RE: Men's Rights Movement
December 23, 2017 at 10:10 am
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2017 at 10:11 am by Edwardo Piet.)
I'm probably somewhere in between Thena's and Tib's side of the argument.
I think Tibs has only been decent and hasn't lost his cool, and I don't think he's anything like an alt-right sympatheizer and I find that idea rather hilarious too, but at the same time I'm very pro feminism and think suggesting egalatarianism as an alternative is rather like suggesting All Lives Matter as an alternative to Black Lives Matter
Also I really wish someday someone would actually read up on the NTS fallacy properly
Not just looking at you there CL! MOST people seem to think saying "No True X" is a fallacy. LOL.
I think those people need to understand what a logical fallacy is first lol.
The NTS fallacy is a subset of the equivocation fallacy. In the original example someone gets angry at a criminal and says that "No Scotsman would ever do such a thing" and upon finding out it *is* a Scotsman who commit the crime they THEN say "Well, no TRUE Scotsman would ever do such a thing" . . . it's a fallacy because it's equvocarting the new definition, a 'true Scotsman' with the original definition of a Scotsman, and it's ignoring the counterexample that the Scotsman actually DID commit the crime without explaining how the new definition changed anything.
If after discovering that a criminal had commit a crime the guy had said right away "No True Scotsman would ever do such a thing", skipping the equivocation, then that would not be the fallacy it would just be a really stupid definition.
I think Tibs has only been decent and hasn't lost his cool, and I don't think he's anything like an alt-right sympatheizer and I find that idea rather hilarious too, but at the same time I'm very pro feminism and think suggesting egalatarianism as an alternative is rather like suggesting All Lives Matter as an alternative to Black Lives Matter

Also I really wish someday someone would actually read up on the NTS fallacy properly

Not just looking at you there CL! MOST people seem to think saying "No True X" is a fallacy. LOL.
I think those people need to understand what a logical fallacy is first lol.
The NTS fallacy is a subset of the equivocation fallacy. In the original example someone gets angry at a criminal and says that "No Scotsman would ever do such a thing" and upon finding out it *is* a Scotsman who commit the crime they THEN say "Well, no TRUE Scotsman would ever do such a thing" . . . it's a fallacy because it's equvocarting the new definition, a 'true Scotsman' with the original definition of a Scotsman, and it's ignoring the counterexample that the Scotsman actually DID commit the crime without explaining how the new definition changed anything.
If after discovering that a criminal had commit a crime the guy had said right away "No True Scotsman would ever do such a thing", skipping the equivocation, then that would not be the fallacy it would just be a really stupid definition.