Talk:No True Scotsman
From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Who is a true conservative?) |
(→Who is a true conservative?) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
According to President Bush himself, [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8UNK3LG0 McCain is a true Conservative]. I'm sure Andy will agree and promote it to Main Page News. Or not. P.S. Sorry if this is kind of offtopic here. [[User:Editor_at_CP|Editor at CP]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>Bring TK back</sup>]] 15:00, 10 February 2008 (EST) | According to President Bush himself, [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8UNK3LG0 McCain is a true Conservative]. I'm sure Andy will agree and promote it to Main Page News. Or not. P.S. Sorry if this is kind of offtopic here. [[User:Editor_at_CP|Editor at CP]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>Bring TK back</sup>]] 15:00, 10 February 2008 (EST) | ||
:Well, that all depends on one thing: Is President Bush a true conservative? --[[User:Sid|Sid]] 15:11, 10 February 2008 (EST) | :Well, that all depends on one thing: Is President Bush a true conservative? --[[User:Sid|Sid]] 15:11, 10 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | ::He is, until he's caught doing something wrong or his term runs out. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 15:15, 10 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 20:15, 10 February 2008
Lovely! Have an ice cream cone...on me!.DocSock 13:39, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Mmm, goaty. By the way, who added the external link to the horribly written page that tries to claim that NTS isn't actually a fallacy? --Kels 13:59, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Broadwing Communications Services, Inc. FOCC-SPRBLK-6 (NET-66-243-0-0-1)
66.243.0.0 - 66.243.191.255
River Valley Ranch FOCC-RIVERVALLEYRANCH-WAS-1 (NET-66-243-175-32-1)
66.243.175.32 - 66.243.175.39
Anyone we know? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
- Just to expand that IP is from Manchester, Maryland Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:27, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Its CP sysop Ymmotrojam!! Welcome why not sign in with your own user name? Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, cool. Hi, Mr. Jam! Nice to meetcha! --Kels 16:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Its CP sysop Ymmotrojam!! Welcome why not sign in with your own user name? Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Just to expand that IP is from Manchester, Maryland Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:27, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- It's all geek to me. Presumably someone trying to make an obscure point. --Kels 14:13, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Signed: Your friendly neighborhood spiderman. --66.243.175.34 14:37, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Hi Mr. Parker. Could you elaborate a bit on the point you're trying to make? Your link is pretty incoherent and seems to focus on a single, narrow case and doesn't even do that very well. --Kels 14:38, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- I'll leave my "point" for you to discover. However, you are incorrect in your original question about this article: "tries to claim that NTS isn't actually a fallacy?" The article says nothing of the sort. As far as horribly written, in what way? You couldn't understand it? If you mean that it's a pretty basic (no frills) webpage, I agree, but that does not say anything about the content. Also, I have the same question with your use of the word "incoherent". Show examples. As far as the "focus on a single, narrow case"; so what. Do you really expect them to cover every single example under the sun? You can't write off what it says simply based on the fact that it only uses one example. You are simply giving your own opinions, and are not objectively disagreeing with the arguments of the article. --66.243.175.34 14:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- You come to rationalwiki, expecting that it will be like your Conservapedia, trying to spread your "cited" "facts" in place of our opinion. See, unregistered IPs are inherently deceitful and love to engage in mockery of our articles. Godspeed! --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
- I'm not writing it off, I'm saying it's poorly written, and doesn't seem to apply to this case very well. If you can explain your "point" (why the quotes?), then by all means do so. I'd love to hear it. --Kels 14:59, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Again, please show some examples of "poorly written". And how does it not apply? It's not the exact same example as Andy and Conservapedia (which I'm not necessarily defending), but it is a common example that atheists love to use. Oh and Wikinterpreter, I totally agree about IP addresses. I find this one deceitful myself. --66.243.175.34 15:43, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Well, thanks for the link, 66.243.175.34, if that's your REAL name, but it just wasn't quite condescending enough. Could you find one that makes all Atheists out to be poo-flinging monkeys? As to the actual 'argument', such as it is, I'll agree that it's probably best to refer to people as "self-proclaimed (whatever)"--that way, when a self-proclaimed Liberal advocates burning witches at the stake, you don't get to say ALL Liberals want to burn witches at the stake. And when some evil spoilsport points out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, nobody gets to say ALL Christians want to exterminate the Jews. (Although Martin Luther, apparently, _did_. Sad but true.) --Gulik 16:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I'm not an atheist, so that doesn't count here. And honestly, if it's not addressing what's actually in the article, then why bother? Really, I'd like to hear you justify your own inclusion of it. Not that your apparent refusal to do so is reason to take it out, but I'd still like to hear your side. --Kels 16:03, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- I think I understand the general point, as it applies. The argument is that Hitler/chritianity is not an NTS case...I would agree, but on simpler terms. Hitler just wasn't very into Christianity. Period. He was into Fascism, National Socialism, the occult, occasional christian imagery, but most of his "religion" was nationalist, and promoted through art, eugenics, law, etc.--PalMD-yada yada 16:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- Okay, I see where you're going now. Not that it applies really to the article itself, mind you. Just one case where it's (sometimes) wrongfully applied. As I'm sure a lot of fallacies are misapplied, although I haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't apply here. Hmm, maybe I'll rewrite the link so it's got a little more context then. --Kels 16:16, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
- There, how's that look? --Kels 16:23, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Who is a true conservative?
According to President Bush himself, McCain is a true Conservative. I'm sure Andy will agree and promote it to Main Page News. Or not. P.S. Sorry if this is kind of offtopic here. Editor at CPBring TK back 15:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)