Can people please stop gang-raping fallacies?

Why does it seem that no one knows what a No True Scotsman actually is? People are generalising it so that if you ever say that no real 'X'does 'Y', you're fallacious. This is wrong on so many levels and only proves that they don't know what a Scotsman fallacy is.
People seem to forget that this type of 'reasoning' needs to be ad hoc. Keep this in mind as I go. Secondly, in most cases of it, the meaning of a term is re-defined to exclude specific cases of something. Specific cases.Scotsman fallacies are a form of moving the goalposts.Re-defining a term to exclude people or behaviours that you don't like. Thirdly, it doesn't apply where the status of the subject is predetermined by other actions or behaviours.

When people distort this argument,they forget (Or who knows, maybe occasionally ignore) the first two parts of what constitutes a Scotsman fallacy. Thus, they may claim that any definition whatsoever that excludes any cases of something is a Scotsman fallacy. This is demonstrably false. Once something is defined as 'X', it's definition conversely serves as a definition of what is not 'X'. Whatever is the opposite of 'X', or fails to have the qualities of 'X' cannot be 'X'.
For example, if we define books as sewn or otherwise attatched together leaves of material, containing written or printed words, pictures, graphs, or other information, we likewise define what is not a book. (If it's not sewn or otherwise attatched together leaves of material, containing written or printed word, pictures, graphs, or other information, it's not a book.)
Therefore, if my friend Jeanne tells me that she has a book consisting of a single sheet of paper with a picture of Kierkegaard, she can't accuse me of ad hoc reasoning or a Scotsman fallacy when I tell her that what she has cannot be a book. The reasoning for it not being a book was not ad hoc.

People who don't know what they are doing tend to forget that it doesn't apply where the status of the subject is predetermined by other actions or behaviours.
(Which is really only a subset of the above argument.)
If what constitutes being 'Y' is determined by something or someone doing or being something, if someone or something fails to meet that predetermined condition, be it an action, behaviour, or whatever, then they aren't 'Y'
For example, it is predetermined that a natural born U.S. citizen is born either:
a) In the united states.
b) Abroad, to two U.S. Citizens.
c)Abroad, to one U.S.Citizen.
So, if we have Gertrude, who was born in France to French parents, under no accepted, pre-determined definition of 'American citizen' is she one. This is because, simply put, no naturally born American citizen is born abroad to two non-American parents.
In the same vein, it is pre-determined that a teacher has obtained a degree and has taught for some time.So if Gertrude claims to have been a teacher for 46 years, but never went to college and hasn't taught anyone, she isn't actually a teacher by the accepted definition of a teacher.

Do ya got it? It's not really that hard if you make some attempt to understand it.

It makes my head hurt sometimes.

Ow. It does.
I love logic, but it does give me a headache. I was reading Ettienne Gilsons's book on S.Thomas Aquinas, and it's a good read, I highly recommend it. But.... somewheres about his chapter on the Angels, I got lost. I think it has something to do with the fact that I was just trying to read it, and I know that I study better when I'm eating and reading simultaneously. Especially if it's pizza. This'll sound like a joke, but Post Hoc fallacies make me think of ketchup because I learnt them on a pizza Friday where the lady put too much ketchup on my fries.
Going back to my subject, I'm thinking about reading/getting some type of introduction to philosophy book. Preferrably paperback, since I get a free paperback book with any purchase until Wednesday, as long as I use my Borders rewards card. Not that it matters. With Google books, you can find and read just about anything for free. I think once I get a gook book, I'll set some time away once a week for some hard-core study,considering that that's a virtue anyway.
Oh yeah, and since all the cool bloggers are doing it, I think I'll write a post on the Catholic revival.

Christ Our Lord said to act in charity...

...But I really, really don't want to do that now. I was cruising MSN and came across an article talking about the greatness of O's appearance at Notre Dame, and there was a quote by Fr.Jenkins. You know, the priest that invited him. Apparently, it seems that the fact that O' supports abortion can be justified. Quote:

"He respects people who differ, but he's resolute in his decision because he did it based on conscience and what he really believes in."

Right then.  So if my conscience makes me resolute in decapitating old ladies at the bus stop, we're cool right? I mean, I really beleive that's it's okay, and I'm doing it based on my conscience, so I'm golden, right? 

I'll admit, he's got some balls to say that, but it does'nt make it any less stupid and mind-numbingly illogical. See, Fr.Forgets that although the church does respect the importance of each person's conscience, she also reminds you that anyone's conscience cn be malformed. That's why we have people who do unthinkable crimes but say that they felt justified at the time. 

It should be obvious to anyone where the logical contadiction is. Fr. beleives that O's subjective feelings on an objectively immoral act somehow either make the act moral or justify the act. In other words, according to Fr. Jenkins' logic, the man who goes about murdering in cold blood is justified in his murder because he felt okay about murdering people. The kid who shoplifts is justified and is not commiting an immoral act, because he really beleived that it was okay. Obviously, this does'nt make any sense, because it's a good example of the Relitivist Fallacy.

Let's pray that Fr.'s confusion will end soon.

False Dichotomies and Soteriology.

I go to a Protestant prep school, a good one I might add, and today during lunch I was cleaning out my locker a bit. I overheard the theology teacher lecturing the juniors on soteriology. he posed one question, and it seriously sounded ridiculous.
It was about whether God is sovereign over salvation, or it's up to us.
Said false dichotomy was that he says that if God does not totally and completely control salvation, than it means that we totally and completely control our salvation. That means that we save ourselves, and that's against the bible. I let it go, but I think he's wrong to say that you're either an Infra- (Or who knows, maybe even Supra-) lapsarian , or you're a Pelagian. There are no other views. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200$.
It's quite a shock that given his extensive seminary training (he's working on a doctorate) That he's not heard of Arminianism of Molinism. Maybe he has, but discredits such a view.
I can't describe my views on said subject, as I've simply given up trying to understand it. I have some general ideas, but it's nothing cohesive, and I'm bound to change them.

This is Getting Really Old.

Why do people keep using the Argument to the Poor whenever it comes to liturgy? Really, it makes no sense and is slightly elitist. The constant haranguing that things such as choral music and Latin aren't accessible to the poor, so stop being elitist and take it down to the lowest common denominator so that they can understand it. Yes, I've heard several more modern people say such things. It does'nt work because it builds on another mostly unproven argument, which presupposes it's conclusion ('X' is inaccessible except to the learned). I mean, ANYTING is inaccessible if you don't know what it is. An all-vernacular mass can be inaccessible. Much modern music is inacessible to a large majority of Catholics, a phenomenon so widely known that I'm surprised anyone would ever use the Argument from Inacessibility when it comes to music.
So we have the A.F.I. Now, what the A.T.P. does wrong is presuppose two things:

A) To understand 'X', you need a whole lot of really hard training.
B) Such training is totally inacessible to lower-class people.

Now, I call B.S. on A, firstly because no kind of quantifyer is given for 'understand'. how much do you need to understand 'X' ? I can basically read and interpret Gregorian Chant, but I don't know what any of the commonly used terms are. (Quilisma, pressus, epsilisma, etc.) I don't even know how to sing those squiggly things that look like trills.
So do I or do I not understand chant?
Untill a qualifyer is given, 'A' is subjective and fails, because I don't think you can use a subjective quality to prove an objective point.

It could also be a lie. Using myself as an example again, I do basically know chant, but without any sort of formal trianing or anything. I just downloaded a Graduale and started reading. Depending on what is spoken about, you could need little to no training at all. I have a very, very basic understanding of Latin. I can mostly translate it, but all I did was start using a Latin-English office book twice a day, and over the course of about 4 months, I became familiar with it.

I call B.S. on B as well. Super B.S. It's just a lie. Anyone with a computer can do a google search, and it's not like there's a dearth of info on the internet. And even there is, liturgical worship is something that parishes should be making sure that parishioners can take part of. If a parish really cares about people knowing 'X' they'll make some sort of attempt to teach it.
So yah, avoid fallacies and such or calico-colored hampster will eat your other leg.*

*G4 reference FTW!

Fail schoolbook is Fail.

Okay, so in my school (Which is a bit weird. It's a private Christian school, formerly fundamentalist/ ACE/Abeka, but now with high academic standards . All the teachers have different views, and it's all tolerated. It's all the flavours of Christianity wrapped up into one. Except there aren't any Anglicans, and I'm the only practicing Catholic.) One teacher likes to use These and These as a resource for teaching some of us. I haven't ranted on these yet, so it's time.
If those links don't give you enough surprise, let's talk about my new Social Studies booklet.

It starts off by condemning religious liberalism, (Pgs. 2-10.) which would have been fine for me, since 'liberal Catholics' seem to come off as nothing but giant contradictions anyway.
But, by religious liberalism, they mean any and all people who are not fundamentalists.
So yeah, we're covered.
No evolution ever happened, evolution is a lie and the only people who beleive in any form of it are atheists who hate God. (Pgs. 5-8)That's of course a Hasty Genralization.
Social Darwinism is real Darwinism. In fact, it's a direct result of it. (Page 7.) Social Darwinism led to Marxist Socialism (Pgs. 7-8) Therefore, the Theory of Evolution led to the Holocaust and other atrocities (Pgs.-8.)
That of course simply does'nt follow logically. If you number the premises, they don't substantiate the first, only assume it. That only Beggs the Question.
Socialism is also a result of people who don't take the scriptures literallistically, or more specifically, in the fundamentalist view of scripture.( Pgs. 8-10) (Which by the way, does'nt work.) Even as a Christian who fully accepts what Pius XII says about the bible, the idea of the self-interpreting, self attesting, self-validating self- evident bible ( i.e, what some sola scripturists beleive.) is logical fallacious . It's a big logical circle.
Real Christians are Fundamentalists (Pgs, 10-14.)
This system prides itself on the fact that it's Not objective, Not comprehensive, and certainly anti-many good things. fund
But eh, what do you expect. They're fundies. They're suppossed to be all ridiculous and screwed up in the mind so that we can all laugh at them. But still, don't fall for this craptastic excuse for reasoning.
It uses vague definitions of the Social Gospel in order to entrap just about anyone in it. Basically, Loaded Language, another logical fallacy.
They let the teacher use them because she apparently gets good results with them. I'm surprised that someone with a master's like her would use this useless BS as a teaching tool.

Go Here for definitions of the logical fallacies in italics.

I've written a small book on theism.

Not really, but I have effectively done this. I've been in a debate with someone. We, that is, the OP and subsequent posters were talking about a specific aspect of theism, when some one came and claimed that none of it is important because religion makes you dumb and god does'nt exist anyway.
Of course, we all, theists and nontheists alike asked him to prove his claims. He responded by saying, among other things, that there's no evidence for gods, so none of them exist. We pointed out that this was Ad Ignorantium. He then claimed that It was our responsibility to prove him wrong.
When pointed out that this was shifting the Burden of Proof, he claimed that the responsibility to prove a claim is on the person who makes the claim that is hard to beleive. When pointed out by us that credibility is non-contingent when establishing the burden of proof, he repeated that claim along with the claim that he does'nt have to prove his claim because we are the ones making a claim. How, when thus far we have'nt? He said by denying his claim, we were accepting the converse (ie, that gods do exist), and as we were making the positive claim, we had to prove it. He claims that no one ever has to prove negative claims.
When pointed out that the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the existential claim, regardless of positivity or negativity, he claimed that no one can ever prove a negative existential claim in any circumstance whatsoever, so he does'nt have to prove his claim. When we objected, he claimed that the existence of any god, specifically the Christian God is improbable.He concludes that if it is improbable for something to have happened or existed according to known evidence, then it follows that that thing or occurrence absolutely does not exist.

Now, I make no secret of my sick happiness in pnwing noobs and other illogical people. So you can imagine that I've been having a field day with this guy. Wait- apparently he now has an accomplice.
His accomplice and I have come to an agreement! Progress has been made!
Is this the end of an seven page debate on where the burden of proof lies?
Goodness, I've been taught that there can be confusion on where the burden of proof lies in debates, but this is ridiculous.
See, I'm so completely boring, that I've actually devoted my life to find out all of this unimportant stuff because I find a sick joy in proving people wrong. *Laughs maniacally*
Read the entire ongoing debate HERE. As always, yours truly is the Effervescent Wumbo Ragamuffin.

ED/M&R Is your real friend.