RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 2:39 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 2:43 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(December 4, 2015 at 2:20 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'm absolutely not going to get into whether "being pro-gender-equality" is an adequate definition of the word or the movement of feminism. Feminism, like it or not, is a broadly interpreted word both within and without the movement itself, so yes, insisting on "your" definition as the "true" one is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because that's what that fallacy literally is.
@ Redbeard That's ridiculous. You're using an incorrect oversimplifed and bastardized version of the NTS fallacy to consider my correction of that bastardization a commiting of the fallacy itself? K....
Okay so if I were to say "No true definition of atheism includes eating two donuts every day as well as not believing in Gods". That's the NTS fallacy? Even though that's tautologically correct as atheism has nothing to do with fucking donuts?
I'm waiting for you to actually address the Wikipedia article and my analogy that you are basically denying the logical validity of tautologies.
According to you if I were to say "no true way of using mathmatetics allows 2+2 to = anything other than 4" that would be a fallacy despite it being FALSE by definition simply because I prefaced it with "No true".
"No true definition of atheism is anything more than not believing in gods" is not the NTS fallacy... it's a tautology providing that we agree with the definition. Do you disagree with that definition of Atheism? If you don't, fine, define it a weird way but whatever way you define it, it's the changing the definition half way with the addition of the word "true" to become "no true X" after before it just being "no X" that makes it a fallacy.
I even underlined and bolded the parts in the Wikipedia article that made it clear that the NTS fallacy requires a modifying of previous definition and an Ad Hoc attempt to dodge the matter.
Please read the actual definition of the NTS fallacy.................. don't just go by the common misunderstanding that comes about by many people's lazy reading, they fail to comprehnend the definition so they merely settle for "Oh the fallacy is simply prefacing a definition with No true"" NO IT'S NOT. That's not the fallacy. It's a specific type of Ad Hoc fallacy. Read what the fallacy actually is, and if you're uncomfortable with Wikipedia, go to Fallacy Files or another fallacy site. Don't just use your own incorrect batardized deifntiion to try and rebut the correct defintion.
