Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: What No True Scotsman means in the real world 21

Journal by damn_registrars
No True Scotsman.

 Take the example of a Scotsman. A Scotsman is defined how? By being Scottish, of course. No action makes one a Scotsman, nor does any action disqualify one from being one. One is not a Scotsman by choice but rather by birth.

Conversely take the example of being a Socialist. A Socialist is defined how? By Socialist beliefs and actions. One is not born a Socialist but rather makes a choice at some point to be one.

Hence saying that a Socialist would not endorse the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 (or "Obamacare" as some like to call it) is not a No True Scotsman argument, it is a statement of what a Socialist is . Similarly saying that a Socialist would not sign off on extensions of the world's most regressive system of taxation is also a statement of what it means to be a Socialist.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What No True Scotsman means in the real world More

What No True Scotsman means in the real world

Comments Filter:

  • Is so wrong, it reflects delusional thinking and irrational process.

    Obama works for the smallest, richest group of people in the world. Period.

    When they're done with him, they'll drop him - like his predecessor - like a used tissue.

    • So you agree that, empirically*, Socialism is a farce used to herd people?

      *Shrill denunciation of my theoretical wrongness to follow from d_r.

      • It was not that for Eugene Debs or Kurt Vonnegut.

        I agree that it has been used as such. Just like Christianity and Buddhism and "Human Rights Advocacy", the Declaration of Independence and the alleged "war on Christmas". "Western Civilization" and "Holiness of the Sacrament"... "A world free from War".... Make a fucking list!

        Socialism has no special or uniquely insidious distinction in that department.

        • I'm not going to deny that people have been herded for centuries in the name of Christianity; however, I would point out that a reading of the actual words of Jesus of Nazareth (a Jew's Jew) does not require such. In fact, the Gospel, as written, drives quite a different direction. Aren't people the pits?

          • I'm not going to deny that people have been herded for centuries in the name of Christianity; however, I would point out that a reading of the actual words of Jesus of Nazareth (a Jew's Jew) does not require such.

            So... No true Scotsman, eh?

            Can we say, for instance that, *people have been herded for centuries (well, maybe a couple) in the name of socialism; however, you could point out that a reading of the actual words of Marx (a commie's commie) does not require such. In fact, the manifesto, as written, dr

            • So... No true Scotsman, eh?

              My advice, and perhaps I could've been more explicit, is that everyone read and figure out the "Scotsman" question for themselves. Also, I acknowledged the charge, as such, is valid.

              "out in genpop": nicely played.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

            I'm not going to deny that people have been herded for centuries in the name of Christianity; however, I would point out that a reading of the actual words of Jesus of Nazareth (a Jew's Jew) does not require such. In fact, the Gospel, as written, drives quite a different direction.

            Indeed. I, for one, don't understand "conservative Christians" because Jesus was decidedly liberal, while the men who demanded his torture and execution were conservatives.

            Examples of Jesus' politics...
            Taxes: "Render unto Caesar t

            • "while the men who demanded his torture and execution were conservatives"

              Only if you define "conservativism" to be "Godless, quasi-aristocratic swine".

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                Only if you define "conservativism" to be "Godless, quasi-aristocratic swine"

                That describes Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, etc, none of whom seem any more spiritual to me than the religious leaders who had Jesus executed.

            • Render unto Caesar refers to position and claim on worldly position - and attachment to money and material possession. You don't fret about taxes, because they are valuable only to the people attached to material existence. "Let them have their handful of dust".

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                No, it doesn't say that at all. The conservatives were trying to "to catch him in his words" and get him to say something against Roman law, and asked him directly if one should pay taxes. "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?"

                Roman tax collectors were corrupt, they were thieves, and people hated them. The Jewish religion demanded animal sacrifice.

                "But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they b

      • Socialism is a farce used to herd people?

        Why you talking shit about Jesus?

    • Well, whatever he is, he's no true Marxman [youtube.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close