apologistics

A portmanteau of 'apology' and 'logistics'. In essence, apologistics occurs when operations (esp. military operations) are so badly run that they require a senior official to say 'sorry'.

'Do you think anyone will say sorry for phony wars?'
'You mean say sorry for their refusal to work out an exit strategy prior to bumbling in like the Three Stooges?'
'Yes.'
'Not bloody likely, guvnah. Those guys aren't into apologistics.'

by rxnxr October 1, 2009

Flag

Get the apologistics mug.

apologeticone

she’s @apologeticone on twitter, she’s pretty tasteless and she’s also a fad. she’s illiterate also.

person 1: do you follow @apologeticone on twitter?
person 2: yeah?
person 1: EWWWW IM UNFOLLOWING YOU

by bigdaggerpeepee August 22, 2020

Flag

Get the apologeticone mug.

Apologetics

No amout of mental gymnastics is going to affect the binary nature of my proposition. It is EITHER a superordinate preferentially selected for trait in a hierarchy of preferentially selected traits or it isn't. If I'm not citing studies it's because they either don't exist (YET) or I'm unaware of them. Did you look it up or do the study before you tried to rebuke me? No? If I found or did the study would you cede your point or would you make up some sophistry to ignore the results like you're ignoring me. Your position is literally implicit "No True Scottsman Fallacy." "It's not CFCT! He's just just the TRUE Scottsman! That's what women are REALLY attracted to!"

Hym "Your apologetics do not obfuscate the fact that one is stigmatized and the other is not. And YOUR emotional state is 'easily manipulated.' Under the auspices of your liberal psychology WITHHOLDING INFORMATION is emotional abuse. The imposed schizophrenia is GASLIGHTING. The stalking is A CRIME. And is literally the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace but done in a way thay affords them plausible deniability. You don't care how they interacted with me. You just don't like the response. And you don't like that I'm giving people a reason to call into question your decision making. That MAYBE... JUUUST maybe... Your selection criteria is more superficial than you would like to admit. It isn't some sort of social-trigonometry leading you to fuck the guys you're fucking. And I'm not going to engage in the violence argument until you cede that there are some situations that can only be remediated by violence (Abject tyranny, self-defense, punitive, ect). We only care about rules when people we don't like are breaking them. That applies at NON-rules as well. This applies social/behavioral norms. You don't care how people behave until someone you don't like is doing something you don't like. Find a shred of consistency in the enforcement of behavioral norms. I'll wait... I'm sure you associate with people who have violated behavioral standards you believe people should adhere to. But you let it slide, don't you? And that's all this is."

by Hym Iam August 23, 2023

Flag

Get the Apologetics mug.

Testify Apologetics

One of THE BEST Christian apologetics. Knows how to dismantle any arguement against Christianity and embarrass apologists of oher faiths.

Person 1: "The Bible is corrupted, just look at Jeremiah 8:8! :
Testify Apologetics: You're misquoting the verse. Jeremiah 8:8 is actually talking about God's people rejecting His law like when Jeremiah 6:19 says "Hear , you earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law. All over the Bible, God's people consistently affirm the Word, so if it was corrupted, wouldn't God inform his followers about it?

by MofotheeG April 30, 2025

Flag