RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 2:00 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 2:23 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Redbeard The Pink Wrote:I'm aware that many (I'll even hazard most) feminists like to bandy about definitions like the one on the OP, insisting that anything falling beyond that isn't "true feminism" and that anyone willing to admit they support gender equality is a feminist whether they want the label or not.
Feminism is pro women's rights... anything beyond that indeed isn't true feminism. Is this the NTS fallacy? No. Just as Atheism is not believing in gods, anything beyond that isn't true atheism. The NTS fallacy isn't simply "No true X is Y".
0 multiplied by anything is 0. Anything beyond that isn't true mathematics. That is NOT the NTS fallacy, of course. It's a tautology. And tautology, while redunant is absolutely true. By definition. Which is what a tautology is, tautologically so, by definition. It explains nothing, it's redundant, but it certainly can't be false once we agree on the definitions.
The NTS fallacy would be
"4+5=10... that's maths."
"No it isn't... it's 9, not 10".
"Okay well them, 4+5=10... that's TRUE maths. Which is beyond mere "maths"".
That's the NTS fallacy applied to maths as much as as I can explain it in an analogous way.
Quote:There are two problems I have with that. First, that is the definition of gender egalitarianism. Feminism is about women's rights/issues. The etymology indicates it, and the history supports it. Why we're trying to de-feminize the word "feminism" is beyond me.
It doesn't need to be de-feminized. Point is being pro-women's rights doesn't mean anti-men's rights. And any feminist groups who are by definition pro-women's rights but also happen to be anti-men's rights may be indeed true feminists but they don't represent what "feminism" is. They represent "feminism" PLUS stupid anti-men bigoted bullshit. Nor do they represent all feminists but only the ones who are bigoted. And most feminists aren't bigoted against men because that would imply that most people who are pro-women's rights are against men, and that simply isn't true. Not all feminists are egalitarians but all egalitarians are feminists - because within the definition of "equal rights for all" includes equal rights for women.
Quote:Second, that whole line of reasoning barrels right into "No True Scotsman" territory without looking back or feeling ashamed. What makes somebody a "True Feminist"? What makes somebody a false feminist? If somebody self-identifies as a feminist for reasons you don't agree with, who's right? Who's wrong
I've spoke of this before. The NTS fallacy is actually one of the most commonly misunderstood and misdefined fallacies of all. If one is to say "No true X are Y" that is not the fallacy. If I am to say "No true atheists believe in God" that is not a fallacy, that is simply true. The fallacy is only committed if there is an ad hoc redefinition of the original definition by the addition of the word "true" (or synonyms such as "real") as a way to try and dodge rebutting the argument made.
So if I say "No true definition of feminism includes being anti-men" that is not a fallacy. If I was to say "no true feminists are anti-men" that is not a fallacy either, that is merely false. Because many of them are, but the point is that the "anti-men" part has nothing to do with their feminism.
It is merely false by the way, rather than being the NTS fallacy, because there is no ad hoc attempt to avoid rebutting the argument by adding "no true feminists are anti-men" after previously trying to argue "no feminists are anti-men".
Check the Wikipedia article for the true definition and description of the NTS fallacy. There is a lot more to it than "No true X are Y" . That in and of itself is not a fallacy at all.
It's okay though, I used to misunderstand the NTS fallacy too, it's very commonly misunderstood. And actually, I've already spoke about it once on this thread to Thumpy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
TL;DR brief preface to the article with my bolding and underlining for emphasis:
Wikpedia Wrote:No true Scotsman is an Ad Hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. 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 rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").
