Civil war coming to America?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

In the event of a coup or a takeover, would you take up arms to restore lawful authority to America?

  • Yes. I would take up arms until every last traitor was rounded up and put on trial.

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Yes, but in a limited manner. I would take up arms to protect my community from traitors.

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • No, I would not take up arms, unless my family was directly threatened.

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • No, I would not take up arms. All forms of killing are sin.

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Other. The above actions do not properly describe the action I would take.

    Votes: 15 51.7%

  • Total voters
    29
E

EleventhHour

Guest
The problem is the culprits get away basically Scot free.
The problem with this point is it's the taxpayer that gets the bill. Fine if the banks and capitalists get to pay back. At least the motor companies paid back the bailout money. So if the deal had been structured on a pay back plan then ya bail them out with tax payer cash.
Yes true.
An imperfect economic system in an imperfect world.
 
S

SophieT

Guest
I can see presenting facts to MAGA people is a real waste of time.
I am wondering how much antacid a person has to swallow to keep the morass of decaying lies the left asks them to swallow, churning in their digestive system :unsure:
 
S

SophieT

Guest
yeah one of the rioters was carrying zip ties which meant he was planning on taking hostages
Fortunately the politicians they intended to harm were not present that day
False Dilemma

To help you better understand why that is so:

This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,687
1,102
113
False Dilemma

To help you better understand why that is so:

This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.
Except not really
when people storm a government building carrying zip ties, it's fairly safe to assume they intend to take hostages
 
J

jennymae

Guest
If people bring guns, zip ties, etc whenever breaking into the Capitol, one must assume that’s not just for the show. Peaceful protesters would leave such at home. Marching to Washington carrying guns and tactical gear brings the thought to domestic terror.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,687
1,102
113
False Dilemma

To help you better understand why that is so:

This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.
also you might want to Google the definition of false dichotomy because that's not it
If someone is doing A, they probably intended to do B.. that's not a false dichotomy
False dichotomy is when it has to be either one or the other
 
S

SophieT

Guest
Except not really
when people storm a government building carrying zip ties, it's fairly safe to assume they intend to take hostages
Well exactly actually. Maybe the zip ties were for garbage bags to take out the legislature that is not worth the paper it is typed on.

Do you need help with the meaning of false dilemma?


also you might want to Google the definition of false dichotomy because that's not it
If someone is doing A, they probably intended to do B.. that's not a false dichotomy
False dichotomy is when it has to be either one or the other
Google is wrong if that is their definition. I think we should deplatform them in that case.

This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.
It has to do with choices. The fallacy is that someone will use or present only two cases when there are actually more.

You have actually succeeded in pioneering the actual demo of false dichotomy by saying it has to be one or the other. That, right there, is the false dichotomy. :giggle:
 
S

SophieT

Guest
If people bring guns, zip ties, etc whenever breaking into the Capitol, one must assume that’s not just for the show. Peaceful protesters would leave such at home. Marching to Washington carrying guns and tactical gear brings the thought to domestic terror.
Agree. So arrest Antifa already. Or any variations on that theme.

Domestic terror. That will come to pass when Biden sits in the oval office.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,687
1,102
113
Well exactly actually. Maybe the zip ties were for garbage bags to take out the legislature that is not worth the paper it is typed on.

Do you need help with the meaning of false dilemma?




Google is wrong if that is their definition. I think we should deplatform them in that case.



It has to do with choices. The fallacy is that someone will use or present only two cases when there are actually more.

You have actually succeeded in pioneering the actual demo of false dichotomy by saying it has to be one or the other. That, right there, is the false dichotomy. :giggle:
Yeah again that's not the definition of false dichotomy
If someone is doing A, it's safe to assume he probably intends to do B
Example.. if someone is pointing a gun at me, it's safe to assume he probably intends to kill me
That's not a false dichotomy
the false dichotomy will be the say I either have to kill him or surrender
Because there are the options like running away or trying to negotiate
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,687
1,102
113
Or another example if I go into McDonald's, it's probably safe to assume I intend to order food
That's not a false dichotomy
to say if I don't like McDonald's that I'm probably vegan, that's the false dichotomy
 
S

SophieT

Guest
Yeah again that's not the definition of false dichotomy
If someone is doing A, it's safe to assume he probably intends to do B
Example.. if someone is pointing a gun at me, it's safe to assume he probably intends to kill me
That's not a false dichotomy
the false dichotomy will be the say I either have to kill him or surrender
Because there are the options like running away or trying to negotiate

Haven't used this expression in a long time

yada yada yada

I didn't invent the term so certainly not the definition. I mean who is going to call google wrong? right?

perhaps we should call it a red herring? in a way that fits too

 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,687
1,102
113
Haven't used this expression in a long time

yada yada yada

I didn't invent the term so certainly not the definition. I mean who is going to call google wrong? right?

perhaps we should call it a red herring? in a way that fits too

just saying people need to learn their logical fallacies before they try to debate
 
S

SophieT

Guest
just saying people need to learn their logical fallacies before they try to debate
:giggle: is this the right time to explain the meaning of the word irony? :unsure:
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
Hmm I know the Father will hold us accountable to every word we say. I know what our forefathers said about this nation and how they USE to pray. This nation is not going anywhere and GOD is making sure of it. Oh there is more GOOD things coming. Will help this nation but will not be good for some on both sides. See I personally believe God heard US that stood in the gap for this nation:)

Could you explain this comment plz. ? Humm don't think I can delete this now but I see this was an old comment from 2020. My bad, ignore the question.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
If people bring guns, zip ties, etc whenever breaking into the Capitol, one must assume that’s not just for the show. Peaceful protesters would leave such at home. Marching to Washington carrying guns and tactical gear brings the thought to domestic terror.
You mean "summer of love" peaceful protesters? Love how the Dems flip the narrative when it pleases them.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
Except not really
when people storm a government building carrying zip ties, it's fairly safe to assume they intend to take hostages

And when vans bring in baseball bats, shields, and other implements to attack police, what is to be assumed there? A peaceful protest? Dems don't have a leg to stand on.
 
S

SophieT

Guest
Apparently, the timeline of various objects trouble makers might use being 'discovered' and the actual length of Trump's speech, indicate that those who listened to the speech, could not have been planting 'party favorites' or storming the capital. Some others who walked over to the capital from the speech area, are saying when they saw what was going on, ...in other words, the trouble was ALREADY in progress, they left.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
yeah one of the rioters was carrying zip ties which meant he was planning on taking hostages
Fortunately the politicians they intended to harm were not present that day

You mean like Steve Scalise? We have Maxine Waters to thank for that one.
 

brighthouse98

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2015
665
336
63
71
A fine question. Lets say this,there will be a great deal of unrest in our Country. A Civil War is a bit extreme,our Country would never allow such. HOWEVER!!! Yes there is a however,did you ever see or hear the Government beg its people?? By August you will both see and hear this!

As an elder in my church I am not, nor should you be scared in any way!! What I see in the Lord is the following! ( Rom 13:11-14) You can take this however you wish. The Lord will not allow the world he built (Phil 2:13) (Rev 4:11)Titus 2:14)to be made a disgrace to him,OR!!!! TO HIS PEOPLE!!!! The judgment the Government has rendered to one,shall be turned to all! And we the people shall impose God's Will back to them!( Rom 2:1-5)