Discussion History Main / LogicalFallacies

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordanation of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does not agree with any conclusion but my own;\\\" in essence, it\\\'s just a statement that \\\"I am right in the specific cases where I am right.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the subgroup in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the larger group, it\\\'s not this fallacy. Thus, you can say someone isn\\\'t a \\\'\\\'mainstream\\\'\\\' Christian if they don\\\'t share the beliefs of the larger part of the group, but that doesn\\\'t mean they are not a Christian at all; defining \\\"mainstream\\\" as \\\"true\\\" as here is the fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordanation of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does not agree with any conclusion but my own;\\\" in essence, it\\\'s just a statement that \\\"I am right in the specific cases where I am right.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the subgroup in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the larger group, it\\\'s not this fallacy. Thus, you can say someone isn\\\'t a \\\'\\\'mainstream\\\'\\\' Christian if they don\\\'t share the beliefs of the larger part of the group, but that doesn\\\'t mean they are not a Christian at all.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordanation of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does not agree with any conclusion but my own;\\\" in essence, it\\\'s just a statement that \\\"I am right in the specific cases where I am right.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the subgroup in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the larger group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordanation of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does not agree with any conclusion but my own;\\\" in essence, it\\\'s just a statement that \\\"I am right in the specific cases where I am right.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordanation of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does not agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordination of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does not agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordination of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does no agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all dissenters are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordination of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does no agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all unbelievers are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. I\\\'m a Christian, thanks. But I guess I\\\'m not a true one. :P

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordination of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does no agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all unbelievers are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

Also, good job assuming anyone who disagrees with you is an athiest. I\\\'m a Christian, jackass.

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordination of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does no agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all unbelievers are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian, rather than being \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ\\\" (which is the only sensible overall description of such a diverse religion) becomes \\\"one who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ \\\'\\\'and accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war\\\'\\\'.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.

No True Scotsman is a variant of Moving The Goalposts where a \\\"true\\\" something is defined in a way that presupposes the conclusion: for example, if I say I know a Catholic who accepts the ordination of women, the opponent points out that no \\\'\\\'true\\\'\\\' Catholic would do so. It\\\'s a fallacy because the \\\"true Catholic\\\" specifically means \\\"one who does no agree with any conclusion but my own.\\\"

This could also be used for \\\"no true Christian believes in the transformation of the sacrament\\\" (excluding all Catholics from the definition of \\\"true\\\" Christian in the process) or, as here, no \\\"true\\\" Christian would ever interpret the Bible in a way that stated making war on unbelievers is justified (ruling out two thousand years of history in which people did so repeatedly).

This differs from internal dissent; provided that the group in question doesn\\\'t declare all unbelievers are not adherents at all and don\\\'t count as part of the group, it\\\'s not this fallacy.

->\\\'\\\'But Madrugada\\\'s right, it\\\'s hard to argue that \\\"a mass murderer isn\\\'t truly a believer in a religion that specifically forbids murder\\\" \\\'\\\'

It also specifically \\\'\\\'encourages\\\'\\\' killing the unfaithful in other places, which is why it\\\'s a fallacy; the \\\"true\\\" Christian becomes \\\"one who accepts a specific interpretation and selection of scripture which forbids holy war.\\\"

->\\\'\\\'Hence, we get these shrill, subtext-ridden edit wars over religion where the religious people are shouting that atheists are strawmanning and the atheists are shouting that religious people fail logic forever and everyone\\\'s talking past each other.\\\'\\\'

I\\\'m not seeing these edit wars you\\\'re claiming the examples cause, and I\\\'m not seeing them because they aren\\\'t there. Censoring the article over hypothetical ability to cause offense would require us to remove more or less all the examples on one basis or another, and is absolutely the \\\'\\\'wrong\\\'\\\' thing to do.