Author Topic: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?  (Read 10863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Pretty sad that the BBC has sunk to this level of bull

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35020427

Regurgitating thoughtless drivel spouted by windowlickers on social media.  Good use of my TV license money, thanks BBC.

If you're going to do it, at least do it properly

#youaintnoscotsmanbruv


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2015, 08:58:21 am »
What? First people demand that Muslims should condemn Muslim terrorists but when they do that you complain about that as well?
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2015, 09:09:08 am »
Who's a muslim terrorist?

We've already established that he's not a TRUE muslim...


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2015, 09:28:42 am »
There's an argument that "you're not a Muslim" is a statement of condemnation, not of fact. Not "there is some secret definition of Muslim I have and you don't fit it" but rather "I don't consider you to be Ingroup any more, you are Outgroup now". Basically a metaphorical exile.

Could be wrong, though. I'm not in their head.

Either way, it's not a fallacy, any more than calling someone a motherfucker because they cut you off in traffic is an ad hominem. Fallacy requires an argument being made.
Σא

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2015, 10:48:38 am »
There's an argument that "you're not a Muslim" is a statement of condemnation, not of fact. Not "there is some secret definition of Muslim I have and you don't fit it" but rather "I don't consider you to be Ingroup any more, you are Outgroup now". Basically a metaphorical exile.

Could be wrong, though. I'm not in their head.

Either way, it's not a fallacy, any more than calling someone a motherfucker because they cut you off in traffic is an ad hominem. Fallacy requires an argument being made.

You could make that argument, but given oft-repeated statements by many progressives AND a bunch of western heads of government making similar claims, it appears more likely to me that it is simply another attempt to distance terrorism from the ideology that fuels and enables it.



"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2015, 11:30:32 am »
Not exclusive, I think. I don't doubt that pushing back against a Muslim-terrorist association is the goal in mind for a significant number of people. But you can do that by saying "No Muslim is ever a terrorist" (false) or by saying "Terrorists are doing Islam wrong" (meaningless) or "Terrorists are not representative of Muslims in general" (true) and so on. You can plausibly read YouAintNoMuslimBruv as stating any of those. I have no idea which is meant more often.

And of course memetics favour simpler, less nuanced messages over more complex but more accurate ones.
Σא

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2015, 12:20:05 pm »
There's an argument that "you're not a Muslim" is a statement of condemnation, not of fact. Not "there is some secret definition of Muslim I have and you don't fit it" but rather "I don't consider you to be Ingroup any more, you are Outgroup now". Basically a metaphorical exile.

Could be wrong, though. I'm not in their head.

Either way, it's not a fallacy, any more than calling someone a motherfucker because they cut you off in traffic is an ad hominem. Fallacy requires an argument being made.

You could make that argument, but given oft-repeated statements by many progressives AND a bunch of western heads of government making similar claims, it appears more likely to me that it is simply another attempt to distance terrorism from the ideology that fuels and enables it.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and the vast majority aren't terrorists.  You might as well be saying Christianity promotes terrorism because of the LRA.

Offline Cataclysm

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2015, 02:32:37 pm »
Well it's not a true scotsman fallacy if the person isn't a true scotsman. If someone eats meat they aren't a vegetarian.

Are these Muslim Terrorists not actually following the religion? I'm not a Quaranic scholar so I can't really decide.
I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.

Quote
Commenter Brendan Rizzo is an American (still living there) who really, really hates America. He used to make posts defending his country from anti-American attacks but got fed up with it all.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2015, 03:00:08 pm »
Well it's not a true scotsman fallacy if the person isn't a true scotsman. If someone eats meat they aren't a vegetarian.

Are these Muslim Terrorists not actually following the religion? I'm not a Quaranic scholar so I can't really decide.
You know how the Bible is so full of often contradictory statements that by cherry picking the right verses, you can use it to support pretty much any idea? Islam is largely the same.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2015, 05:33:35 pm »
Pretty sad that the BBC has sunk to this level of bull

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35020427

Regurgitating thoughtless drivel spouted by windowlickers on social media.  Good use of my TV license money, thanks BBC.

If you're going to do it, at least do it properly

#youaintnoscotsmanbruv

I sincerely hope you treat your preferred Tory propaganda in a similar way, given that it too is funded out of your pocket, without choice.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2015, 06:22:19 pm »
There's an argument that "you're not a Muslim" is a statement of condemnation, not of fact. Not "there is some secret definition of Muslim I have and you don't fit it" but rather "I don't consider you to be Ingroup any more, you are Outgroup now". Basically a metaphorical exile.

Could be wrong, though. I'm not in their head.

Either way, it's not a fallacy, any more than calling someone a motherfucker because they cut you off in traffic is an ad hominem. Fallacy requires an argument being made.

You could make that argument, but given oft-repeated statements by many progressives AND a bunch of western heads of government making similar claims, it appears more likely to me that it is simply another attempt to distance terrorism from the ideology that fuels and enables it.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and the vast majority aren't terrorists.  You might as well be saying Christianity promotes terrorism because of the LRA.

Orrrrrrr maybe...that guy who just shot up an abortion clinic?

#yesallabortionists


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2015, 06:24:45 pm »
Pretty sad that the BBC has sunk to this level of bull

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35020427

Regurgitating thoughtless drivel spouted by windowlickers on social media.  Good use of my TV license money, thanks BBC.

If you're going to do it, at least do it properly

#youaintnoscotsmanbruv

I sincerely hope you treat your preferred Tory propaganda in a similar way, given that it too is funded out of your pocket, without choice.

Well if we're going for random irrelevant derails into hypothetical political views held by the other...

Hows your collective farm coming along?  Got enough peasants to systematically starve to death?  I could help you out with some donations of old pots for your backyard blast furnace if you're short.


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2015, 10:05:39 pm »
Pretty sad that the BBC has sunk to this level of bull

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35020427

Regurgitating thoughtless drivel spouted by windowlickers on social media.  Good use of my TV license money, thanks BBC.

If you're going to do it, at least do it properly

#youaintnoscotsmanbruv

I sincerely hope you treat your preferred Tory propaganda in a similar way, given that it too is funded out of your pocket, without choice.

Well if we're going for random irrelevant derails into hypothetical political views held by the other...

Hows your collective farm coming along?  Got enough peasants to systematically starve to death?  I could help you out with some donations of old pots for your backyard blast furnace if you're short.

Only it seemed as if you were almost suggesting the Beeb was unusual and had an unusual responsibility since it is funded involuntarily through tax; when of course all media is funded by everyone through advertising without personal choice. Certainly you have no choice but to fund the moderate and honest BBC as well as the raving lunacy of Rupert Murdock and co. Interesting that the first seems to be the only one you care about but hey.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2015, 05:03:47 pm »
Got enough peasants to systematically starve to death?

Totally a derail but the gentleman in your profile pic preferred to use gas!

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2015, 05:11:08 pm »
Got enough peasants to systematically starve to death?

Totally a derail but the gentleman in your profile pic preferred to use gas!

Actually, that was taken out of context.  He was talking about tear gas, not something more harmful.

Here's the full quote:

Quote from: Winston Churchill
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

So yeah, not exactly Saddam Hussein.