The "gay mafia" only exists in your homophobic delusions. Is Sinema gay? Or bi-sexual as she claims? She has an ex-husband, not an ex-wife. And she lied about being a Democrat. All Democratic voters should be saying she should go.
Qtard is wrong yet again. No surprise. It is the republiturds who are forcing out the few remaining real republicans in their party. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to name 2. The only politicians left in the republiturd party are crazy tRump cultists and cowardly liars who refuse to call tRump out for fear of being driven out of the party.
Minus thinks Krysten Sinema is Keyser Söze? What does that mean? She's going to vote with the republiturds?
I mean. There is nothing more funny than looking at how self-proclaimed believers -- screwing up their beliefs... while revealing their true motives. ;-P
\\I hate your White Supremacist belief that logic is "eurocentric".
(facepalm)
\\It is good that you are able to laugh at yourself.
Actually. Yes, I am. Because I am not religious believer like you. And can discern my bias from reality. ;-P That's why it's so delightful to observe those who can't. Like you, Dervy. Only one little problem -- they trying to flee, to run away... just that moment you directing your magnifying glass at them... So, one need to be very careful and very observant.
Like I am. For example as to this one claim of yours.
"It is good that you are able to laugh at yourself."
Yes. It's good that you know that reasonable, rational person, need to have lots of humility. And be able to admit defeat. Errs. Unpurity. Of own miserly self. ;-P
But.
THAT is NOT what you mean, Dervy. FOR YOU that is biggest blaschemy. Something YOU freakingly CANNOT allow -- to treat oneself that way, to allow to be looking clumsy and funny, like that clown.
Another word. That was not praise... of my character and intelligence... but a scorning damnation. Isn't it? Dervy. :-))))
Minus is a bigly fool. India, China and the Middle East aren't a part of Europe. Yet they are covered in the "history of logic" Wikipedia page you linked it. Why the page never claims that logic is eurocentric.
A fact Qtard also missed, despite his claim that he is very careful and very observant. LOL! 😆
The ME got all their logic from the Greeks. India got the formal goic from Alexander. And the Chinese are just smart as no get out, which is why liberals need to keep them out of Harvard and the Ivy Leagues, like they used to keep out the Jews.... with "quotas".
No, she's just ensuring that Democrats won't survive their next general election... in perpetuity. Arizona will always "split the vote" and ensure a Republican victory unless they stick with Sinema.
\\India, China and the Middle East aren't a part of Europe.
Hah... why they speaking pidgin-English then? ;-P
\\Why the page never claims that logic is eurocentric.
'Cause... some libtard wasted his earthly time to fill it with lintard's "alternative facts" and "correct(ed) version of history" -- Wikipedia, is the best instrument for "double think", "retrospective censoring" and all. ;-P
\\A fact Qtard also missed, despite his claim that he is very careful and very observant. LOL! ��
Now. You showing truthfoolly... that you are realy of THAT KIND of people... easy to please, who laugh from their own *** jokes. :-))))
What purpose does cutting her ties with the DNC serve?
Only Democrats can vote in a Democratic "primary"... and THAT is an election Sinema could lose. Throw in the Republicans/ Independent voters (like in the "Geneal" election)... and Sinema wins.
Anti-surrender isn't pro-war. After 9/11 I do not think the US should have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't think gwb should have surrendered to OBL either. Apparently you do. Were you ready to convert to Islam?
36 comments:
So, she's going to caucus with the republiturds? Hopefully she loses her seat the next time she is up for election. To the Democratic nominee.
lol! She just guaranteed that that will never happen. She can't get "primaried" by the Left w/o a Republican winning the seat.
Besides the Gay Mafia will always protect her. ;)
The "gay mafia" only exists in your homophobic delusions. Is Sinema gay? Or bi-sexual as she claims? She has an ex-husband, not an ex-wife. And she lied about being a Democrat. All Democratic voters should be saying she should go.
\\And she lied about being a Democrat.
As all of you. ;-P
Not true Scotchmans -- you all. :-))))
;)
Qtard is wrong yet again. No surprise. It is the republiturds who are forcing out the few remaining real republicans in their party. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to name 2. The only politicians left in the republiturd party are crazy tRump cultists and cowardly liars who refuse to call tRump out for fear of being driven out of the party.
Minus thinks Krysten Sinema is Keyser Söze? What does that mean? She's going to vote with the republiturds?
Dervy need me to educate him? :-)))
Ok. This time for free.
Humanities › Philosophy
Understanding the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
By Austin Cline
Updated on November 05, 2019
Have you ever heard the argument "no true Scotsman"? It's a common statement used in debating or concluding a particular point that attempts to compare the actions, words, or beliefs of one person to all Scotsmen. This is a common logical fallacy that is inherently false due to its generalization and vagueness.
The word "Scotsman" can be replaced with any other word to describe a person or group. It can refer to any number of things as well. Yet, it is a perfect example of a fallacy of ambiguity as well as a fallacy of presumption.
Explanation of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
This is actually a combination of several fallacies. Since it rests ultimately on shifting the meaning of terms (a form of equivocation) and begging the question, it receives special attention.
The name "No True Scotsman" comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Obviously, the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well. In attempting to shore it up, the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.
Examples and Discussion
How this fallacy can be used is perhaps easier to see in this example from Anthony Flew's book "Thinking about Thinking—or do I sincerely want to be right?":
"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the 'Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again'. Hamish is shocked and declares that 'No Scotsman would do such a thing'. The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, 'No true Scotsman would do such a thing'."
You can change this to any other bad act and any group you like to get a similar argument, and you'll get an argument that has probably been used at some point.
A common one which is often heard when a religion or religious group is criticized is:
Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn't acting in a loving manner, therefore they can't really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say.
But of course, the exact same argument can be made for any group: a political party, a philosophical position, etc.
Here is a real-life example of how this fallacy can be used:
Another good example is abortion, our government has such a small Christian influence that the courts have ruled it's ok to kill babies now. Typical. The people who support legalized abortion but claim to be Christians don't really follow Jesus—they have lost their way.
In an effort to argue that abortion is wrong, it is assumed that Christianity is inherently and automatically opposed to abortion (begging the question). In order to do this, it is further argued that no one who supports legalized abortion for any reason can really be a Christian (equivocation through an ad hoc redefinition of the term "Christian").
It is common for a person using such an argument to then proceed to dismiss whatever the "alleged" members of the group (here: Christians) have to say. This is because they are supposedly fakes who are lying to themselves at the very least and at most lying to everyone else.
Lessons in logic are wasted on Dervy. He hates Eurocentric ideas like "logic".
That's why it's so funny. ;-P
I mean.
There is nothing more funny than looking at how self-proclaimed believers -- screwing up their beliefs... while revealing their true motives. ;-P
I hate your White Supremacist belief that logic is "eurocentric".
Qtard: "There is nothing more funny than looking at how self-proclaimed believers -- screwing up their beliefs... while revealing their true motives".
It is good that you are able to laugh at yourself.
Logic isn't Eurocentric? Coulda fooled me. Somebody should tell all those racists over at Wikipedia to get their "diversity" on...
\\I hate your White Supremacist belief that logic is "eurocentric".
(facepalm)
\\It is good that you are able to laugh at yourself.
Actually. Yes, I am. Because I am not religious believer like you. And can discern my bias from reality. ;-P
That's why it's so delightful to observe those who can't.
Like you, Dervy.
Only one little problem -- they trying to flee, to run away... just that moment you directing your magnifying glass at them...
So, one need to be very careful and very observant.
Like I am.
For example as to this one claim of yours.
"It is good that you are able to laugh at yourself."
Yes. It's good that you know that reasonable, rational person, need to have lots of humility. And be able to admit defeat. Errs. Unpurity. Of own miserly self. ;-P
But.
THAT is NOT what you mean, Dervy.
FOR YOU that is biggest blaschemy. Something YOU freakingly CANNOT allow -- to treat oneself that way, to allow to be looking clumsy and funny, like that clown.
Another word.
That was not praise... of my character and intelligence... but a scorning damnation.
Isn't it? Dervy. :-))))
Minus is a bigly fool. India, China and the Middle East aren't a part of Europe. Yet they are covered in the "history of logic" Wikipedia page you linked it. Why the page never claims that logic is eurocentric.
A fact Qtard also missed, despite his claim that he is very careful and very observant. LOL! 😆
The ME got all their logic from the Greeks. India got the formal goic from Alexander. And the Chinese are just smart as no get out, which is why liberals need to keep them out of Harvard and the Ivy Leagues, like they used to keep out the Jews.... with "quotas".
Sinema is trying to be the reincarnation of Joe Lieberman. She has peaked. It's all downhill for her from here
No, she's just ensuring that Democrats won't survive their next general election... in perpetuity. Arizona will always "split the vote" and ensure a Republican victory unless they stick with Sinema.
What purpose does cutting her ties with the DNC serve?
She's not exactly Tulsi Gabbard
\\India, China and the Middle East aren't a part of Europe.
Hah... why they speaking pidgin-English then? ;-P
\\Why the page never claims that logic is eurocentric.
'Cause... some libtard wasted his earthly time to fill it with lintard's "alternative facts" and "correct(ed) version of history" -- Wikipedia, is the best instrument for "double think", "retrospective censoring" and all. ;-P
\\A fact Qtard also missed, despite his claim that he is very careful and very observant. LOL! ��
Now. You showing truthfoolly... that you are realy of THAT KIND of people...
easy to please, who laugh from their own *** jokes. :-))))
What purpose does cutting her ties with the DNC serve?
Only Democrats can vote in a Democratic "primary"... and THAT is an election Sinema could lose. Throw in the Republicans/ Independent voters (like in the "Geneal" election)... and Sinema wins.
...as an Independent, Sinema needn't follow the "party" line... which means that in a close vote, she can extort money for her constituents (AZ).
How is that unlike what Joe Lieberman did in Connecticut?
Lieberman was pro-War in an anti-War DNC. Now the entire DNC is pro-War
No.
lol! How much is in the Omnibus for Ukraine?
Anti-surrender isn't pro-war. After 9/11 I do not think the US should have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't think gwb should have surrendered to OBL either. Apparently you do. Were you ready to convert to Islam?
Guns for Peace! Billions for bombs for Peacemakers! lol!
The war would end if Putin surrendered. Yet (to you, a Putin puppet) it's only "pro-war" to not think Ukraine should surrender.
Comments going to spam again.
Putin should surrender and his supporters should advocate that he surrender. Unless YOU are pro-war.
\\Comments going to spam again.
Deserving. :-))
Ukraine should surrender. Unless they're pro-war, of course.
There is no such deal on the table as for Ukraine to surrender peacefully.
Only death.
And not only for Ukraine...
So... your suggestion is screaming about your tolerating beginning WW3...
and who is pro-war, in this case?
:P
Post a Comment