the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Iwannaplato]

Whenever you see say a strawman, red herring or ad hom (which are usually deliberately disingenuous), you don't see the disingenuousness as part of the fallacy?

Not inherently so, no. Each of those could be a legitimate mistake, even if ad hom is presumably, typically, otherwise.

Well the point of the NTS is the disingenuous move itself, not differences in definition. So they can't be seperated.

Exactly. The person is, often off the cuff, tossing the exclusion out due to the inconvenience of the example. They often do this in patterns.
That is the entire point of the NTS. That it is a disingenous exclusion. Yes, there can be contention about this in individual cases.
Yes, someone could misuse the NTS when someone has no pattern like this and defines the term, and always did, the way they are now.
However there is a real pattern that it is focusing on.

Advocate has been acting from the beginning as if the NTS meant that if you exclude someone from a category, then you are wrong.

And Traffic Logic was assuming that in real disagreements where there is a clear and standing disagreement over inclusion, the dictionary is always the only solution needed.

Which essentially means he is like Age. All problems go away if we just agree on meanings.

The Catholic meets the animist. They argue over whether animals have souls.
Traffic logic jumps in: look in the dictionary.

Cambridge: the spiritual part of a person that some people believe continues to exist in some form after their body has died, or the part of a person that is not physical and experiences deep feelings and emotions:

So, the Catholic wins.

Websters: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. 2. a. : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
Hm. ARe animals rational beings? Some animists do think animals are rational.

Oxford: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
"they believe death is just one step in a soul's journey through the universe"

Now the animist his happy and the Catholic rejects the authority of the dictionary.

All the while this dive into dictionaries is ongoing,
a materialist scientist is listening this argument and is pulling her hair out.

[Iwannaplato]

No, obsession itself is not considered rational.

Tell that to Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and pretty much any Mathematician...

Well, I'm with you on that one.

[commonsense]

No, obsession itself is not considered rational.

Tell that to Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and pretty much any Mathematician...

Consider irrational numbers.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=682825 time=1701666795 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682818 time=1701663220 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=682733 time=1701623164 user_id=15497]

Whenever you see say a strawman, red herring or ad hom (which are usually deliberately disingenuous), you don't see the disingenuousness as part of the fallacy?
[/quote]

Not inherently so, no. Each of those could be a legitimate mistake, even if ad hom is presumably, typically, otherwise.
[/quote]
Well the point of the NTS is the disingenuous move itself, not differences in definition. So they can't be seperated.
[/quote]

Call it the "all swans are white" problem then. The answer is the same, not inherently disingenuous.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=682887 time=1701694938 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682820 time=1701663650 user_id=15238]
Rarity.
[/quote]OK; fine, but that was one tiny part of my response.
[/quote]

If we're going to disagree, let it be for correct reasons. That is all. I don't care to respond to every response, esp. since the majority are straw man or ad hom.

[Atla]

Not inherently so, no. Each of those could be a legitimate mistake, even if ad hom is presumably, typically, otherwise.

Well the point of the NTS is the disingenuous move itself, not differences in definition. So they can't be seperated.

Call it the "all swans are white" problem then. The answer is the same, not inherently disingenuous.

The "all swans are white" is about falsifiability, and the NTS is about a kind of disingenuousness.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=682921 time=1701705550 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682909 time=1701700374 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=682825 time=1701666795 user_id=15497]

Well the point of the NTS is the disingenuous move itself, not differences in definition. So they can't be seperated.
[/quote]

Call it the "all swans are white" problem then. The answer is the same, not inherently disingenuous.
[/quote]
The "all swans are white" is about falsifiability, and the NTS is about a kind of disingenuousness.
[/quote]

All known examples of a Scotsman are nude under their kilts, therefore it is rational to believe someone wearing panties isn't a Scotsman.

No true swan is black because all known examples of swans are white.

[Atla]

All known examples of a Scotsman are nude under their kilts, therefore it is rational to believe someone wearing panties isn't a Scotsman.

No true swan is black because all known examples of swans are white.

The NTS isn't about rationality.

Sam: Many Scotsmen today don't wear kilts.
Joe: Maybe those people don't wear kilts, but all true Scotsmen do.

Sam: Well fine, let's call the ones in kilts the true Scotsmen, but not all of them are nude under it. That would be ridiculous.
Joe: Maybe some of them aren't nude under their kilts, but all true Scotsmen are.

ad infinitum

Sam: Most swans are white, but there also some black ones.
Joe: Maybe those birds are black, but all true swans are white.



(gosh those are some beautiful birds)

[Iwannaplato]

If we're going to disagree, let it be for correct reasons. That is all. I don't care to respond to every response, esp. since the majority are straw man or ad hom.

Mine was neither.

[Trajk Logik]

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest. This has got to be some of the most inept trolling I've ever seen. Keep it short geez.

If keeping it short is being a troll, then look in the mirror.

Besides, my posts aren't for you since I already know you aren't reading them. They are for the rational people that are reading this thread, and not necessarily participating in it.

Here's another link that describes the effect of making fallacious arguments, like you and your troop of dumb-dumb stupid-dumbs continually make:
https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Ci ... aking_Them

Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it is formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity and soundness of any argument. For example, if someone defines a key term in her argument in an ambiguous, vague, or circular way, her argument will appear very weak to a critical audience.

In addition, when listeners or readers spot questionable reasoning or unfair attempts at audience manipulation, more than the author’s argument (logos) may be compromised. Their evaluation of the credibility of the speaker/writer (ethos), and perhaps their ability to connect with that speaker on the level of shared values (pathos), also may be compromised. At the very least, the presence of fallacies will suggest to an audience that the speaker or writer lacks argumentative skill.

So, at the very least, you have shown the audience that you lack argumentative skills. You can't even define "troll" in a way that isn't ambiguous, vague, or circular. You have your primary troll in this thread that meets your initial definition, but would rather ignore that and redefine it to be the opposite just so you can call me a troll, troll.

But I'm willing to gracious and give you the tldr here: I won, you lost.

All very nice but the NTS is still just an intentional dick move, not a formal fallacy. You already "lost" in this topic before my first comment.

Where did I ever say it was a formal fallacy? You're not really reading my posts, only Flash's misinterpretation of my posts.

[Trajk Logik]

However there is a real pattern that it is focusing on.

Advocate has been acting from the beginning as if the NTS meant that if you exclude someone from a category, then you are wrong.

And Traffic Logic was assuming that in real disagreements where there is a clear and standing disagreement over inclusion, the dictionary is always the only solution needed.

Which essentially means he is like Age. All problems go away if we just agree on meanings.

The Catholic meets the animist. They argue over whether animals have souls.
Traffic logic jumps in: look in the dictionary.

Cambridge: the spiritual part of a person that some people believe continues to exist in some form after their body has died, or the part of a person that is not physical and experiences deep feelings and emotions:

So, the Catholic wins.

Websters: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. 2. a. : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
Hm. ARe animals rational beings? Some animists do think animals are rational.

Oxford: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
"they believe death is just one step in a soul's journey through the universe"

Now the animist his happy and the Catholic rejects the authority of the dictionary.

All the while this dive into dictionaries is ongoing,
a materialist scientist is listening this argument and is pulling her hair out.

This is so easy to pull apart it just shows your level of incompetence.

Yes, we have to agree on meanings for the conversation to continue, or else we would just be talking past each other. It's that simple.

The Catholic does not win because the definition of "soul" is using other terms that are not well defined, like "spiritual" and "essence", and if they define those terms using terms that we were already trying to define, for instance they define the term "spirit" using the term, "soul" then they've engaged in circular reasoning.

So, what do you do when someone you're talking to doesn't agree with the definitions of the terms that are part of the discussion? What is your solution to that problem, other than to point out that is what is happening? Please enlighten me.

[Atla]

If keeping it short is being a troll, then look in the mirror.

Besides, my posts aren't for you since I already know you aren't reading them. They are for the rational people that are reading this thread, and not necessarily participating in it.

Here's another link that describes the effect of making fallacious arguments, like you and your troop of dumb-dumb stupid-dumbs continually make:
https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Ci ... aking_Them



So, at the very least, you have shown the audience that you lack argumentative skills. You can't even define "troll" in a way that isn't ambiguous, vague, or circular. You have your primary troll in this thread that meets your initial definition, but would rather ignore that and redefine it to be the opposite just so you can call me a troll, troll.

But I'm willing to gracious and give you the tldr here: I won, you lost.

All very nice but the NTS is still just an intentional dick move, not a formal fallacy. You already "lost" in this topic before my first comment.

Where did I ever say it was a formal fallacy? You're not really reading my posts, only Flash's misinterpretation of my posts.

Because you're looking for some rational structure in the NTS but it doesn't have one.

[Iwannaplato]

David Friedman, the conservative former US ambassador to Israel during Donald Trump’s presidency, went further, tweeting before Monday’s protest: “Any American Jew attending this rally is not a Jew – yes I said it!”

I think Mr. Freidman's position probably falls into the NTS.

[Trajk Logik]

All very nice but the NTS is still just an intentional dick move, not a formal fallacy. You already "lost" in this topic before my first comment.

Where did I ever say it was a formal fallacy? You're not really reading my posts, only Flash's misinterpretation of my posts.

Because you're looking for some rational structure in the NTS but it doesn't have one.

And where did I say or imply such a thing. You can't even quote me on what it is you are disagreeing with me about.

What I have shown is that there isn't even a rational structure in the first premise made that makes up the NTS, as I have shown that it is a category error.

[Trajk Logik]

David Friedman, the conservative former US ambassador to Israel during Donald Trump’s presidency, went further, tweeting before Monday’s protest: “Any American Jew attending this rally is not a Jew – yes I said it!”

I think Mr. Freidman's position probably falls into the NTS.

He already called them a Jew in the first part of the statement, so not only is this possibly a NTS fallacy, the whole statement is a contradiction.

What is a Jew? Seems like there are two possible definitions, neither of which contradicts the other:

1: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
2: one whose religion is Judaism

The NTS is a type of category error which makes it part of the family of Redefinition fallacies.