Thank you very much, Hammy. I hadn't really thought of the no true scotsman as being related to the equivocation fallacy, and I appreciate you going over it one more time even though you are tired of doing so. I learned a lot. Where I personally thought you committed the fallacy was here:
It would have helped, I think to have specific definition of feminism to work from to begin with. Maybe this whole thread would be in better shape. But, whether or not you committed the no true scotsman fallacy (and I think you made your case that you didn't) wouldn't it be more correct to say they've taken feminism too far than to say that they are not feminists altogether (or "beyond" which is synonymous with "outside the scope of")? I mean, radical feminists are feminists, right?
(December 21, 2017 at 2:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: It's annoying when the so-called 'extremist feminists' are seen to be feminists when they're clearly something beyond actual feminism.
It would have helped, I think to have specific definition of feminism to work from to begin with. Maybe this whole thread would be in better shape. But, whether or not you committed the no true scotsman fallacy (and I think you made your case that you didn't) wouldn't it be more correct to say they've taken feminism too far than to say that they are not feminists altogether (or "beyond" which is synonymous with "outside the scope of")? I mean, radical feminists are feminists, right?
