because it just highlights your ignorance... that when someone disagrees with your stance and uses morals and values in an argument, your default is to slap on a partisan label. That says a lot about you… and about the brain rot of modern liberal thinking.
And no, you’re not “preventing” me or anyone else from speaking... I’ve been posting freely. But you are mislabeling and lumping me in with a caricature because it’s easier than engaging with what I’m actually saying. That’s a common move when the substance of the argument isn’t as easy to refute.
Now, I have mocked liberals, their embrace of moral relativism, and the moral decay it fuels in society. But that still doesn’t make me MAGA, a “cultist,” or whatever other label you think ends the debate for you. It just means I call things how I see them... no party permission slip required.
Again, moral relativism does exist. Morality has no real anchor, its a human creation shaped by culture and environmental circumstances.
So yes, thats what Im claiming.
Food laws, vs moral absolutes.... my oh my its getting very nuanced in here for a moral absolutist. I don't think I really understand your point about this. Is a starving man allowed to steal to feed himself? No? Then why did we steal all the land via manifest destiny?
Roe v Wade is judicial overreach. But legislative overreach is fine? I agree it should have been codified into the law to prevent this even being a possibility, but heres why the Judicial branch had to weigh in: Its about your rights as protected by the Constitution. If a state passes laws that are unconstitutional, the Supreme court issues a verdict assessing that and the laws are repealed. Roe v Wade is obviously just one of thousands of examples of this occurring. Not sure why its overreach.
What activists and lawmakers are citing up to birth abortions non medically necessary? Cite them. Whackos, who are no where near being elected or influencing law making can surely be overlooked right? You have lawmakers effecting abortion bans, total bans in the united states today in juxtaposition.
Ok what about a Jehovah's witness who is refusing a blood transfusion for a child?
Im not being deceptive or arguing in bad faith, just because I think your center point is an emotional appeal to a divine authority, doesn't mean I can't take the time to prove that to you. And let you know you have freedom of religion in this country and so do I. To be free from your religion.
You’ve actually just given a textbook example of moral relativism: “morality has no real anchor, it’s a human creation shaped by culture.” That’s the whole problem. If morality is whatever each person or culture says it is at a given moment, then there are no true morals... just shifting opinions. And in that case, “right” and “wrong” aren’t real concepts… they’re just preferences.
On the food laws vs. moral absolutes... you’re mixing ceremonial law with moral law. In the Bible, ceremonial laws (like food restrictions) were specific to Israel’s covenant, while moral laws (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.) transcend culture and time. That’s why they’re still universally recognized as foundational, even if not everyone follows them. And yes, a starving man stealing is still theft... we might have compassion for the motive, but it doesn’t make the act morally “good.” As for manifest destiny, you’re now arguing against the morality of people violating their own moral absolutes... which proves my point: there are standards, people just sometimes choose to ignore them.
Roe v. Wade was overreach because it created a federal standard without a constitutional basis — the Court invented a right instead of interpreting one. Legislative overreach isn’t “fine” either, but legislation at least comes from the branch tasked with making laws. And yes, the Court can strike down unconstitutional laws — but that’s different from creating new ones out of thin air.
On “up to birth” abortions... they’re not imaginary. You can look at New York’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act or Virginia’s failed 2019 bill where the sponsor admitted it would allow abortion even during active labor if deemed necessary. You may consider those “whackos,” but they were elected lawmakers introducing actual legislation.
The Jehovah’s Witness example is another category error. Refusing a blood transfusion is a decision to not intervene... abortion is an active intervention to end a life. Those are not morally equivalent acts, even if both involve life-and-death stakes.
And finally, saying “freedom from your religion” doesn’t mean freedom from moral reasoning that aligns with my faith. The same principles can be defended without appealing to the Bible at all. In this conversation, I’ve pointed out logical flaws, historical context, and objective moral reasoning... none of which require you to share my religious beliefs to engage with.
I am going to hit those 'corrections' (and I use that term very loosely in this case) one at a time.
You’re right, I’m not an oracle or a prophet... but the point isn’t me deciding what moral truth is. The claim is that moral truth exists independently of me, you, or any culture’s preference. If it’s fixed, it can be discovered and applied consistently. If it’s not, then morality is just “whatever people feel at the moment,” which means it’s not morality at all.
On “what constitutes murder”... yes, we disagree on abortion’s moral status. But disagreement doesn’t erase the principle. If ending an innocent human life is wrong, the question becomes whether the unborn qualify as human life. That’s a scientific and philosophical discussion, not just a matter of personal opinion. Simply saying “it’s not murder” without engaging that question sidesteps the core issue.
As for judicial review... of course it exists. Marbury v. Madison established it, and cases like Brown v. Board rightly used it to overturn unconstitutional laws. But Roe was different because it created a right not found in the text or original intent of the Constitution. Even many pro-choice legal scholars have admitted its legal reasoning was weak. That’s the difference: striking down unconstitutional laws is one thing; inventing constitutional rights out of thin air is another.
On the “up to birth” question... you asked for one example: New York’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act permits abortion through all nine months if deemed necessary to protect the mother’s health, and “health” is defined broadly enough to include mental or emotional well-being. That’s effectively on-demand until birth if a provider signs off. Similar language has been proposed in Virginia and other states. That’s not made up... it’s in the legislative text.
Lastly, calling out logical fallacies isn’t pearl clutching; it’s the opposite. It’s refusing to let a discussion be driven by mischaracterizations and false choices. If that feels like “pearl clutching,” it’s probably because the errors being pointed out are central to your argument.