3 ms·

"Actual conservative", that's the no true Scottsman fallacy; everyone who self identifies as a conservative is a conservative, regardless of how well they stick

"Actual conservative", that's the no true Scottsman fallacy; everyone who self identifies as a conservative is a conservative, regardless of how well they stick to those values.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Actual conservative", that's the no true Scottsman fallacy Using the term “conservative” to refer to a well-defined ideology rather than a self-identification isn't inherently No True Scotsman. (In fact the “everyone who self identifies as a conservative is a conservative” approach is often used to make arguments about a defined ideology based on people who self-identify as “conservative” but don't adhere to the features of the ideology under discussion, which is he fallacy of equivocation [0].)
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > Using the term “conservative” to refer to a well-defined ideology rather than a self-identification isn't inherently No True Scotsman. Correct it isn't inherently that when the topic is the ideology, but when the topic is x group of people it is. This thread isn't about conservative ideology, it's about how people who identify as conservatives feel about criminals and due process so pulling out the "actual" conservatives line is no true Scottsman here. It's a bullshit excuse to avoid facing the hypocrisy of what people who call themselves conservatives believe. Conservatives support Joe Arpio, conservatives claim to support due process, these two things conflict; Joe Arpio doesn't support due process, he robs people of it. If you support Arpio, you do not support due process.
geofft 9y ago
Yes, I meant to imply some amount of no-true-Scotsman in that rephrasing. On the one hand, I sympathize with the desire to define "conservative" in a way in which words actually mean things and it isn't just "I like the way I feel when I call myself 'conservative'", but it's also very easy to dismiss positions by saying "Well, that's not a real conservative."

"Actual conservative", that's the no true Scottsman fallacy; everyone who self identifies as a conservative is a conservative, regardless of how well they stick to those values.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Actual conservative", that's the no true Scottsman fallacy Using the term “conservative” to refer to a well-defined ideology rather than a self-identification isn't inherently No True Scotsman. (In fact the “everyone who self identifies as a conservative is a conservative” approach is often used to make arguments about a defined ideology based on people who self-identify as “conservative” but don't adhere to the features of the ideology under discussion, which is he fallacy of equivocation [0].)

gnaritas 9y ago
> Using the term “conservative” to refer to a well-defined ideology rather than a self-identification isn't inherently No True Scotsman. Correct it isn't inherently that when the topic is the ideology, but when the topic is x group of people it is. This thread isn't about conservative ideology, it's about how people who identify as conservatives feel about criminals and due process so pulling out the "actual" conservatives line is no true Scottsman here. It's a bullshit excuse to avoid facing the hypocrisy of what people who call themselves conservatives believe. Conservatives support Joe Arpio, conservatives claim to support due process, these two things conflict; Joe Arpio doesn't support due process, he robs people of it. If you support Arpio, you do not support due process.

geofft 9y ago

Yes, I meant to imply some amount of no-true-Scotsman in that rephrasing. On the one hand, I sympathize with the desire to define "conservative" in a way in which words actually mean things and it isn't just "I like the way I feel when I call myself 'conservative'", but it's also very easy to dismiss positions by saying "Well, that's not a real conservative."