Why do people hate ICE...

[rjs330]

I think the sticking point for most people is the idea that it is a decision instead of an emergent property of our culture. It is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy write large.

No true Sottsman is not a fallacy. We see evidence of that all the time. We see it in the immigration debate. People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman. And they are correct. Liberals are quick to point out that any liberal who commits violence doesn't truly represent liberals. Thats applying No True Scottsman.

So I don't believe in the No True Sottsman fallacy theory.

The Italians can decide what is Italian and what is not.

 

[jonojim1337]

Because they want American citizenship and not the citizenship of the Roman Empire.

 

[Belk]

No true Sottsman is not a fallacy. We see evidence of that all the time. We see it in the immigration debate. People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman. And they are correct. Liberals are quick to point out that any liberal who commits violence doesn't truly represent liberals. Thats applying No True Scottsman.

So I don't believe in the No True Sottsman fallacy theory.

The Italians can decide what is Italian and what is not.

<Roll eyes>

OK. You have fun with the idea a well defined fallacy is not a fallacy.

Until then let me know when you wish to engage the idea emergent property over choice.

 

[BPPLEE]

<Roll eyes>

OK. You have fun with the idea a well defined fallacy is not a fallacy.

Until then let me know when you wish to engage the idea emergent property over choice.

I think he said more to the effect that No True Scotsman exists in more places than you think

 

[Belk]

I think he said more to the effect that No True Scotsman exists in more places than you think

No true conservative would use that argument.

 

[rjs330]

I think the sticking point for most people is the idea that it is a decision instead of an emergent property of our culture. It is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy write large.

No true Sottsman is not a fallacy. We see evidence of that all the time. We see it in the immigration debate. People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman. And they are correct. Liberals are quick to point out that any liberal who commits violence doesn't truly represent liberals. Thats applying No True Scottsman.

So I don't believe in the No True Sottsman fallacy theory.

The Italians can decide what is Italan and what is not.

<Roll eyes>

OK. You have fun with the idea a well defined fallacy is not a fallacy.

Until then let me know when you wish to engage the idea emergent property over choice.

Is it well defined? Not from what I've seen. Just like your comment. There are serious logical debate over tye validity of the theory.

 

[BPPLEE]

No true Sottsman is not a fallacy. We see evidence of that all the time. We see it in the immigration debate. People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman. And they are correct. Liberals are quick to point out that any liberal who commits violence doesn't truly represent liberals. Thats applying No True Scottsman.

So I don't believe in the No True Sottsman fallacy theory.

The Italians can decide what is Italan and what is not.


Is it well defined? Not from what I've seen. Just like your comment. There are serious logical debate over tye validity of the theory.

They love to use it when some atrocious acts are committed by someone claiming to be a Christian and you point out that no real Christian would behave that way. It's not a fallacy it's just the truth

 

[essentialsaltes]

People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman.

No, if they were committing the fallacy, they would say the terrorists weren't Muslim.

 

[rjs330]

They love to use it when some atrocious acts are committed by someone claiming to be a Christian and you point out that no real Christian would behave that way. It's not a fallacy it's just the truth

That's why I don't believe in it. It can't be the catch all for anytime someone does something. No real Muslim would aact like that. A real Liberal would never be violent. A real whatever wouldn't do whatever. This argument works with individuals and is certainly issue dependant. Sometimes a real whatever wouldn't actually do that.

 

[DaisyDay]

No true Sottsman is not a fallacy.

Sure it is, spelled with a single "t", albeit an informal one aka the appeal to purity. See No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

We see evidence of that all the time. We see it in the immigration debate. People who say the dangerous Islamists dont represent all Islam followers are apply the No True Scottsman. And they are correct.

No, you yourself in this very example make a distinction between dangerous Islamists and Muslims who are not Islamists. Perhaps you don't understand the fallacy? No one is arguing that Islamists are not Muslims but that not all Muslims are Islamist.

Liberals are quick to point out that any liberal who commits violence doesn't truly represent liberals. Thats applying No True Scottsman.

No, it isn't. If you want to argue the fallacy, then the argument would be that liberals who commit violence are not liberals. You have it backwards.

So I don't believe in the No True Sottsman fallacy theory.

Yes, because you have it backwards - you think that it means that the smaller subset does not necessarily represent the larger set, which is correct, rather than that the smaller subset is not part of the larger set. Maybe read up on it?

The Italians can decide what is Italian and what is not.

Lols, that's an ongoing argument there. What is Italian? The Romans, the Sicilians, the Neapolitans, the Milanese, the Sardians, etc. all have differing opinions.

That's why I don't believe in it. It can't be the catch all for anytime someone does something. No real Muslim would aact like that. A real Liberal would never be violent. A real whatever wouldn't do whatever. This argument works with individuals and is certainly issue dependant.

Lols, you have described the actually fallacy here and why it is fallacious.

Sometimes a real whatever wouldn't actually do that.

But the fallacy comes into play when an example of a real whatever is actually doing that but gets dismissed as not being a true one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok, it's border patrol, but since Chicago isn't very close to the border...

Racist rants exposed for Border Patrol agent accused of threatening to shoot bystanders​

"Timothy Donohue, 38, was a member of lead commander Gregory Bovino’s maurauding so-called 'Green Army' during 'Operation Midway Blitz' in Illinois, part of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown," reported Tom Latchem. "Donahue was cited — though not by name — in a blistering opinion by U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis after he was filmed threatening someone watching an arrest in Evanston." Footage apparently of Donohue appeared to show him saying, “Step back or I’m going to shoot you,” to a bystander.

Among other things, Donohue approvingly replied "Based" to a post that showed a white father disowning his daughter for having a Black prom date, and a video that appeared to show two men ganging up to attack a gay man. He also replied "yes" to a post asking if America would be better off if women didn't have voting rights, and said "good" in response to an article about how the transgender community in Nashville feared for their safety after a high-profile school shooting.

 

[BPPLEE]

Ok, it's border patrol, but since Chicago isn't very close to the border...

Racist rants exposed for Border Patrol agent accused of threatening to shoot bystanders​

"Timothy Donohue, 38, was a member of lead commander Gregory Bovino’s maurauding so-called 'Green Army' during 'Operation Midway Blitz' in Illinois, part of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown," reported Tom Latchem. "Donahue was cited — though not by name — in a blistering opinion by U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis after he was filmed threatening someone watching an arrest in Evanston." Footage apparently of Donohue appeared to show him saying, “Step back or I’m going to shoot you,” to a bystander.

Among other things, Donohue approvingly replied "Based" to a post that showed a white father disowning his daughter for having a Black prom date, and a video that appeared to show two men ganging up to attack a gay man. He also replied "yes" to a post asking if America would be better off if women didn't have voting rights, and said "good" in response to an article about how the transgender community in Nashville feared for their safety after a high-profile school shooting.

I heard he kicked a dog too

 

[essentialsaltes]

I heard he kicked a dog too

'Good.'

 

[rjs330]

No, if they were committing the fallacy, they would say the terrorists weren't Muslim.

Whatever, its my point. I don't believe in the fallacy. Every group has a right to establish their own value and cultural systems. They can then reject those that don't follow them. There Muslims that reject other Muslims for not following the Qurans teaching. They will say they are not true Muslims. And they would be correct according to the Quran.

Sure there are most certainly circumstances where the theory doesn't work. There isnt a hard and fast rule. No True Scottsman can be true in some cases. Even Christ said so. If you don't believe in him you are no true believer.

There are circumstances in which the No true Sottsman applies. If I was born in America but worked very hard to turn it into N Korea I would not be a true American for many reasons.

 

[Belk]

They love to use it when some atrocious acts are committed by someone claiming to be a Christian and you point out that no real Christian would behave that way. It's not a fallacy it's just the truth

It's amazing how you point out the case in which it is not a fallacy, then fall into the fallacy.

If someone says "No true pacifist can advocate for war." that would be a true statement since it is a direct contradiction. There is no definition of Christian that stays they are "someone who does not commit atrocities". That is an extra category you are adding to the definition which is what the fallacy entails. Supplementing the definition with your opinion.

 

[jonojim1337]

And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

 

[BPPLEE]

It's amazing how you point out the case in which it is not a fallacy, then fall into the fallacy.

If someone says "No true pacifist can advocate for war." that would be a true statement since it is a direct contradiction. There is no definition of Christian that stays they are "someone who does not commit atrocities". That is an extra category you are adding to the definition which is what the fallacy entails. Supplementing the definition with your opinion.

Jesus pointed out that there would be people who claim to be his followers who are not.
He said that many would say they prophesied in his name and cast out demons in his name and he would say depart from me, I never knew you.
He also said those who love me keep my commandments.
Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing

 

[Belk]

Jesus pointed out that there would be people who claim to be his followers who are not.
He said that many would say they prophesied in his name and cast out demons in his name and he would say depart from me, I never knew you.
He also said those who love me keep my commandments.
Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing

Did he give a specific definition of Christian or name you as the arbiter? If not then this is irrelevant to the fallacy.

 

[BPPLEE]

T

Did he give a specific definition of Christian or name you as the arbiter? If not then this is irrelevant to the fallacy.

Those who love me keep my commandments, and you will know them by their fruit

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

(Luke 6:46; 13:26, 27 ) 21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[jonojim1337]

Hey aren’t you forgetting something

And who is this guy sitting in his chair?