Clearly.

Get this through your head. Criticism of Israel does not equate to support for Hamas.

I shall now leave you to return to your false dilemma and no true Scotsman arguments.

No true Scotsman amirite?

ps. I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse.

This sounds like the No True Scotsman Fallacy to me.

No true Scotsman.

It really shouldn't matter. Iowa is a placebo, a self fulfilling prophecy. Only Ron Paul is too large a pill to swallow. If people don't believe its significant it won't be.

a.k.a. the no true Scotsman fallacy. Also: citation needed.
>> ^silvercord:

According to Jesus they are not representative of any Christians and for them to call themselves that is the height of hypocrisy. For someone else to call them that is disingenuous at best. >> ^FlowersInHisHair:
These people may not be representative of all Christians, true. But the problem is that it is entirely possible to find support for their actions in the Bible. "To Train Up A Child" isn't the only book they should be throwing away here.

No True Scotsman - fascinating stuff. Thanks, Direpickle.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?
The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.
As Rand Paul said:
“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."
Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.
taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors


No True Scotsman

>> ^shinyblurry:

The fallacy is itself a fallacy, as it presupposes there is no objective basis for Chrisianity. There are minimum requirements for being a Christian, first of all, which completely negates it. You can tell if someone is a Christian or not by what they believe. However, just because they meet the requirements doesn't make them Christian..this is why Jesus said you can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruit of this tree is rotten.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
An
d it's very interesting that when a video comes along that makes Christianity look bad, you say it's not real Christianity. "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy much?
>> ^shinyblurry:
it's very interesting that the sift will upvote anything that makes Christianity look bad, even though most of you clearly hated this video. Yet, when something is posted with agrees with Christianity, the sift can't wait to get rid of it. Biased much?



Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

The fallacy is itself a fallacy, as it presupposes there is no objective basis for Chrisianity. There are minimum requirements for being a Christian, first of all, which completely negates it. You can tell if someone is a Christian or not by what they believe. However, just because they meet the requirements doesn't make them Christian..this is why Jesus said you can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruit of this tree is rotten.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
And it's very interesting that when a video comes along that makes Christianity look bad, you say it's not real Christianity. "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy much?
>> ^shinyblurry:
it's very interesting that the sift will upvote anything that makes Christianity look bad, even though most of you clearly hated this video. Yet, when something is posted with agrees with Christianity, the sift can't wait to get rid of it. Biased much?

And it's very interesting that when a video comes along that makes Christianity look bad, you say it's not real Christianity. "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy much?
>> ^shinyblurry:

it's very interesting that the sift will upvote anything that makes Christianity look bad, even though most of you clearly hated this video. Yet, when something is posted with agrees with Christianity, the sift can't wait to get rid of it. Biased much?

What I mean is that I don't really believe you. I've spoken to many atheists who claimed to be ex christians but then myteriously didn't seem to know anything about it, like you. I've had atheists tell me they were ex pastors but didn't know any verses. It's a common trick from dishonest people to have that talking point. My point still stands. Just saying you prayed a lot doesn't make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is understanding what Christ said and following it. The scotsman fallacy doesn't apply. You can think you're a Christian and not be a christian. Mormons think they're christians..so do Jehovahs witnesses, doesn't make it true. Unless you're doing what Christ said, you are not a Christian. Ironically, the atheist who coined the fallacy convered to deism shortly after. So even if you had the label of Christian you weren't doing what Christ said, nor did you understand it. Some people become Christians for social reasons..the bible says those people are borrowing the name at a price, which they will have to repay.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sounds like you were a pretty terrible Christian..you did as you were told and prayed a lot. lol. This a Christian does not make. The total actual knowledge you seem to have about Gods will, or what is in the bible, could probably fit on the head of a pin with room to spare. You ever stop to think that you never saw God because didn't have any real faith to begin with? Sounds like your parents didn't understand their own faith, therefore raised you in ignorance..you became worldly..and tada, you're an atheist. For the record, every ex-christian atheist I meet never knows shit about the bible..they're also usually ex-catholic.

So, I believed in God, I went to Church, I did Bible studies, I prayed for strength and guidance... and from this you can tell I was a bad Christian? With bad parents?
What happened to "Seek out God and he will reveal Himself to you"?
I guess the only answer I'm going to get is if I guess what you really mean. If God doesn't reveal Himself to you it's because you are a bad person. And you are doing religion wrong. And your faith isn't real. Nyah nyah nyah!
That is what we call the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I invalidated your claim, and you have nothing of value to respond with, so you lash out with ad hominem attacks against me and my family, who you know absolutely nothing about.
So say what you really mean. You don't mean "Seek out God." You mean "Give your whole life, mind body and spirit, over to something you have absolutely no reason to believe exists, and MAYBE if you believe hard enough you will start to see things which kinda make it look like He might be real."
Or maybe, at that point your brain will be broken and you will start to get confirmation bias towards what you want to believe. It's especially helpful to surround yourself with people who are constantly talking about experiencing God on a daily basis. Seems to me that's about a million trillion trillion trillion times more likely.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Sounds like you were a pretty terrible Christian..you did as you were told and prayed a lot. lol. This a Christian does not make. The total actual knowledge you seem to have about Gods will, or what is in the bible, could probably fit on the head of a pin with room to spare. You ever stop to think that you never saw God because didn't have any real faith to begin with? Sounds like your parents didn't understand their own faith, therefore raised you in ignorance..you became worldly..and tada, you're an atheist. For the record, every ex-christian atheist I meet never knows shit about the bible..they're also usually ex-catholic.


So, I believed in God, I went to Church, I did Bible studies, I prayed for strength and guidance... and from this you can tell I was a bad Christian? With bad parents?

What happened to "Seek out God and he will reveal Himself to you"?

I guess the only answer I'm going to get is if I guess what you really mean. If God doesn't reveal Himself to you it's because you are a bad person. And you are doing religion wrong. And your faith isn't real. Nyah nyah nyah!

That is what we call the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I invalidated your claim, and you have nothing of value to respond with, so you lash out with ad hominem attacks against me and my family, who you know absolutely nothing about.

So say what you really mean. You don't mean "Seek out God." You mean "Give your whole life, mind body and spirit, over to something you have absolutely no reason to believe exists, and MAYBE if you believe hard enough you will start to see things which kinda make it look like He might be real."

Or maybe, at that point your brain will be broken and you will start to get confirmation bias towards what you want to believe. It's especially helpful to surround yourself with people who are constantly talking about experiencing God on a daily basis. Seems to me that's about a million trillion trillion trillion times more likely.

>> ^blankfist:

This guy is a fucking racist idiot that doesn't even recognize he's racist nor a fucking idiot. Who is this guy? Though, to be fair, one guy hardly represents the entire tea party. He's just some nimrod with a stupid website and the internet: http://conservativesportsmen.com/


My main point here is that comments like "the Tea Party isn't racist" is indefensible. You can try to play No True Scotsman games, and claim that no example of a racist Tea Partier is actually a Tea Partier, but you guys really should climb down from those kinds of absolute blanket statements.

But honestly now, do you really think this guy is unique? Yes, he's an unusually clear-cut case of cognitive dissonance on race, but do you really think he's the only one with cognitive dissonance about race within the so-called Tea Party?

For example, do Tea Partiers generally feel like whites are being oppressed by minorities these days?

>> ^gwiz665:

Ah, I see your argument, but I don't say that libertarians never do anything wrong. (There are different people in all camps) My point is that the idea of libertarianism is the focus of individual liberty, this curbstomper obviously does not agree with that philosophy, which is at the very core of libertarianism, which lead me to say that libertarians don't do that. They don't do that, because that goes against what libertarianism is.

And my point is, that's the definition of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ah, I see your argument, but I don't say that libertarians never do anything wrong. (There are different people in all camps) My point is that the idea of libertarianism is the focus of individual liberty, this curbstomper obviously does not agree with that philosophy, which is at the very core of libertarianism, which lead me to say that libertarians don't do that. They don't do that, because that goes against what libertarianism is.

It boils down to this, libertarians don't like curb stomping.. but love fluffy kittens... why, here's one now!



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
Libertarians don't curb stomp, that's infringing on the victims right to not have their face stomped on.
I admit, my description is just a tit-for-tat unfair generalization I'm trading with blankfist, but your comment is basically a textbook case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No true libertarian ever does anything wrong, because by definition libertarians don't do anything wrong.