Anytime a christian does something they don't like, they claim "They're not a TRUE christian".
If this is true, there can be NO thematic groups in people, ever, because there are no common examples, guidelines, or deciding factors that can associate any group - It all becomes a personal decision, not a factual assertion.
For example, if I choose to assert that any woman who does not believe in freedom of choice regarding abortion is not a TRUE woman, then I am using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and presenting my personal preferences and choices as some kind of deciding factor in determining someone else's gender.
You see? There must be some kind of "norm" or category outside ourselves to refer to when assigning anything to a specific group. Some kind of guidelines for asserting commonality.
As to ProfWag - I would suggest that what he said was, in essence, a shorthand version of the following: "When I see this term (whatever term he is referring to) used, I know from experience and/or research that what follows is something I am familiar with, and I do not agree with the judgement of that person. I am not interested in rehashing something I've already decided. I am satisfied that I have explored this topic enough to make a decision on". That is not a logical fallacy, that is a decision based on experience and not formal logic. (Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant to the statement)Statistics: Posted by CanadianBroad — 02 May 2013, 05:34
]]>