RE: Men's Rights Movement
December 21, 2017 at 4:40 pm
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2017 at 4:42 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(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"
