No True Scotsman


Spudfuzz's avatar
I'm going to get so much hate for this, but whatevs. :dummy:

Using Christianity as an example because it's always a hot topic, why perpetuate this fallacy? If you belong to a group that's picked up a bunch of extremist nuts who have even gotten to the point of gaining political influence and back gay killing groups in third world countries because they can't do it in their own - continuing to belong to said group and denying that these people are "true Christians" is passively condoning and encouraging their behaviour.

No, you may not intend it but it's exactly what your actions (or non action) support, and what's the expression? "Actions speak louder than words." If you don't want to be lumped into the generalization that everyone sees when somebody mentions the name of your group, the way I see it is that you have two options. Either immediately dissociate yourself from them and become your own thing, labelled or not or publicly shame / condemn them and purge said batshit crazy nuts from your group. The latter by the way would do the world a huge favour and would probably be in your best interests.

This can be applied to all groups of particular faith/ philosophy who have their own share of nuts for whatever insane contradictory reason they continue to tolerate for the sake of "peace".

Discuss.
Comments65
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
RiONX's avatar
Can anyone be an untrue Scottsman?
TheAwsomeOpossum's avatar
Spudfuzz, that isn't necessarily no-true-scottsman. Some suggest that the definition of Christianity excludes such people, whereas others believe it does not. If it does, than it's not no-true-scottsman. If it doesn't, than it is such a fallacy. The thing is, the definition is a matter of opinion, so you will have a lot of people arguing over it.
Raenafyn's avatar
First off, your icon is so adorable <3
But yes, I absolutely hate that, it's rather hard to define some religions and such when there are many kinds of groups within it, and others will say "group A isn't part of the whole religion because they believe this" while said group will say they do because they believe beliefs X, Y, and Z are the most important beliefs of the whole religion.
I stopped really calling myself a Christian because I didn't believe in the Bible, and felt the religion would be more accurate if the Word NEVER changed during all of its history, and well... But yeah, I've gone over to Deism.
It seems ridiculous that of a very large belief system, people feel they have the ability to define who is and isn't part of the religion or belief system. I still wonder how extremists don't find their actions extreme, even when going against much more firmly established tenants of the belief (what ever happened to "thou shalt not murder?").
Lumdrop's avatar
Christianity is a system with a code of conduct. It is supposed to be about love and courage and a belief in God as someone who is patient with the shortcomings of his creatures. To be a Christian means that you live (or make an effort at least) to live by that code of conduct. Thus, not living by said code = not a true [so and so]. It's a valid argument.
mondu's avatar
Eh.

"Christianity. Lol. Crusades."
"Atheists are guilty of mass murders, too. See Stalin, China, or North Korea."
"Well, they're not real atheists because Stalin/Mao/Kim was their deity."
Saeter's avatar
Atheism is not an organization. Communist governments commited the mass murders to further their agendas. The parties involved claimed atheism despite several of them being originally supported by their practiced religions and attempted to remove whatever influence relugion had over the people.
tacosteev's avatar
There are members of my country who do horrible things. I should declare independence from my country to not be associated with them :roll:
Spudfuzz's avatar
Anonymous kinda does that though right? And there's riots in Europe too the last I heard.
tacosteev's avatar
Anonymous are nothing but criminals. They more often harm others than "help".
Spudfuzz's avatar
Sure, depends how you look at it. I'd say they're a bit of both. But that doesn't make their resistance to corruption any less valid.
tacosteev's avatar
Except it's not an actual group. There is no organization, no leadership, just a bunch of kids with common agendas.

Take on of their latest attacks against visa and mastercard. Using stolen data they donated thousands of dollars to various charities...those are fraudulent charges and the charities have to pay a fee for each charge back.

They're criminals. Pure and simple.
SaiScribbles's avatar
I'd say Uganda doesn't have the same precarious tower of apologetics that exists in the West and Europe that would allow them to ignore all the more reprehensible directives of the Bible and thus they take its Iron Age values very seriously, but then Evangelicals from the US supported them making it legal to kill gay people, meaning these Evangelicals would like to do it here, but they know they can't.
Armonah's avatar
That's a terrifying thought, really.
dinysrawr's avatar
There are psycho people in the human race too, who don't identify with any religion.

I guess I shouldn't call myself human by this argument ;p
Spudfuzz's avatar
I know I don't.
KyteGlory's avatar
I thought that this was going to be a thread about whether or not it's appropriate to lift one's kilt.

Obviously, it isn't. A true Scotsman never lifts his kilt. However, if a person just so happens to be lying at such an angle that he just happens to catch a glimpse at another man's assets, there'll be no blame to pass.
Spudfuzz's avatar
:iconmegustaplz:
:iconmonroeplz:

These are some interesting developments.
kitsumekat's avatar
Because they usually don't try to cowtow their crazies.
der-freishutz's avatar
One bad apple spoils the batch, it seems.
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
when it comes to christianity the whole barrel is rotted from the start
der-freishutz's avatar
Oh you, making such horrible heretical statements like that with nothing to back it up.
AngelheartTheWarrior's avatar
Agreed. However, that is a group, not the actual religion. There is a difference. Ok, real life christian people may have been a bit crazy. But not everyone was. And there will be insane people in religions, and you can't change that. :shrug:
siegeonthorstadt's avatar
They don't practice the religion for the group, or to belong to the group. They do it for themselves, and for the sheer feeling of God. What you are talking about is the political religion. Something completely different.
Razgriz-3's avatar
I am totally out of my comfort zone here, so I'm just going to say that the following is said by someone who knows nothing about anything.

Buut...

From what I can tell, there are psychonuts in all religious groups- well, hell, in all groups of most sorts. Political stuff gets like this too, if I'm not mistaken. "Obama is a/an (insert insult here), he's doing (insert action here) to the people of America in secret!" People get intense about what they believe in. Another way I see it is that, well, there are a lot of nutters in the human race.

Now, I think part of the problem just might be laziness. You can't keep creating a new religion that dissociates you from the zealots, because zealots tend to pop up whenever there are beliefs involved. Except the religions that teach peaceful-ness. I don't know too many Hindus who try to force people to join there religion.

I'm sorry if the above was offensive. I'm scared. ;-;