(December 21, 2017 at 4:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 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:
(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?
That's the problem. There is no specific definition of feminism. I think appreciating and embracing a women's femininity is feminist. Many others out there may think the opposite.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
