Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Problem? What problem? -by Tom Tomorrow (Original Post) kpete Jul 2021 OP
Great toon. And thanks for my new Word Of The Day, "assuage"! abqtommy Jul 2021 #1
The word was used by Abraham Lincoln in a letter that was quoted in Saving Private Ryan. Towlie Jul 2021 #3
The guy is right in a way: Our problem is irresponsible criminals. We need to get them out of power. Towlie Jul 2021 #2
Seriously? Wounded Bear Jul 2021 #4
Ambiguously? Towlie Jul 2021 #5
Unambiguously... Wounded Bear Jul 2021 #6
I'm still not sure what the problem is, but I'll explain the "sentence fragment" part. Towlie Jul 2021 #9
Great cartoon LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2021 #7
Forgot the, "Super easy," part Aviation Pro Jul 2021 #8
Wow! I think Tom Tomorrow is a DU fan. Paladin Jul 2021 #10
word KG Jul 2021 #12
"No true Scotsman" Bo Zarts Jul 2021 #11
! KG Jul 2021 #13
OK, I got it: a fallacy of ambiguity .. the appeal to purity fallacy. Bo Zarts Jul 2021 #14
Now the strip is REALLY funny! Bo Zarts Jul 2021 #15

Towlie

(5,307 posts)
2. The guy is right in a way: Our problem is irresponsible criminals. We need to get them out of power.
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 09:14 AM
Jul 2021

 
?

And the Second Amendment consists of one single sentence. The "second half" is a sentence fragment.

Wounded Bear

(58,437 posts)
6. Unambiguously...
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 09:40 AM
Jul 2021

I find your deflection into semantics and rhetoric by parsing the grammar to be unproductive.

Perhaps that is your purpose?

Towlie

(5,307 posts)
9. I'm still not sure what the problem is, but I'll explain the "sentence fragment" part.
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 09:52 AM
Jul 2021

 
?

[I'll assume you're okay with the need to get irresponsible criminals (Trump supporters) out of power.]

It's like if you started to say "I don't think..." and someone interrupted you with "That's your problem! You don't think!"

A sentence is a group of words that express a complete thought, and the words "I don't think..." are a sentence fragment, not to be interpreted as a sentence. You'd be right to be offended if someone interrupted you like that.

Similarly, the Second Amendment is a complete sentence that goes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's not legitimate to extract the sentence fragment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", and treat it like it was a full sentence. The part about a well regulated Militia has to be accounted for.





Paladin

(28,202 posts)
10. Wow! I think Tom Tomorrow is a DU fan.
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 09:57 AM
Jul 2021

That "millions of Americans who WEREN'T killed by RESPONSIBLE, LAW-ABIDING gun owners" riff is used by our resident Gun Enthusiasts constantly. Hell, they use that argument almost as much as they used to employ the "gotta have the 2nd Amendment and lotsa guns, to defend against the ravages of an evil, democracy-destroying, lunatic dictator" claim---before trump's years in office...

Bo Zarts

(25,370 posts)
11. "No true Scotsman"
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 10:33 AM
Jul 2021

I'm thick, and they just changed my pain meds. I don't get the phrase "No true Scotsman."

Help me out, DU.

KG

(28,749 posts)
13. !
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 10:45 AM
Jul 2021

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric.[4] This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true, pure, genuine, authentic, real", etc.[2][5]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[6]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Bo Zarts

(25,370 posts)
14. OK, I got it: a fallacy of ambiguity .. the appeal to purity fallacy.
Mon Jul 12, 2021, 10:55 AM
Jul 2021

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Problem? What problem? -b...