Funny (political, religious) pictures

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
Except that it doesn't, because the whole point of the Scotsman thing is that what a Scotsman is is well defined by ancestry and geography.
Click to expand...
Actual ancestry and geography are irrelevant to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't even have to be about a Scot. The fallacy is about reinforcing generalization despite contrary evidence.

"No gamer actually plays Lemmings, it's a baby game."
"I play Lemmings."
"Yeah but no REAL gamer plays Lemmings."
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Actual ancestry and geography are irrelevant to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't even have to be about a Scot. The fallacy is about reinforcing generalization despite contrary evidence.

"No gamer actually plays Lemmings, it's a baby game."
"I play Lemmings."
"Yeah but no REAL gamer plays Lemmings."
Click to expand...

Unless you're saying that "playing lemmings" isn't also well defined as an activity (sorry kids, watching someone else play it on youtube doesn't count), that doesn't contradict what i said in any way...

And do note that i said "whole point of the Scotsman thing is that what a Scotsman is is well defined by ancestry and geography", and not that the point of the fallacy wasabout ancestry and geography.

...

Also, i take issue with your assumption that babies can't be gamers... [DOUBLEPOST=1490910773,1490910716][/DOUBLEPOST]
Dei said:
Social Media is the gift that keeps on giving with this administration.

Click to expand...
Wait, that's for real...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA....
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
Unless you're saying that "playing lemmings" isn't also well defined as an activity (sorry kids, watching someone else play it on youtube doesn't count), that doesn't contradict what i said in any way...

And do note that i said "whole point of the Scotsman thing is that what a Scotsman is is well defined by ancestry and geography", and not that the point of the fallacy wasabout ancestry and geography.
Click to expand...
Ah, so it was an english fail. But you've still got it wrong. The fact that whatever the subject group is can be well defined by specific criteria is entirely irrelevant to the fallacy.

If I say "Real men don't play soccer," the fact that we know exactly what a man is, and exactly what playing soccer entails, does not mean it not possible to fall into the trap.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Ah, so it was an english fail.
Click to expand...
Well it's your native toungue, i expected you to master it better. :p


GasBandit said:
But you've still got it wrong. The fact that whatever the subject group is can be well defined by specific criteria is entirely irrelevant to the fallacy.
Click to expand...
No it's not.

If you can't define a Scotsman, then you can't call your uncle one, because you can't prove he is.


GasBandit said:
If I say "Real men don't play soccer," the fact that we know exactly what a man is, and exactly what playing soccer entails, does not mean it not possible to fall into the trap.
Click to expand...
Ehh... knowing what men and soccer are is necessary to fall into the trap the fallacy is about.

If you say "Well, my Aunt plays soccer!" you have in no way contradicted the "Real men don't play soccer," statement.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
Well it's your native toungue, i expected you to master it better. :p

No it's not.

If you can't define a Scotsman, then you can't call your uncle one, because you can't prove he is.

Ehh... knowing what men and soccer are is necessary to fall into the trap the fallacy is about.

If you say "Well, my Aunt plays soccer!" you have in no way contradicted the "Real men don't play soccer," statement.
Click to expand...
But that's not what Eriol's point about democracy inviting "No True Scotsman" fallacies was saying, unless I totally misunderstood him.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
But that's not what Eriol's point about democracy inviting "No True Scotsman" fallacies was saying, unless I totally misunderstood him.
Click to expand...
He said using any one groups definition invites the fallacy, which i disagreed with since there is no agreed upon definition of democracy that isn't general enough to include almost all of the groups that he might be talking about.

So because the argument about what a democracy is is valid, you can't actually make the claim that one side is... well, changing the goal posts, which is ultimately what the Scotsman fallacy is an example of.

.....

Republicanism is considered a form of democracy too btw: Republicanism is a type of democracy, but if protected by a Bill of Rights, may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as a Bill of Rights asserts that each individual has unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters, unless the other type of democracies are also protected by a Bill of Rights.[6]
 
Eriol

Eriol

GasBandit said:
But that's not what Eriol's point about democracy inviting "No True Scotsman" fallacies was saying, unless I totally misunderstood him.
Click to expand...
You have it right Gas, don't worry about it. I was just emphasizing how "fluid" the definition of "Democracy" is, even though it's well-defined in a very strict language sense. I was saying that fluidity of definition was the same general idea as a No True Scotsman fallacy.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Eriol said:
I was saying that fluidity of definition was the same general idea as a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Click to expand...
Except that a fluid definition of a Scotsman would render the whole fallacy example moot.

I mean the whole point of the fallacy is that new information contradicts the statement, and then you try to change the original statements definition to exclude the new information.
 
Covar

Covar

@Li3n said:
Except that a fluid definition of a Scotsman would render the whole fallacy example moot.

I mean the whole point of the fallacy is that new information contradicts the statement, and then you try to change the original statements definition to exclude the new information.
Click to expand...
So would you say that no real example of a no real Scotsman fallacy would have a fluid definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top