So what are you saying? That people who can just as easily be labeled shouldn't be acknowledged as such? Mind you, there are a heck more derogatory terms for homosexuals than there are for homophobes. There are more derogatory terms for people of color than there are for racist. There is a plethora of words that we can use to label others, many of them very concise in meaning.So what are you saying? That people who are racist and homophobic shouldn't be acknowledged as such?
Exactly.Perty simple really... a real Christan is who ever labels therself as bein a real Christan.!!!
Since being a Christian is all about divine things and such, any comparisons or analogies to worldy phenomena is misplaced.Well, your claim to be an auto repairman would be proven or disproven by whether you could fix cars; that's the ultimate definition. Belief in a deity has no concrete effects, so one claim is as good as another. Witness all the wars fought over nitpicky details of Christianity and/or justified by Christianity; was one side composed of "real" Christians?
The term "real Christian" is a political term. It doesn't have an actually definable meaning in the sense of "a real Christian is someone who ...". It is at once a filler word, a signal word, and a power word.The phrase "real Christian" assumes that there's some essence of Christianity that some forms of ostensible Christianity deviate from and that all Christians need to adhere to.
Note that accusations of the No True Scotsman fallacy appear usually in reference to national, religious, and political identities. National, religious, and political identities are very difficult to define with precision, there often exist multiple or multi-tiered definitions of these identities, and there is a lot at stake in regard to them.My question (it isn't rhetorical) is why do we make that kind of 'no true Scotsman' argument regarding Christianity (I did, right up above in #25), but not regarding science?
No, for two reasons:No, because while being a Christian is something that one can self-identify,
So what are you saying? That people who are racist and homophobic shouldn't be acknowledged as such?
So what are you saying? That people who can just as easily be labeled shouldn't be acknowledged as such?
The point is anyone can apply a label. It's utility depends on which side of the argument you are standing.What exactly is the use of such labeling and acknowledging?
The reason that those are more damning is because that in many cases they are actual lapses of character whereas those on the right tend to attempt to blame people for being poor, minorities, or non-Christian. You are trying to create an equivalency where there is none.I think that it's hypocritical for the left to condemn others for 'hate', while their social and cultural criticism condemns everything in sight for falling short of their peculiar vision of perfection. The unfortunates on the receiving end of all the moralizing are dismissed as 'capitalists', 'racists', 'homophobes', 'sexists', 'exploiters', 'hegemonists', possessors of 'privilege', 'destroyers of the environment', 'haters', 'xenophobes', 'fascists', 'populists', 'deniers' and for being 'antiscience'. All of those words just as judgmental, insulting, intolerant and perjorative as anything that the worst Republican could dream up.
True. So why are you so often on the side against women?The point is anyone can apply a label. It's utility depends on which side of the argument you are standing.
The new testament isn't 'anything goes'. It's filled with threats, condemnations and moral exhortations. There are dozens of literally hellfire-and-damnation examples that I won't bother quoting.
http://www.cedricstudio.com/personal/judgment.html
I take it that you don't love Republicans, and that suggests that you and those who think as you do can't be Christians either, by your own chosen criterion.
The point is anyone can apply a label. It's utility depends on which side of the argument you are standing.
Which appears to be a significant evolutionary advantage.I don't see a whole lot of difference between religious-right and loony-left militants. They are both exceedingly annoying moralizers who love judging other people and getting in their faces.
Stop right there, asshole. Hating someone because they are racist is not the same as merely hating someone because they are "different".Of course Democrats (and Sciforums participants) seem to spend much of their time hating those who are different,
So what are you saying? That people who are racist and homophobic shouldn't be acknowledged as such?
Quotas show a racial preference, but if they are in place to fight against the problems caused by systems in place that work against people in general, then they can be good and thus no racist in the sense that they systematically oppress a minority.The problem with this acknowledgment is, the left, via PC education, have defined these terms in ways that exempt themselves, even if they do the same things. For example, quotas are racist laws since they do not decide anything based on content of character, but only on the color of one's skin. PC uses an emotional song and dance so this is not called racist.
No, it's correct to claim that white people were hugely advantaged by slavery and that the people responsible for that slavery were almost entirely white. White people in the USA continue to be advantaged by slavery and its propaganda.Leftist Blacks have been taught to believe it is OK to blame all the whites for slavery. This is racist since it defines an entire race by a few bad examples.
Except that the attitudes that black people are sub-human persists to this day in many forms.But it is not called racist by PC song and dance. A real non-racist would say some white people, who lived long ago owned slaves.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who bring up that part of history and end there are racists. Because the Republican party continued to exist after 1900 and it vigorously pursued a strategy of appealing to racists and racism. This is not something that is in dispute.The Republican party was formed around the issue of ending slavery. More than half the white people, led by Abraham Lincoln, who was the first Republican president, helped to end slavery. The Republican whites make it possible for all blacks to get out of slavery.
The other half of the Whites, who were called the Democrats, tried to divide the country and when slavery was officially made illegal, continued to pressure the freed black people, with racism, segregation and Jim Crow laws for another century.
Really. Why so blatantly lie about Republican history?It makes sense that the left will give not say," blame all the whites",is racist, since this misinformation acts as a smoke screen, scapegoating the white Republicans for the century of white Democrat racial terror, which they had not part of.
AH, that's it. You fell for that con-man.Has anyone seen Dinesh D'Souza's New Movie 'Hillary's America'. It clarifies his history with facts.
Yes, black people are the real criminals, not the people who actually get convicted of crimes.Dinesh D-Sousa spend 8 month in jail for trumped up charges connected to campaign finance laws as payback for producing a movie that criticized Obama. Instead of running away, he made another movie since the truth needs to be told.
And a real Hindu looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.A real Christian, looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
Except that "PC" was invented by racists and sexists to deceive and scam people into accepting racism and sexism. Perhaps finding the truth involves actually caring about other people?And a real Hindu looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
And a real Muslim looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
And a real Jew looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
And a real Republican looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
And a real Democrat looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
And a real [insert term for any group] looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
In the end, everyone looks for the truth and not some PC convention used to deceive and scam.
Oh, the irony.
That's some bullshit right there. Political correctness is important.Except that "PC" was invented by racists and sexists to deceive and scam people into accepting racism and sexism.