My dad was one of those jerks that would build 30-40 priests on an Econ build and then push with them when you decided to try and crack that nut,
Poof there goes your army.
Not that he really knew what an Econ build was, or any of the other things. But he’d play this “I don’t know what I’m doing” act and get away with it, (and he wasn’t good enough to deserve a feudal rush. Just… annoying.)
It doesn’t matter if they aren’t Christ-like. Many, many Christians, including clergy and even pontiffs have committed atrocities. They still worshiped Christ, making them Christians.
If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc. I don’t think that’s what you intend, but that is the problem with suggesting people who are not Christlike are not Christians.
Otherwise, we need to invent a new religion and put a huge percentage of people from the last 2000 years who thought they were called Christians into it.
If you read the fallacy you’d realize that you fell into the false fallacy fallacy.
To quote your linked article:
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement 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 similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.
There is plenty of countries with a christian background and still majority christian population, that wouldn’t even think to discuss such absurd policies. American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole. Much of their nutjobbery is specific to them.
That is not the true scotsman fallacy though. I never said they aren’t Christians, i said that they are about as christian as, implying that they lack the qualities associated with it. Also i’m not a christian.
If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc
All of the above are Catholic, and the vast majority of Christians I know would agree that they aren’t Christian.
Nope. That would be the orthodox christians you still find sprinkled around Palestine and Syria. The catholics are already roman “lets stabilize our empire with mixing religion and poltiics” brand of christians.
I’ve been thinking of them as antichristian. Not as in against Christianity, but as in antichrist …ian. From what I’ve heard the whole idea of the antichrist is supposed to be that Christians love the guy even though the guy goes against all of the lessons of Jesus, but he does the performative stuff. That sounds like what I see there.
It is absolutely an evil ideology and shut be utterly abolished along with all Abrahamic religions. Fuck the Constitution; they got this one dead wrong
to be fair, the (wrongful death*) lawsuit was because the hospital or wherever they were being stored at let the frozen embryos die off. It’s entirely reasonable to expect some kind of… protection… considering the reason for those to have been stored was so they might be able to have kids, etc.
*wrongful death is a bit much, mind you. But how far do you want to take the “guy beats a pregnant woman to kill the baby” types of charges? ultimately, I suspect, the issue here is that the religious nutjobs lack nuance. they see the world as black-and-white and can’t fathom a possibility where there were damages in this matter, but it wasn’t a “wrongful death” scenario.
From what I’ve previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn’t work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn’t do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don’t know enough details to know, but it doesn’t sound like they just simply didn’t care or didn’t store them properly.
States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It’s not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it’s been treated as a destruction of property. You don’t have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.
The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won’t change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it’s laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.
Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it’s like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.
I would suggest the facility was negligent in their security arrangements, as far as wrongful death (again, it’s a pretty dubious “if”, that it goes that far), it would be like somebody dying because the building wasn’t up to code when an arson came by.
My assumption is, though, that there’s a budget-rate warm body security guard; and between shit pay, shit training, shittier oversight… the guard couldn’t be arsed to care. (Alternatively, the guard was going to sell them for drug money.)
The good news for the facility… if their lawyers were any good in that contract they’d have gotten an indemnity clause and can pass that buck. (Liability is a bitch; and she hits hard. The security company will probably go poof unless they’re the size of G4S or Securitas)
In any case… personally, it doesn’t rise to wrongful death, but I can see a need for nuance. I would, personally, suggested the couple treat it as property, similar to a safety deposit box.
I don’t see how this isn’t prima facie evidence of a first amendment violation (presuming that the courts or state legislatures are bound by “Congress” being synonymous with “Government” as I believe it’s been interpreted)
That’s one interpretation. The judge used religious logic in his ruling.
Fucking Christian whackos
we need to get religion out of our society, it causes nothing but problems.
Removed by mod
You said it wrong. You failed your attempt at conversion.
Wololo. Wololo. Wololo.
Welcome to the Huns.
Why are my clothes red?
My dad was one of those jerks that would build 30-40 priests on an Econ build and then push with them when you decided to try and crack that nut,
Poof there goes your army.
Not that he really knew what an Econ build was, or any of the other things. But he’d play this “I don’t know what I’m doing” act and get away with it, (and he wasn’t good enough to deserve a feudal rush. Just… annoying.)
These kind of “Christians” are about as christian as the people from Sodom.
That doesn’t make it right to fuck things up for everyone else.
Sorry, that’s a no true Scotsman fallacy.
It doesn’t matter if they aren’t Christ-like. Many, many Christians, including clergy and even pontiffs have committed atrocities. They still worshiped Christ, making them Christians.
If we were to play it your way, the Crusaders weren’t Christians, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t Christians, the Conquistadors weren’t Christians, etc. I don’t think that’s what you intend, but that is the problem with suggesting people who are not Christlike are not Christians.
Otherwise, we need to invent a new religion and put a huge percentage of people from the last 2000 years who thought they were called Christians into it.
They are fascists. Fascist christians vs christians.
If you read the fallacy you’d realize that you fell into the false fallacy fallacy.
To quote your linked article:
There is plenty of countries with a christian background and still majority christian population, that wouldn’t even think to discuss such absurd policies. American nutjobs cannot be considered to be representative of christianity as a whole. Much of their nutjobbery is specific to them.
No one said they were. They aren’t. But they are Christians. That is their religion even if you don’t like that it is the same as yours.
That is not the true scotsman fallacy though. I never said they aren’t Christians, i said that they are about as christian as, implying that they lack the qualities associated with it. Also i’m not a christian.
I think you’re misremembering. You did say they aren’t Christians:
All of the above are Catholic, and the vast majority of Christians I know would agree that they aren’t Christian.
Catholics are the OG Christians, despite what all the seething Protestants might tell you.
Nope. That would be the orthodox christians you still find sprinkled around Palestine and Syria. The catholics are already roman “lets stabilize our empire with mixing religion and poltiics” brand of christians.
That is not only another No True Scotsman fallacy, it’s also anecdotal.
Catholics are undeniably Christians no matter what other Christians may think. Catholicism likely came before their sect anyway.
That may be but the original point you seemed to make was broader.
I.e. you just moved the goal post because of the examples.
Are Prosperity Theology Christian’s not really Christian?
btw, the buddha wasn’t a buddhist, and christ wasn’t a christian. Let go of identity views and just do the next right thing.
The world is tribal enough.
I’ve been thinking of them as antichristian. Not as in against Christianity, but as in antichrist …ian. From what I’ve heard the whole idea of the antichrist is supposed to be that Christians love the guy even though the guy goes against all of the lessons of Jesus, but he does the performative stuff. That sounds like what I see there.
Christianity is an evil ideology, and they are acting as christians.
It is absolutely an evil ideology and shut be utterly abolished along with all Abrahamic religions. Fuck the Constitution; they got this one dead wrong
*theistic religions
Believing that the flying spaghetti monster will solve all the worlds issues means you don’t function in society
Sad that you have not been touched by His noodly appendage. Perhaps one day, Ramen
Ain’t no logic to be found there.
Well it says here you are bread, and as such are guilty of cannibalism.
to be fair, the (wrongful death*) lawsuit was because the hospital or wherever they were being stored at let the frozen embryos die off. It’s entirely reasonable to expect some kind of… protection… considering the reason for those to have been stored was so they might be able to have kids, etc.
*wrongful death is a bit much, mind you. But how far do you want to take the “guy beats a pregnant woman to kill the baby” types of charges? ultimately, I suspect, the issue here is that the religious nutjobs lack nuance. they see the world as black-and-white and can’t fathom a possibility where there were damages in this matter, but it wasn’t a “wrongful death” scenario.
From what I’ve previously read the agency that had the frozen embryos did not let them die off, they stored them properly in an industrial freezer kept at far below 0 temps. The issue was a person who didn’t work at the clinic snuck into the room with the fridge, opened it and then dropped the embryos and ran away (the article said the assumption was because the containers were so cold he got freeze-burned). There might be a case here that they didn’t do enough to stop the individual, or check on them often enough, I don’t know enough details to know, but it doesn’t sound like they just simply didn’t care or didn’t store them properly.
States have long had laws against forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy and those have stood up even before Roe died. It’s not usually on the level of murder/manslaughter, but at a minimum it’s been treated as a destruction of property. You don’t have to treat the embryo as a person to charge someone with aggravated battery or something similar.
The main issue here is the broadness of this ruling (besides the whole quoting the Bible thing) which equates embryos with full-human life. It won’t change a whole lot in this case, the families could have still sued for negligence or destruction of property, or any number of other civil remedies of this was denied, but now it’s laid the ground work to do much worse things in the future.
How could it be battery if the embryos aren’t treated as people? Nobody was battered. No victim was even present.
For the record, if we treat this more like a safety deposit box; the couple are the victims here.
It should probably be treated that way.
Their argument is because those embryos had potential to be human… they should be treated as human.
I don’t buy it, and it’s certainly not something that should establish the precedent that embryos=babies.
So sue for property damage. Harvesting embryos is an expensive and painful process. Hell you could even sue for pain and suffering.
But wrongful death is just ridiculous.
Gee, that’s…. More or less what I’m saying?
Sorry for the confusion, the battery part of my reply was related to forcibly ending someone else’s pregnancy, which would have to involve some kind of battery unless it’s like poison or something, not related to the embryos in the freezer. There is no battery to those since they are not people.
Looking close, you’re right. Vandals got in.
I would suggest the facility was negligent in their security arrangements, as far as wrongful death (again, it’s a pretty dubious “if”, that it goes that far), it would be like somebody dying because the building wasn’t up to code when an arson came by.
My assumption is, though, that there’s a budget-rate
warm bodysecurity guard; and between shit pay, shit training, shittier oversight… the guard couldn’t be arsed to care. (Alternatively, the guard was going to sell them for drug money.)The good news for the facility… if their lawyers were any good in that contract they’d have gotten an indemnity clause and can pass that buck. (Liability is a bitch; and she hits hard. The security company will probably go poof unless they’re the size of G4S or Securitas)
In any case… personally, it doesn’t rise to wrongful death, but I can see a need for nuance. I would, personally, suggested the couple treat it as property, similar to a safety deposit box.
I don’t see how this isn’t prima facie evidence of a first amendment violation (presuming that the courts or state legislatures are bound by “Congress” being synonymous with “Government” as I believe it’s been interpreted)
Pretty sure personal beliefs which haven’t been proven should make the ruling invalid. He’s judge, not king.