RE: Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?
December 4, 2015 at 5:09 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 5:33 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Ok if we're going to do summaries and you're going to keep not addressing many of my points, I'll do a summary.
1. Regardless of how "feminism" is defined, different definitions are different definitions and to speak of them as if they are not is to equivocate.
2. Definitions aren't so hazy once you agree which definition you are talking of first.
3. One group of feminists using a completely different definition of "feminism" to another, says nothing about the other, to think otherwise, once again, is to commit the Equivocation fallacy.
4. It is not the NTS fallacy to say "no true X are Y" if it the definition agreed upon logically entails that "no true X are y". I.e. If atheists are defined as people who don't believe in gods, then to say "no true atheists believe in gods", is not the NTS fallacy. Likewise - once the definition is agreed upon - if feminists are defined as people who believe in fighting for women's rights, then it is not the NTS fallacy to say "No true feminists don't believe in fighting for women's rights."
5. If you want to understand the NTS fallacy and you're not happy with Wikipedia's definition, then check Fallacy Files or another website dedicated to logical fallacies. To suggest that any of those versions of the NTS fallacy are not exactly true because that itself would be committing the NTS fallacy while using your own non-defined and oversimplified version to do so, is hilariously fallacious in itself.
By the way Redbeard, I'm not defensive just frustrated that I can't explain the NTS fallacy and the equivocation fallacy to you because I'm sure you're perfeclty intelligent enough to comprehend them and yet you accuse me of the NTS when I haven't commited it and fail to spot your own committing of the equivocation fallacy. That is what is frustrating me. Because I have respect for you and I expect better from your logic skills when it comes to fallacies. That's all that is frustrating me.
Oh, so please stop strawmanning me too: I explained more than once that whilst all egalitarians are feminists (once a definition of "feminism" is agreed upon) not all feminists are egalitarians. I didn't commit the NTS fallacy but you strawmanned me by suggesting I was saying that all feminists had to merely be egalitarian. I didn't say that. And the whole problem with this confusion of different definitions of feminism is the equivocation fallacy. The fallacy I spot easiest.
1. Regardless of how "feminism" is defined, different definitions are different definitions and to speak of them as if they are not is to equivocate.
2. Definitions aren't so hazy once you agree which definition you are talking of first.
3. One group of feminists using a completely different definition of "feminism" to another, says nothing about the other, to think otherwise, once again, is to commit the Equivocation fallacy.
4. It is not the NTS fallacy to say "no true X are Y" if it the definition agreed upon logically entails that "no true X are y". I.e. If atheists are defined as people who don't believe in gods, then to say "no true atheists believe in gods", is not the NTS fallacy. Likewise - once the definition is agreed upon - if feminists are defined as people who believe in fighting for women's rights, then it is not the NTS fallacy to say "No true feminists don't believe in fighting for women's rights."
5. If you want to understand the NTS fallacy and you're not happy with Wikipedia's definition, then check Fallacy Files or another website dedicated to logical fallacies. To suggest that any of those versions of the NTS fallacy are not exactly true because that itself would be committing the NTS fallacy while using your own non-defined and oversimplified version to do so, is hilariously fallacious in itself.
By the way Redbeard, I'm not defensive just frustrated that I can't explain the NTS fallacy and the equivocation fallacy to you because I'm sure you're perfeclty intelligent enough to comprehend them and yet you accuse me of the NTS when I haven't commited it and fail to spot your own committing of the equivocation fallacy. That is what is frustrating me. Because I have respect for you and I expect better from your logic skills when it comes to fallacies. That's all that is frustrating me.
Oh, so please stop strawmanning me too: I explained more than once that whilst all egalitarians are feminists (once a definition of "feminism" is agreed upon) not all feminists are egalitarians. I didn't commit the NTS fallacy but you strawmanned me by suggesting I was saying that all feminists had to merely be egalitarian. I didn't say that. And the whole problem with this confusion of different definitions of feminism is the equivocation fallacy. The fallacy I spot easiest.
