Proper application of "no true scotsman"

[achilles12604]

[McCulloch]

No True Christian would have participated in :

• the Crusades
• the witch hunts
• the religious wars
• pogroms
• gay bashing
• American slavery
• Rwandan killings
• Spanish Carlism
• paternalistic oppressive colonialism
• Irish terror

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

[olavisjo]

No True Christian would have participated in :

• the Crusades
• the witch hunts
• the religious wars
• pogroms
• gay bashing
• American slavery
• Rwandan killings
• Spanish Carlism
• paternalistic oppressive colonialism
• Irish terror

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

Agreed.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 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.

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.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

[Goat]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

That depends. For example. if someone claimed to be a Jew, was brought up Jewish, but did things that most Jews would consider to be against the teachings of the Jewish faith, well, he would still be Jewish, just not a very GOOD Jew. Now when it comes to something like a 'Scotsman' or 'an American'. there is a lot of disagreement about what a 'Scotsman' or an American should believe and behave.

When it comes to Christianity, I would say that still falls under the same arguement about Judaism. I consider many of the televangelists in this category, as well as such notables as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Andrea Yates, George W. Bush, Fred Phillips (who anybody even reasonably sane rejects).

The problem often comes when defining what is meant by a 'true' xxxx.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

That depends. For example. if someone claimed to be a Jew, was brought up Jewish, but did things that most Jews would consider to be against the teachings of the Jewish faith, well, he would still be Jewish, just not a very GOOD Jew.

So if you are taught about something which you reject and disobey, you are just not a very good XXX?

In that case, there are a lot of not very good Christians on this site. Cathar, you are a christian. Just not a very good one. Cephus you too.

You all have been brought up in a country where the major religion is Christian, and I believe that Cephus, you were even brought up in a Christian home. So the fact that you reject these beliefs, and act against them, makes you a "bad" Christian, not an atheist.

[alexiarose]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

As your post is addressed AT ME rather than at the subject matter, I shall just continue to wait for your logical analysis of the argument.

I shall re-read looking for McCulloch's post.

[achilles12604]

No True Christian would have participated in :

• the Crusades
• the witch hunts
• the religious wars
• pogroms
• gay bashing
• American slavery
• Rwandan killings
• Spanish Carlism
• paternalistic oppressive colonialism
• Irish terror

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

MISS Alexiarose has pointed out that I didn't reply to this post. As I happen to agree with McCulloch's conclusions . . .

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

I didn't feel the need to rebutt.

Any other posts I have not addressed?

[alexiarose]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

As your post is addressed AT ME rather than at the subject matter, I shall just continue to wait for your logical analysis of the argument.

I shall re-read looking for McCulloch's post.

Fine. To make you happy your argument is 100% correct. Since this is all you want to hear, consider it stated. I shouldn't have posted to you at all. Good luck.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

As your post is addressed AT ME rather than at the subject matter, I shall just continue to wait for your logical analysis of the argument.

I shall re-read looking for McCulloch's post.

Fine. To make you happy your argument is 100% correct. Since this is all you want to hear, consider it stated. I shouldn't have posted to you at all. Good luck.

I actually prefer to be wrong. I learn more that way.