Fogbow

I didn't know Mastriano was paying Torba. That's interesting. Torba is a real piece of work.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:42 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:41 pm I don't use the Christo part for the authoritarian part, but that is only because I do not consider them Christian in any way. That said, since they love to label themselves with the term, it is understandable to call them Christo-fascists.

This is a good opportunity to mention the No True Scotsman (No True Christian, in this case) fallacy, which was brought up on the Religious Hijack thread recently, as it applies to the disinclination to use "Christo" as above. I'll post the definition from Wikipedia below for those who are not familiar or don't moon over logical fallacies, as I do.

When you have a large buncha people not only calling themselves Christians, but touting Christianity as the guiding light of and justification for their political lives and fascist philosophy, you bet your bippy that they should be called Christo-fascists. So I would argue that it's not only understandable that we use the word "Christo-fascists" but that we damn well better use it, because anything less misses the point that these fucks are manipulating their followers with the good-old fear of god/everlasting bliss combo, coated in "you better do what you're told or else" paternalism/authoritarianism. The milquetoast "lack of critical thinking" doesn't even scratch the surface of what's going on here.

The Dominionists, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of lesser groups touting the Christian-based takeover of this country and others, cannot be understood unless we recognize that This Is Who We Are ("We have seen the enemy, and he is us."). As a species. We believe what we are told from infancy. No shame there, we wouldn't survive if we didn't. But we also all have the never-ending experience of discovering as we grow up and grow old that shit we thought was True, isn't. They (Dominionists, etc.) are Christians because they call themselves Christians; because there is no definition of what a True Christian is, anymore than there is a definition of what a True Scotsman is.

The most religious (in the sense of being the most strict) Christians I know do not consider any other sects of Christianity to be True Christians, and worry that I as an atheist am going straight to hell. As a counterpoise, the most casual Christians I know, the sort of "love thy neighbor" "judge not lest ye be judged" "I don't believe in a literal hell" Christians I grew up with, who are confident that a good person like me need not fear a loving god, do not consider the fire and brimstone Christians to be True Christians, either. This is the nature of the beast.

No True Scotsman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric.[4] This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.[2][5]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[6]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 9:46 pm

This is a good opportunity to mention the No True Scotsman (No True Christian, in this case) fallacy, which was brought up on the Religious Hijack thread recently, as it applies to the disinclination to use "Christo" as above. I'll post the definition from Wikipedia below for those who are not familiar or don't moon over logical fallacies, as I do.

It seems to me that it's the converse of this fallacy that is so pernicious: those that consider themselves "true Christians" sympathizing with those who adopt the trappings of Christianity (call them "Cargo Cult Christians"). Especially when these kind of messages are broadcast from the pulpit.

I sometimes think about the story of the Council of Nicea. *The audiance groans and says "here he goes again"* ok ok I'll keep it short

The story goes that Constantine dragged together a load of Bishops and asked them what does Christianity believe? So after a lot of arguing they brought him a huge pile of documents and asked him to go through them and decide what was true. And he lidted them and tossed them in a Brasserie, and they all burned up. And he said they have to decide what Christians believe

And the result was the Nicene Creed, a short easily learned list that everyone could agree on.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

Mastriano is appearing at Flynn's shindig today or tomorrow, I'm sure there will be some crazy video. In the meantime...

I’m sure Ivan means him well, but not sure if Doug Mastriano is looking for this type of endorsement from his fellow J6er right now.

Really.

Is he admitting that he has lost already ?

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:40 pm Is he admitting that he has lost already ?

He cannot lose, either he wins, or the dirty Dems cheated.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:46 pm

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:40 pm Is he admitting that he has lost already ?

He cannot lose, either he wins, or the dirty Dems cheated.

That's going to happen in a lot of states. I expect it to become uglier after the election.

And they complain about Biden being Sleepy Joe.

Kendra wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 7:29 pm And they complain about Biden being Sleepy Joe.

I used to joke that Ben Carson reading 'Goodnight Moon' would be the surest sleep aid for children on the planet.

Quite an ad.

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 @patriottakes wrote: Doug Mastriano claims a rainbow that appears at his Trump rally “is no coincidence,” and is running an ad claiming it was a sign from God that he will be elected governor of Pennsylvania.

And if he doesn't win?

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:32 pm And if he doesn't win?

I think it is safe to say the dirty Dems cheated, in that case.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:41 pm

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:32 pm And if he doesn't win?

I think it is safe to say the dirty Dems cheated, in that case.

They cheated GOD???? Dems are more powerful than I thought!

i think its a sign that you are holding a rally in the fukken rain.

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:32 pm And if he doesn't win?

Something about antifa and Queers being responsible.

I'd read it that way. If he loses, I'll argue God smote the $#!% out of him and the rainbow was just an extra twist of the knife.

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:06 pm i think its a sign that you are holding a rally in the fukken rain.

What was doG thinking of his chosen people? That they needed some cleansing?

One Gay Pride Rainbow will not be enough to get the votes…

Well the "pride flag" only has 6 colours. The rainbow has 7.

A guy I game with who lives in England and who is a teacher was complaining a few weeks back that people were telling him he couldn't let Children draw Rainbows anymore because it was disrespectful and the Rainbow was a symbol owned by Homosexual people. I said to tell them that the "Pride flag" wasn't a rainbow, it only has 6 colours, and let the freaking kids draw sodding Rainbows.

Ya I was not feeling very tolerant after hearing that shit.