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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Pat Robertson Would Be Gone Tomorrow If Christians Would Just... [View all]beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)77. Fun with logical fallacies.
WOW, so just self-identifying as something automatically makes you that thing that you say you are?
Hmm, there is no litmus test that one has to pass before they really are what they say they are?
Hmm, there is no litmus test that one has to pass before they really are what they say they are?
Never said that; see straw man.
Great, so if I start self-identifying myself as a doctor and call myself a doctor, everyone will take me at my word that I am a doctor and I will be allowed to practice medicine?
Nope, you need to have a license to practice medicine; see false analogy
If I start identifying myself as an atheist and go out and commit horrible acts, then you will associate my horrible acts with the fact that I don't believe in religion?
All I will assume is that you don't believe in any gods; see association
See, just because some says they are something, just because some people accept they are something, does not automatically make the person representative of an entire religion or profession.
Never said that; so back to straw man.
Take Islam for an example.
The self-described extremist Muslims kill innocents because they believe that their religion permits it..
Then self-described moderate Muslims won't even accept that the extremists are real Muslims because they believe that Islam outlaws killing innocents.
So the question becomes which one of these groups is really adhering to Islam so that we can attribute their actions to the religion they follow? Is it the extremists that argue that killing is allowed, or is it the moderates that argue that killiing is not allowed?
The self-described extremist Muslims kill innocents because they believe that their religion permits it..
Then self-described moderate Muslims won't even accept that the extremists are real Muslims because they believe that Islam outlaws killing innocents.
So the question becomes which one of these groups is really adhering to Islam so that we can attribute their actions to the religion they follow? Is it the extremists that argue that killing is allowed, or is it the moderates that argue that killiing is not allowed?
Answer: both of them because it's not up to ME to decide which one is the Real Muslim. They both believe their interpretation of their religious scripture is the correct one. See No True Scotsman:
With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association. The No True Scotsman fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (ie: Christians who support gay marriage are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims"
It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bush packed the government with people who may still be there and we ask why all the applications
jwirr
Jan 2015
#1
If words are weapons, then can't words be weaponized, making hate speech a form of terrorism?
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#4
And yet the OP is saying someone should be 'gone' for espousing religious views
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#6
Pat robertson should be gone for his crimes against humanity and his thieving, not for
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#7
His buttery words and a private media empire were the weapons he used to get his riches, riding the
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#9
another guy who was born on third base, too. I actually suspect he's some kind of
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#15
I do not take the same meaning from the OP that Robertson "would be gone tomorrow". From
Fred Sanders
Jan 2015
#8
I don't think it's only 'christians' financing him. I suspect robertson is financed by
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#16
the way his funders want, you mean. robertson is the cats paw of other interests.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#22
If you think that go right ahead it is you right to be wrong JD never held
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#23
pat robertson is a 1%er and a political operative. he plays a minister on tv, like reagan
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#27
he's a political operative. just cause he got a card saying he's a minister doesn't mean
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#38
jeff dahmers position. obviously. stalin was an atheist too. as was pol pot. are you starting to
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#30
oh, can't take a joke? don't get the humor? i thought you guys were all about mockery
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#33
"Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they represent all atheists." oh really?
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#37
So you deny Pat is a Christian and is a leader, spokesperson, and ordained minister
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#24
or maybe they don't have any faith and they're just operatives. robertson was the son of
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#39
Pat Robertson is an fucking ordained christian minister deny it all you want but it wont
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#41
he's also the son of a powerful politician who's been in politics and a political operative all
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#42
be done with me then, i couldn't care. cause it's you who just doesn't get it, and my
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#47
Well the poster is easily proving that religion makes one less reality based
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#49
George Wallace was typical of the Democrats back in his day, why deny the truth?
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#83
The logical fallacies weren't written by me, I just use them to make my points.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2015
#81
I dunno, maybe people are sick of christians claiming their bad guys are really atheists?
beam me up scottie
Jan 2015
#68
Except you don't get to redefine christianity in order to exclude bad people.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2015
#74
I have been appalled since the Bush Jr. administration over the quality of the hires in DOJ.
Shrike47
Jan 2015
#28
i remember reading he was hiring people out of some christian law school run by someone
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#32
'Schools' like Regents or BJU or Liberty U are nothing more then radical Christian Madrasas
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#44
that's the one! and it IS pat robertson's university!!! or rather, he founded it. and
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#45
"Robertson got into religion to take the territory from actually religious people"
beam me up scottie
Jan 2015
#52
I know that there's political operatives in religion, because i've met some of them, and they're
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#53