(November 18, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Evie Wrote:(November 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If a theist made the claims about "they're not realm X", would you not call No True Scotsman?
Only if they'd changed the original definition when their bullshit was called out:
Wiki Wrote:No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by , without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")
Actually I was already prepared for this response. The NTS fallacy is commonly misunderstood. If the correct definition is being used, saying those that merely label themselves as such but in fact don't fall into the definition at all are "not true X" is not a fallacy at all. It is only when the original definition is changed and modified as an ad-hoc attempt to escape being refuted that the fallacy applies.
Someone can claim to be a theist as much as they want, but if they don't actually believe in God saying they are not a true theist in and of itself is not a fallacy. Likewise someone can claim to be a feminist as much as they want but if they actually think that man-hating is what feminism is about then they are simply mistaken.
Then you agree with Catholics that Protestants aren't true Christians, for instance?
Myself, I think the definition of "feminist" is muddled enough that winnowing the wheat from the chaff is a fool's quest. Rather thaan deal with how a person labels themselves, I prefer to deal with the individual. If someone calls themselves feminist and then goes on to spout nonstandard rhetoric, I'll address the rhetoric without worrying about the label.
