(November 18, 2015 at 10:31 pm)Evie Wrote:

(November 18, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Then you agree with Catholics that Protestants aren't true Christians, for instance?

No... I don't know what gave you that idea? The definition of Christian doesn't exclude Protestantism, Protestantism is a subset of Christianity. The fact Catholics think otherwise doesn't make them right.

The fact is that the Catholic Church put together the original definition of "Christian". By your standard given above it follows that anyone who deviates from that standard -- which certainly would include Protestants -- are not true Christians.

Quote: was merely pointing out that the NTS fallacy is commonly misunderstood and used incorrectly, so I provided you with the correct definition. I used to misuse it too.

I think you're engaging I that fallacy right now, myself.

Quote:I drew an analogy between atheism and feminism to explain how different groups of feminists don't define feminism itself just as different groups of atheists don't define atheism itself. True, as language develops bastardized definitions also become official definitions sometimes, but then in that case let's not equivocate the different definitions of the same thing.

Understood. But I don't think any one group has the authority to commandeer a word -- not even those who originally defined it -- because in language, usage is regnant.

Quote: The primary definition of feminism at the very least = Pro-women's rights and if there really is a bastardized version of feminism that has become an official definition in the dictionary, then let's recognize when the equivocation fallacy is made and people conflate the two.

My point is not so much about the book definition as it is about how a word is used, because that is ultimately what decides the official definition, not the other way around.

Quote:Either way, different groups of feminists don't define feminism just as different groups of atheists don't define atheism. The dictionary defines feminism and atheism. If a group of atheists get together who think all religious people should be killed they don't define atheism itself at all. They're just a group of murderous people who happen to be atheists. Same thing would apply to a bunch of feminists who got together thinking all men should be killed. They don't define feminism. And feminists who also happen to be anti-men don't define feminism just as atheists who also happen to be anti-theists don't define atheism.

The thing is, definitions follow usage, they do not dictate it. New words, denotations, and connotations are added to the dictionary only after their usage has become widespread enough to warrant such addition.

Quote:From the dictionary: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

I don't care how many feminist groups there are that get together who are also anti-men, they don't define feminism itself. The above definition defines feminism.

I get that. But language is a living, breathing thing.

Be aware, I'm not supporting any generalization being made in this thread.

It's hard to have a civil discussion with you because it pisses me off when you say I dismissed your argument because you disagree with me. No, no I did not. I dismissed your argument as wrong because you gave no fucking evidence and there are links of evidence that have been posted by others in contrary to your argument.

And no I don't fucking have to respect you for no reason. You come in here and you say things that are inaccurate, you refuse to back up your assertion (opinion wtf ever if you present it as an argument it needs to be backed up), you try to flip the burden of proof, you put words into my mouth and then you expect me to respect you. No it doesn't work that way.

"Because most rapists are people who can't get sex themselves" this is an assertion. It doesn't say I think or probably. It states something as if it were a fact. So defend your damn assertion or do what you keep saying and stfu. I'm tired of hearing you whine about how people are dismissing you. Yes we are. If you don't like it then prove what you said. If you have no evidence then there's no reason to address any of your points.

(November 19, 2015 at 12:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The fact is that the Catholic Church put together the original definition of "Christian". By your standard given above it follows that anyone eh deviates from that standard -- which certainly would include Protestants -- are not true Christians.

Nah, defintions can change. The dicionary today is where things are defined today not who originally defined it.

Quote:I think you're engaging I that fallacy right now, myself.

Well re-read the definition of the NTS fallacy then. It requires an ad-hoc bait and switch, not merely saying "no true X". If I say "No true atheists believe in God" for example, it's not the NTS fallacy.

Quote:Understood. But I don't think any one group has the authority to commandeer a word -- not even those who originally defined it -- because in language, usage is regnant.

I agree. The groups don't define it at all, the dictionary does.

Quote:My point is not so much about the book definition as it is about how a word is used, because that is ultimately what decides the official definition, not the other way around.

Yes, ultimately that is where the definitions come from and definitions change overtime... but a group still doesn't define the definition used. 

Quote:The thing is, definitions follow usage, they do not dictate it. New words, denotations, and connotations are added to the dictionary only after their usage has become widespread enough to warrant such addition.

Indeed, but unless the definition of feminism that involves essentially being pro-women's rights and equality for both sexes ever ends up being required to be dropped from the dictionary altogether, then any other definition used is irrelevant to that definition. To conflate any other definition with that definition is to commit the equivocation fallacy.

Quote:I get that. But language is a living, breathing thing.

I agree but see above.

Quote:Be aware, I'm not supporting any generalization being made in this thread.

I believe that. I know you're a very reasonable person I wouldn't think that of you

(November 19, 2015 at 12:28 am)Evie Wrote: The people you are arguing against right now heatsoirs, are absolute darlings and one of them also happens to be my bestest kitten.... so please do us a favour and give us the benefit of the doubt that we are truly awesome people who don't need to be shouted down like this

Besides I thought you liked me, the subject of this argument may be serious and it can get personal but no one needs to get personal with each other really. Please relax a little and have some fun in-between the arguments and maybe it will help stop you getting all ragey and sweary... it makes you come across as perhaps more of an asshole than you have to come across

I don't feel like a darling tonight. I'm getting sick of being accused of dismissing someone just because they don't agree with me. So no, I'm not being sweet. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

You may not feel like a darling but you are. You may or may not be being sweet right now, but I know that you are indeed sweet

(November 19, 2015 at 12:38 am)Evie Wrote: You may not feel like a darling but you are. You may or may not be being sweet right now, but I know that you are indeed sweet

Thanks

Hey as always - it's my pleasure! I know what you're like kitten you kick ass.

(November 18, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Cato Wrote:

(November 18, 2015 at 11:00 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: Here's what I did say:
"In my opinion I think most of the time this is what happens, although i'm not saying this cannot also be the case"

This coming from the person with "Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions" in his signature.

The phrase "Hoist upon his own petard" comes to mind ...

Petards are so underpowered in my favourite game of all time Age of Kings, too.

"Heatiosrs" - The name makes me picture a dinosaur, a pervy, leery, rapey kind of dinosaur.

Odd that, eh?