Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself. I’m not talking about a “truer” or “purer” form of communism which marxist leninists failed to realise, because the definition I’m working with - of communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society (and the ideas and ideologies branching from that definition) - encompasses far more than that specific ideology. This isn’t even a defence of communism - if anything, I’m pointing out there are other facets of communism that would make for a more interesting discussion than rehashing how bad the soviets were for the millionth time.
Hey, idk all the names people have made up to categorise fallacies, but I do know you misapplied the no true scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, or at least a misunderstanding.
Says the guy who cried fallacy but couldn’t name what it is.
You’re not a serious person, I engaged with what you said and you couldn’t respond with shit. You are obviously just pissed that I preempted what you were going to say.
Fallacy is just faulty reasoning, I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of how philosophers/logicians categorise them to know how to point out faulty reasoning. Knowing how to reason about things is far more important than throwing around buzzwords.
You accuse me of not being studious, yet you refuse to actually engage with what I say - you know what kind of fallacy that is? An ad hominem. Even a supposed ignoramus like me knows that. I wonder what that makes you?
If you’re trying to say true communism hasn’t been tried please let me stop you because that’s a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Everyone who’s ever instituted a flavor of communism would call their preferred flavor “true communism.”
Its a shame that no true no true scottsman fallacy has ever been tried.
Sure but that’s true of anything. However there is a theory of communism. You can, and should, weigh the various implementations against this theory
Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself. I’m not talking about a “truer” or “purer” form of communism which marxist leninists failed to realise, because the definition I’m working with - of communism as a classless, stateless, moneyless society (and the ideas and ideologies branching from that definition) - encompasses far more than that specific ideology. This isn’t even a defence of communism - if anything, I’m pointing out there are other facets of communism that would make for a more interesting discussion than rehashing how bad the soviets were for the millionth time.
“Honestly, claiming no true Scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, is a fallacy in itself.”
What fallacy is that?
Hey, idk all the names people have made up to categorise fallacies, but I do know you misapplied the no true scotsman fallacy over a semantic disagreement, or at least a misunderstanding.
I think you’re just angry that I preempted you with an argument you can’t refute.
I guess it’s easy to convince yourself of that when you haven’t really engaged with what I said, lol
Says the guy who cried fallacy but couldn’t name what it is.
You’re not a serious person, I engaged with what you said and you couldn’t respond with shit. You are obviously just pissed that I preempted what you were going to say.
Lol what? Are you a troll? Or a bot?
Fallacy is just faulty reasoning, I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of how philosophers/logicians categorise them to know how to point out faulty reasoning. Knowing how to reason about things is far more important than throwing around buzzwords.
You accuse me of not being studious, yet you refuse to actually engage with what I say - you know what kind of fallacy that is? An ad hominem. Even a supposed ignoramus like me knows that. I wonder what that makes you?
“you’re wrong but I can’t articulate why” isn’t super compelling