In other news

Most Americans are Christian, so probably. There's nothing religious about the organization though. Some religious groups volunteer there though. The reason my group is there at this shelter is because we were looking for some place to do something like this and they let groups use their commercial kitchen and serve their clients.

If any of you want to participate or donate, let me know. We try to raise $300 for each event to pay for the food. Two other 2p2ers are among the founders.

rick,

I didn't follow their exchange as well as I would have if I were part of it, but seems like BG said "all" and therefore Gorgonian can disprove that statement with a single anecdote, whereas anecdotes do not prove BG's statement.

And of course a lot of Democratic voters are Christians.

But, and I'm saying this to everyone else, there is certainly some truth to religious people being more generous with charity and if you see someone attending to the most downtrodden, it is likely that they are religious. It's not guaranteed by any means, but it's likely. To some degree it's true that liberals think that they should pay taxes and the government should do the charity rather than have private charity.

I did not provide an anecdote to prove or disprove anything. What rickroll called an anecdote was simply an answer to a direct question. I was asked if I had fed or helped a homeless person in the last year, and I answered that I do it once a week, and explained in what capacity. It was not an anecdote at all. Just an answer to a question.

There was no further need to try to disprove the all thing. That was done almost immediately, as BGnight suggested, simply by googling.

If Christianity is true then it most certainly is not hateful and also true.
For example: if you become an Islamic apostate (convert to Christianity) their doctrine says you should then be killed.

F => T || F = T

This is your exact position in this argument. And it's a childish position to take.

The easier response to someone's absolute statement is simply "surely you don't mean all...."

When the response is "cite your sources. Prove it to me"

And then when they show examples that only the majority satisfies it, and you start victory lapping, it's childish.

Go with the easier, non-combative, less effort response. It's better for dialogue and not being a childish douche

Do you have a humiliation kink? Serious question.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideo...

The answer a yes or no question challenge - IMPOSSIBLE edition

It is a little humiliating to dunk on the same ****** over and over. I guess I do have a kink.

Are you almost finished masturbating to your imaginary internet points you think you're scoring here, or do we have to endure another dozen of your posts about this?

Well there's my answer. jfc

Next time, rather than starting a dumb argument about absolutes, that any reasonable person knows is not what was meant, simply ask the question, rather than looking like an idiot in an effort to prove someone wrong in your own head so you can add another load in your masturbatorium.

he may have said "all" but we all know that is just a turn of phrase and not necessarily a statement declaring 100%

to ignore that he meant "the majority" and treat it like he said 100% is just a bad faithed strawman attack

So the answer is no, then. Carry on, I guess. jfc

and rickroll showing back up to prove that apparently nobody knows what a straw man is.

I love it that I treated him saying 100% as if he said 100%. And then accusing me of making a straw man. You can't make this up.

Don't you think we would've been seeing these DEI crashes consistently thru the years? Maybe the Other thing that just happened right before they started might be to blame.

But it is fun watch the colorblind gang blaming everything from fires to plane crashes on minorities in unison. MLK would be beaming with pride 😀

housenuts for mod!

The illiterate leading the illiterate. Solid plan.

Did we find out what race or sex the pilot that ignored the ATC instructions and crossed the runway is? We need to know so we will understand if they are qualified or not based on the color of their skin or the genitals they are packing.

he had by far the most accurate retelling of this thread

you have some weird kink for dunking on whichever right leaning poster that is not very good at arguing their points to the point that you fabricate arguments where none existed just to have more of them

you're a terrible poaster for that reason, just here to spar with people

I'm unsurprised that you think that, given that you are just as illiterate as he is. What neither of you are considering is his argument fell apart as soon he changed the word "all" to "majority." It had no meaning. It was a shot at democrats not caring for the homeless, and the only way he could prove that was to say they don't help the homeless. He tried to say the christians do all of that, so that leaves the democrats doing zero of it.

Change that to the christians do most of it, and suddenly there's plenty of room for other groups to do it too. It becomes irrelevant.

No, the ALL was the entire point.

And you both recognize the ABSURDITY of the claim. You just aren't literate enough to understand the pointless of the argument if he didn't intentionally lie about it being "all."

My personal hunch is he just guessed it was all or close enough to it no one would dispute him. He found out differently and a few posts later was agreeing that democrats do a lot.

So hey, not only was I right, but calling him out changed the entire argument.

But hey, stay mad.

yup nailed it, i can't read, got me good there

Settle down straw man