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: Guess What Happened When Liberia Tested a Pilot Program of Cash Transfers to the Extreme Poor [View all]F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)22. They are Christian.
No True Scotsman Fallacy.
You don't get to decide who is, and who isn't.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.
Also:
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.
snip
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.
snip
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.
Going to call this out every time I see it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 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
Guess What Happened When Liberia Tested a Pilot Program of Cash Transfers to the Extreme Poor [View all]
kpete
Apr 2015
OP
Mincome (minimum income) was tried successfully in Canada, until conservatives buried it.
Snarkoleptic
Apr 2015
#2
I was there too. The media constantly worked to steer public opinion against President Carter.
Enthusiast
Apr 2015
#44
At the age of 73 I think I agree with you. One thing though the welfare we had in the 50s did not
jwirr
Apr 2015
#16
yes, i was gonna say; everybody's known it forever. but for some reason, it always gets
ND-Dem
Apr 2015
#41
They always claim, "There is someone somewhere getting something they don't deserve."
Enthusiast
Apr 2015
#45
I'm sure our 'leaders' are aware of this, what happens when people have enough money to live on.
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#8
Well, sure, if you're talking an advanced nation like Liberia it might work. Not here, though.
byronius
Apr 2015
#11
but if folks had more money and didn't have to pinch every penny, they might spend more at
ND-Dem
Apr 2015
#43
And to put icing on big box's cake, in many communities they get to KEEP the sales taxes they
Dont call me Shirley
Apr 2015
#50
The Rs are always yelling small government. Social Security costs less to run than welfare. I am
jwirr
Apr 2015
#18
All the money ends up in the hands of the wealthy, anyways. Why not cycle it through the hands of...
marble falls
Apr 2015
#32
It's actually the 1%ers who can't be trusted with money. They usually spend it on war.
villager
Apr 2015
#39
or crap. i was just reading about some plutocrat who spent millions on his mansion, all
ND-Dem
Apr 2015
#46
What about all those McDonald's franchisers? They might have to raise wages, too. End of the world
leveymg
Apr 2015
#51