(December 21, 2017 at 3:40 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Go back a few pages, and you'll see where and why I stated that Tib shares many of the anti-feminist sentiments of the Men's Right's/Alt-Right movements.

Except I said I was a feminist, multiple times. So I'm an anti-feminist feminist apparently. Just because I don't agree with the label and think the movement is being corrupted by its vocal fringe groups doesn't mean I am against what the core principles are. I just choose to espouse them in a different way, and using a different word.

Quote:Go back a page or two further, you'll see Tibs railing on about the all of the batshit crazy feminists of the world who are out to undermine him personally, and how I was targeting him as a white male. 

Except I never said they were out to undermine me personally, I said that I'd personally encountered feminists that use my sex as a reason to discard what I'm saying.

Also, as I clarified earlier, I was joking with my comment about you targeting me as a white male.

Yeesh.

The funny thing is we probably mostly all agree on the principles themselves. Completely unnecessary argument.

(December 21, 2017 at 3:55 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 2:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ympathizer

"A person who agrees with or supports a sentiment, opinion, or ideology."

The alt-right is an ideology. I don't support the ideology of the alt-right, therefore I cannot be an alt-right sympathizer.

Hey Tibs...Did you stretch before doing those gymnastics? LOL

Which part or my argument do you disagree with exactly? The alt-right is an ideology, it's a collection of multiple political viewpoints, it's not just anti-feminist. They are also pro-capitalist. Are all pro-capitalists therefore supporters of the alt-right, because that's what you are arguing, that supporting part of an ideology means you support the entire ideology. That's bullshit.

Besides, as I've made clear, I'm not an anti-feminist.

(December 21, 2017 at 2:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No true Scotsman

I knew that was coming and I'm too tired of explaining what the fallacy actually is.

Most people who call it out don't even understand the fallacy and they're doing the equivalent of saying that "No true circles have five sides" is a fallacy.

I would bother to explain what the fallacy actually is (the misunderstanding of the fallacy seems infinitely more common than a correct understanding of the fallacy!!!) but I've done it so many times it's getting tiring.

---

(December 21, 2017 at 3:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 21, 2017 at 2:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No true Scotsman

Fallacy fallacy.

No. Incorrectly calling out a fallacy is not the Fallacy Fallacy . . . you are just incorrectly calling out an incorrect calling out of a fallacy. That's what you're doing.

I'll explain the Fallacy Fallacy because it's an easy one to explain and I'm not super tired of explaining it (almost no one seems to understand the NTS fallacy because the common misunderstanding is so widespread that people just repeat that misunderstanding over and over without bothering to read up on it properly): The Fallacy Fallacy is when you say that the truth of someone's conclusion is necessarily false just because the way they got there was fallacious. That itself is a fallacy because someone could be right about the conclusion by accident. Their reason for believing in their conclusion is faulty but the conclusion that they believe in nevertheless represents something true in reality.

I agree with CL, Hammy. Sorry you are tired of explaining it, but if I'm wrong, I only need to hear it once. At least drop a link that will set me straight.

(December 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I agree with CL, Hammy. Sorry you are tired of explaining it, but if I'm wrong, I only need to hear it once. At least drop a link that will set me straight.

How about two?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Quote:No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

My bold.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presump...-scotsman/

Quote:The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

My bold.

There are specific reasons why the bold is fallacious and the NTS fallacy when correctly understood is a subset of the Equivocation Fallacy because it attempts to dismiss X by redefining it and calling it true X and then pretending like because X doesn't fit the redefinition (True X) then no X can be true X because no true X is true X . . . and it pretends like the redefinition hasn't happened.

You hardly ever actually see people understand this. Most people seem to think that merely saying "No true X" is itself a fallacy . . . which makes me laugh my balls off. If when you're saying no true X you're not claiming that it means that no X (unless "X" is identical meaning to true X) then you're not committing any sort of fallacy. To claim that people don't correctly understand X anyway so true X is more important and saying no true X is true X is just fine. If I were to say that people who claim to be feminists aren't truly the way they claim to be because they don't fit into a true understanding of feminism then THAT would be a fallacy. But to say that they don't fit into a true understanding of feminism which is in fact different to what they think it is because they don't actually represent feminism... that isn't fallacious at all. If I'm saying they're a 5 sided square and no 5 sided squares are truly square then that's not a fallacy. But if I were saying that they are not a 5 sided object just because I know what a 4 sided square is then that would be fallacious.

The point is no redefinition or equivocation has happened. I'm saying that no true feminists are people who merely claim to be feminists because that really isn't what feminism is any more than a square really is a 5 sided object. Feminists actually believe in feminism, they don't merely identify as feminists despite not actually supporting women's rights. True feminists (Which is identical to feminists) truly believe in what feminism actually is they don't merely believe in what they think feminism is.

So, I've tried to explain why I didn't commit the fallacy. And I just gave a short bolding and linkage and brief explanation to what the fallacy actually is. I'm not going to go all over it again if no one else but me can see that the NTS fallacy involves a specific logical failure (which is what fallacies are) and it's not merely that it's a fallacy whenever someone says "No true X are Y" or "Only true X are Y"

(December 21, 2017 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Tib's is the most chill and reasonable person here. That you're attacking his character really takes away any credibility that you might have had.

Lol, here we go with the brown nosing.

Haha, right. That's exactly it Grandi, good job.

Thank you very much, Hammy. I hadn't really thought of the no true scotsman as being related to the equivocation fallacy, and I appreciate you going over it one more time even though you are tired of doing so. I learned a lot. Where I personally thought you committed the fallacy was here:

(December 21, 2017 at 2:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: It's annoying when the so-called 'extremist feminists' are seen to be feminists when they're clearly something beyond actual feminism.

It would have helped, I think to have specific definition of feminism to work from to begin with. Maybe this whole thread would be in better shape. But, whether or not you committed the no true scotsman fallacy (and I think you made your case that you didn't) wouldn't it be more correct to say they've taken feminism too far than to say that they are not feminists altogether (or "beyond" which is synonymous with "outside the scope of")? I mean, radical feminists are feminists, right?