the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[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.

And we'd need to see the pattern, but the quote itself anti-supports itself. Sometimes you can demonstrate it's a an NTS fallacy by showing how the category is changed by the person using it over time to suit momentary needs. Here the disingenuous shift happens even before the full-stop in the assertion lands.

[Atla]

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.

In all your comments, including this one, why do you think we're mocking you?

[commonsense]

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

A Jew is the offspring of a Jewish mother.

[Trajk Logik]

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.

In all your comments, including this one, why do you think we're mocking you?

I don't know, but I suspect that because you haven't been able to falsify anything I've said, and would rather be a troll (given your own definition), that you are jealous and have nothing better to do than to be a troll. So congrats on being part of the group of misfit "philosophers" that Age is in.

[Trajk Logik]

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

A Jew is the offspring of a Jewish mother.

You definition is just a re-phrasing of the first definition but it does make me re-think the definition as we would need to understand what makes the mother Jewish. You might say, "well her mother was Jewish", but that doesn't really answer the question of what it means to be Jewish. The question we would need answered is, "Who was the first Jewish person and what makes them Jewish?" The answer would probably be definition #2. So one might say that both definitions together define what it is to be Jewish.

[Atla]

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.

In all your comments, including this one, why do you think we're mocking you?

I don't know, but I suspect that because you haven't been able to falsify anything I've said, and would rather be a troll (given your own definition), that you are jealous and have nothing better to do than to be a troll. So congrats on being part of the group of misfit "philosophers" that Age is in.

Maybe you should also refrain from suspecting things, it would be best for everyone

[Trajk Logik]

In all your comments, including this one, why do you think we're mocking you?

I don't know, but I suspect that because you haven't been able to falsify anything I've said, and would rather be a troll (given your own definition), that you are jealous and have nothing better to do than to be a troll. So congrats on being part of the group of misfit "philosophers" that Age is in.

Maybe you should also refrain from suspecting things, it would be best for everyone

What would be best for everyone is for you stop wasting forum space with your drivel.

[Atla]

I don't know, but I suspect that because you haven't been able to falsify anything I've said, and would rather be a troll (given your own definition), that you are jealous and have nothing better to do than to be a troll. So congrats on being part of the group of misfit "philosophers" that Age is in.

Maybe you should also refrain from suspecting things, it would be best for everyone

What would be best for everyone is for you stop wasting forum space with your drivel.

I'm not the one wasting forum space with a long lecture about how the NTS is a formal fallacy, which however only proves your lack of basic common sense.

[Trajk Logik]

Could Searle's Chinese Room qualify as a NTS fallacy?

1. No computer(program) understands language.

2. ChatGPT understands language.

3. No computer (program) truly understands language.

What does Searle mean by "understand"?

Does the man in the room not understand the language the instructions (program) are written in?

If you don't understand Chinese could you use the instructions in the room to understand Chinese, or do you come to understand Chinese using some other set of instructions?

[Trajk Logik]

Maybe you should also refrain from suspecting things, it would be best for everyone

What would be best for everyone is for you stop wasting forum space with your drivel.

I'm not the one wasting forum space with a long lecture about how the NTS is a formal fallacy, which however only proves your lack of basic common sense.

You're wasting space asserting something which I have not done, and cannot even show that I have done.

[Atla]

What would be best for everyone is for you stop wasting forum space with your drivel.

I'm not the one wasting forum space with a long lecture about how the NTS is a formal fallacy, which however only proves your lack of basic common sense.

You're wasting space asserting something which I have not done, and cannot even show that I have done.

It's all you have done

[Atla]

It's like someone says: "asshole!"

And someone else comes along, and tries to logically take that apart, dead seriously. Find the formal, logical structure in it, look for contradictions, inconsistencies, mismatches, valid components, logical inferences or something. Come up with a generalized formal fallacy, based on it. I don't know how else to put it.

[Trajk Logik]

It's like someone says: "asshole!"

And someone else comes along, and tries to logically take that apart, dead seriously. Find the formal, logical structure in it, look for contradictions, inconsistencies, mismatches, valid components, logical inferences or something. Come up with a generalized formal fallacy, based on it. I don't know how else to put it.

1. Asshole!

Hmmmm. I fail to see how this is an example of the NTS fallacy. It doesn't look anything like a NTS fallacy. It appears that you have no idea what the NTS fallacy is and you want to "educate" others on what it is.

Wouldn't a proper example of the NTS fallacy be like this:

1. Only assholes make fart noises

2. You can make fart noises with your mouth

3. Only true assholes make fart noises

Is this a NTS fallacy? Is it not in the form of a NTS fallacy? If it isn't an example of NTS, then why? If it is an example of NTS, why?



And then there's what you said about someone taking the scribble, or the sound, "asshole!" apart. Well, how do you even know what the sound coming from their mouth means if there isn't some reasoning going on in your head?

If someone yells, "Zadnitsa!" (Russian for asshole), how would you go about determining if they are just making noises, or actually saying something?

[Atla]

It's like someone says: "asshole!"

And someone else comes along, and tries to logically take that apart, dead seriously. Find the formal, logical structure in it, look for contradictions, inconsistencies, mismatches, valid components, logical inferences or something. Come up with a generalized formal fallacy, based on it. I don't know how else to put it.

1. Asshole!

Hmmmm. I fail to see how this is an example of the NTS fallacy. It doesn't look anything like a NTS fallacy. It appears that you have no idea what the NTS fallacy is and you want to "educate" others on what it is.

Wouldn't a proper example of the NTS fallacy be like this:

1. Only assholes make fart noises

2. You can make fart noises with your mouth

3. Only true assholes make fart noises

Is this a NTS fallacy? Is it not in the form of a NTS fallacy? If it isn't an example of NTS, then why? If it is an example of NTS, why?



And then there's what you said about someone taking the scribble, or the sound, "asshole!" apart. Well, how do you even know what the sound coming from their mouth means if there isn't some reasoning going on in your head?

If someone yells, "Zadnitsa!" (Russian for asshole), how would you go about determining if they are just making noises, or actually saying something?

It wasn't an example of the NTS fallacy. Nor was I talking about taking the sound apart.

Please. At this point I'm begging you. I'm on my knees begging.
PLEASE tell me you're trolling, you just suck at it hard. Because if you're saying these things for real, I don't know if I can bear it.

[Trajk Logik]

It's like someone says: "asshole!"

And someone else comes along, and tries to logically take that apart, dead seriously. Find the formal, logical structure in it, look for contradictions, inconsistencies, mismatches, valid components, logical inferences or something. Come up with a generalized formal fallacy, based on it. I don't know how else to put it.

1. Asshole!

Hmmmm. I fail to see how this is an example of the NTS fallacy. It doesn't look anything like a NTS fallacy. It appears that you have no idea what the NTS fallacy is and you want to "educate" others on what it is.

Wouldn't a proper example of the NTS fallacy be like this:

1. Only assholes make fart noises

2. You can make fart noises with your mouth

3. Only true assholes make fart noises

Is this a NTS fallacy? Is it not in the form of a NTS fallacy? If it isn't an example of NTS, then why? If it is an example of NTS, why?



And then there's what you said about someone taking the scribble, or the sound, "asshole!" apart. Well, how do you even know what the sound coming from their mouth means if there isn't some reasoning going on in your head?

If someone yells, "Zadnitsa!" (Russian for asshole), how would you go about determining if they are just making noises, or actually saying something?

It wasn't an example of the NTS fallacy. Nor was I talking about taking the sound apart.

Then I have no idea what point you were trying to make if you weren't giving an example of a NTS fallacy that I was trying to "take apart".

Please. At this point I'm begging you. I'm on my knees begging.
PLEASE tell me you're trolling, you just suck at it hard. Because if you're saying these things for real, I don't know if I can bear it.

I was asking questions. Maybe I'm just asking the wrong person.