politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Alas, there are no true scotsmen
That's really only true for undefined terms. If I'm scientifically determined to be diabetic, but I say I'm not because I define "diabetes" differently than the medical community at-large, my pancreas still can't produce insulin. Christians, by every accepted definition, follow the teachings of "Jesus Christ," hence the name. If any can demonstrably be shown to go directly against those teachings, I'd say the argument that they're not Christian is pretty solid. It's only when the claims are defined in non-universally accepted terms that the fallacy exists. Like, "No true Scotsman brushes their bottom teeth before brushing their top teeth," is obviously not a true statement, but "All true Scotsman have a non-zero amount of 'Scottish blood,'" is acceptably true as long as "amount of Scottish blood" is actually a determinable value.
At what point is something considered an entirely different belief system though?
Part of why there are so many different sects of Christianity is because belief systems can differ quite a lot on what the focus is for followers of the faith.
Even Mormons are considered Christian, but many Christians would put them in their own category since they have an entirely different holy book that they follow.
Maybe it comes back to the word for ‘Christian’ being this less meaningful, all encompassing, definition. In which case, I feel there’s an argument to be made that having at least some other way to show distinction matters, whether that’s a new word or phrase entirely.
For the sake of conversation though, I feel there is some utility in using the word we are already familiar with, in this case ‘Christian’, and making a compelling definition, in the context of the conversation, based on the values echoed in the text. I feel that we can still hold the general understanding that this is a narrow definition, but it’s one made based on those values that we may want to see encouraged.
TL;DR: It’s difficult to have a conversation about any group of people that is made up of a wide assortment of people from different walks of life.
Needs to be renamed to "no true Christian" at this point
I would have gone with RINO, but I get ya. When is a thing not a thing it claims to be though? What's that thingy called, because it's this.