5 ms·

This is a text-book example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

by DenisM 10y ago

fnovd 10y ago
Is it, though? I mean, I can see the similarity, but ethical veg*nism does exist outside of the dietary practice. You don't need to subscribe to the ethics to partake in the diet. We lack the words to distinguish between and ethical vegan and a for-health vegan, but that doesn't mean they aren't distinct groups.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  Does it matter? What difference does it make if someone who's been a vegan for 3 months calls themself a vegan? Are they "harming the movement" by doing so? If partaking in the diet doesn't require you to subscribe to the ethics, as you say, then the label should just be a label: someone who doesn't eat animal products. No time frame or reasoning attached.
  - ohbleek 10y ago
    It's like the difference between a long-term member and someone on a trial membership. There is a difference.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      When does someone become a true Scotsman then?
      - AstralStorm 10y ago
        When they are past a typical dropout date.
  - fnovd 10y ago
    It does matter. It's the same with Jews, for example. You can be religiously Jewish but not ethnically, or ethnically Jewish but atheist, or you can be both. But they remain distinct concepts.
    - iamatworknow 10y ago
      And yet you managed to convey that information with just one extra qualifying word. Unless you consider one of them isn't really a Jew, shouldn't both share the title equally? If more information is required, use more words.
  - scbrg 10y ago
    Exactly. I've been a vegan for thirty minutes. In fact, I'm vegan almost all the time, with the exception of a few minutes per day! I honestly think it's reasonable to attach a minimum time frame to a word like this, otherwise it gets a bit hard to know what people mean when they speak. Whether one year is a good choice I don't know, but a minimum is required.
    - iamatworknow 10y ago
      >minimum is required Can you expand on this? If there are two people in front of you, one who has been a vegan for 20 years, the other for 2 weeks, what is the real difference between them, how does that time difference change your interaction with them? To put it another way, why does one word have to apply to one and not the other because of some inherent time requirement? English, in particular, as a language is inherently vague, and we rarely make this time requirement distinction for other words that describe people. If I just graduated from the police academy I'm a "cop", just like how the 30 year veteran detective sergeant is a "cop". No, we aren't the same, since the latter has far more experience, but that doesn't mean that only one deserves the title. It just means we use additional qualifiers ("30 year veteran detective sergeant") to elaborate on what type of cop he or she is.
      - AstralStorm 10y ago
        The difference is, becoming a chip takes certification by an institution. Very unlike being vegan. Personally I'd set a minimum of a year.
        iamatworknow 10y ago
        So then what do vegans call themselves before that point? "Vegan in training"? "Vegan junior"? "Planning to be a vegan"? "I don't eat meat or animal products, but I'm not a vegan because I haven't put in the hours yet"? I'm being pedantic on purpose here because the idea of some minimum time requirement to call yourself a vegan is one of the most pedantic things I've ever heard, and supports the stereotypical characterization of vegans being overall pains in the ass.
- jl6 10y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with you regarding this not necessarily being a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I think there is a meaningful difference between proclaiming to be veg*n, and proclaiming to be trying it. I wonder what proportion of the cohort here were in each group.
darkerside 10y ago
Only in that no true Scotsman would change their citizenship to a different country
schoen 10y ago
I think I agree with your diagnosis. A counterpoint: when I went to Singapore I heard that the Chinese community distinguished "temporary" vegetarianism from "full-time" vegetarianism, both normally for religious reasons. (I imagine these are translations of Chinese terms.) From what I understand, many people may make a religious vow or commitment to eat vegetarian for a specific period of time (for good luck or out of gratitude for a benefit they received) and then commonly eat meat again after that period of time has expired. I wouldn't be inclined to say that these people "are vegetarians" in my western sense, any more than I would say Eastern Orthodox Christians "are vegetarians" when meeting them during their fasting days or seasons.
beagle3 10y ago
I disagree. It would be, if one got Scottish nationality upon declaration (and then half abandoned it within 6 months). Many vegans/vegetarians would accept you to their "club" only after being on probation for a year or two. It's analogous to saying "most martial artists quit in less than a year". For some definition of "martial artist" that may well be true, but it wouldn't be a definition acceptable to those who actually practice.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > Many vegans/vegetarians would accept you to their "club" only after being on probation for a year or two. So, gatekeeping instead? "You're not a real X unless Y," where "Y" changes to keep out the undesirables. "You're not a real programmer unless you can do Dijkstra's on a whiteboard from memory." "You're not a real vegetarian unless you don't eat meat for at least as long as I have."
  - beagle3 10y ago
    Surely there's some definition that's reasonable. You will not be accepted as a programmer until you've written some code; or as an athlete until you've done some nontrivial athletic stuff. Why should othe categories be different?
Pxtl 10y ago
The Scotsman fallacy would apply if we considered a guy who tried to emigrate to Scotland but then couldn't get citizenship and then went home to be a Scotsman.
unprepare 10y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ might fit even better.
dionidium 10y ago
No, it's not. Vegetarianism describes a specific set of well-defined behaviors. If you don't adhere to the schedule of those behaviors, then you're not a vegetarian. "No true Scotsman" is about "changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample." That doesn't apply here. We're starting and ending with the same definition.
wnevets 10y ago
I did a MMA class once, so I must be a MMA fighter.

This is a text-book example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

by DenisM 10y ago

This is a text-book example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

fnovd 10y ago

Is it, though? I mean, I can see the similarity, but ethical veg*nism does exist outside of the dietary practice. You don't need to subscribe to the ethics to partake in the diet. We lack the words to distinguish between and ethical vegan and a for-health vegan, but that doesn't mean they aren't distinct groups.

iamatworknow 10y ago
Does it matter? What difference does it make if someone who's been a vegan for 3 months calls themself a vegan? Are they "harming the movement" by doing so? If partaking in the diet doesn't require you to subscribe to the ethics, as you say, then the label should just be a label: someone who doesn't eat animal products. No time frame or reasoning attached.
- ohbleek 10y ago
  It's like the difference between a long-term member and someone on a trial membership. There is a difference.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    When does someone become a true Scotsman then?
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      When they are past a typical dropout date.
- fnovd 10y ago
  It does matter. It's the same with Jews, for example. You can be religiously Jewish but not ethnically, or ethnically Jewish but atheist, or you can be both. But they remain distinct concepts.
  - iamatworknow 10y ago
    And yet you managed to convey that information with just one extra qualifying word. Unless you consider one of them isn't really a Jew, shouldn't both share the title equally? If more information is required, use more words.
- scbrg 10y ago
  Exactly. I've been a vegan for thirty minutes. In fact, I'm vegan almost all the time, with the exception of a few minutes per day! I honestly think it's reasonable to attach a minimum time frame to a word like this, otherwise it gets a bit hard to know what people mean when they speak. Whether one year is a good choice I don't know, but a minimum is required.
  - iamatworknow 10y ago
    >minimum is required Can you expand on this? If there are two people in front of you, one who has been a vegan for 20 years, the other for 2 weeks, what is the real difference between them, how does that time difference change your interaction with them? To put it another way, why does one word have to apply to one and not the other because of some inherent time requirement? English, in particular, as a language is inherently vague, and we rarely make this time requirement distinction for other words that describe people. If I just graduated from the police academy I'm a "cop", just like how the 30 year veteran detective sergeant is a "cop". No, we aren't the same, since the latter has far more experience, but that doesn't mean that only one deserves the title. It just means we use additional qualifiers ("30 year veteran detective sergeant") to elaborate on what type of cop he or she is.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      The difference is, becoming a chip takes certification by an institution. Very unlike being vegan. Personally I'd set a minimum of a year.
      - iamatworknow 10y ago
        So then what do vegans call themselves before that point? "Vegan in training"? "Vegan junior"? "Planning to be a vegan"? "I don't eat meat or animal products, but I'm not a vegan because I haven't put in the hours yet"? I'm being pedantic on purpose here because the idea of some minimum time requirement to call yourself a vegan is one of the most pedantic things I've ever heard, and supports the stereotypical characterization of vegans being overall pains in the ass.
jl6 10y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding this not necessarily being a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I think there is a meaningful difference between proclaiming to be veg*n, and proclaiming to be trying it. I wonder what proportion of the cohort here were in each group.

darkerside 10y ago

Only in that no true Scotsman would change their citizenship to a different country

schoen 10y ago

I think I agree with your diagnosis. A counterpoint: when I went to Singapore I heard that the Chinese community distinguished "temporary" vegetarianism from "full-time" vegetarianism, both normally for religious reasons. (I imagine these are translations of Chinese terms.) From what I understand, many people may make a religious vow or commitment to eat vegetarian for a specific period of time (for good luck or out of gratitude for a benefit they received) and then commonly eat meat again after that period of time has expired. I wouldn't be inclined to say that these people "are vegetarians" in my western sense, any more than I would say Eastern Orthodox Christians "are vegetarians" when meeting them during their fasting days or seasons.

beagle3 10y ago

I disagree. It would be, if one got Scottish nationality upon declaration (and then half abandoned it within 6 months). Many vegans/vegetarians would accept you to their "club" only after being on probation for a year or two. It's analogous to saying "most martial artists quit in less than a year". For some definition of "martial artist" that may well be true, but it wouldn't be a definition acceptable to those who actually practice.

falcolas 10y ago
> Many vegans/vegetarians would accept you to their "club" only after being on probation for a year or two. So, gatekeeping instead? "You're not a real X unless Y," where "Y" changes to keep out the undesirables. "You're not a real programmer unless you can do Dijkstra's on a whiteboard from memory." "You're not a real vegetarian unless you don't eat meat for at least as long as I have."
- beagle3 10y ago
  Surely there's some definition that's reasonable. You will not be accepted as a programmer until you've written some code; or as an athlete until you've done some nontrivial athletic stuff. Why should othe categories be different?

Pxtl 10y ago

The Scotsman fallacy would apply if we considered a guy who tried to emigrate to Scotland but then couldn't get citizenship and then went home to be a Scotsman.

unprepare 10y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ might fit even better.

dionidium 10y ago

No, it's not. Vegetarianism describes a specific set of well-defined behaviors. If you don't adhere to the schedule of those behaviors, then you're not a vegetarian. "No true Scotsman" is about "changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample." That doesn't apply here. We're starting and ending with the same definition.

wnevets 10y ago

I did a MMA class once, so I must be a MMA fighter.