the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[commonsense]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is simply a category error. A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs and their chromosome type.

It's simple. Define a Scotsman and I'm sure that the reasonable and intellectually honest types will come to some sort of agreement.

No person born in Scotland or born of Scottish parents puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus was born in Scotland of Scottish parents and he puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus may be a Scotsman but he is not a true Scotsman.

[Trajk Logik]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is simply a category error. A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs and their chromosome type.

It's simple. Define a Scotsman and I'm sure that the reasonable and intellectually honest types will come to some sort of agreement.

No person born in Scotland or born of Scottish parents puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus was born in Scotland of Scottish parents and he puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus may be a Scotsman but he is not a true Scotsman.

There is no difference between a Scotsman and a true Scotsman. A Scotsman is a Scotsman and has nothing to do with what you eat.
It's not a problem of logic. It's a problem of improper language use, as are many philosophical conundrums.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no difference between a Scotsman and a true Scotsman. A Scotsman is a Scotsman and has nothing to do with what you eat.
It's not a problem of logic. It's a problem of improper language use, as are many philosophical conundrums.

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum, it's a well known fallacy. It is redundant to show that a fallacy is fallacious.

[Harbal]

A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs

What if the woman is riding a bike?

[Trajk Logik]

There is no difference between a Scotsman and a true Scotsman. A Scotsman is a Scotsman and has nothing to do with what you eat.
It's not a problem of logic. It's a problem of improper language use, as are many philosophical conundrums.

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum, it's a well known fallacy. It is redundant to show that a fallacy is fallacious.

The problem of philosophy that Wittgenstein complains about is more at an incoherence in the language game being played. It's as though you sat down to play a game of chess (defining a Scotsman one way) and your opponent started playing checkers (defined a Scotsman another way). As I said, we need to come to an agreement on the terms or we just can't use those terms with each other as we would simply be talking past each other.

Ludwig doubted that most of the great "perennial" philosophical problems that have reappeared again and again over the last 2500 years that have never been settled were unsolvable.

"there are no genuine philosophical problems [...] philosophy is just byproduct of misunderstanding the language." -Wittgenstein

A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs

What if the woman is riding a bike?

Thank you for the example of playing a language game, Harbal. Although I'm not here to play games with words. I am here to get answers and find solutions. So if you really needed me to clarify because you really don't know what I was talking about then I wasn't talking about bikes or vibrators. I was talking about the biology of a woman between her legs.

If we can talk about a man riding a bike too, then obviously riding a bike does not define one as being a woman or man.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no difference between a Scotsman and a true Scotsman. A Scotsman is a Scotsman and has nothing to do with what you eat.
It's not a problem of logic. It's a problem of improper language use, as are many philosophical conundrums.

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum, it's a well known fallacy. It is redundant to show that a fallacy is fallacious.

The problem of philosophy that Wittgenstein complains about is more at an incoherence in the language game being played. It's as though you sat down to play a game of chess (defining a Scotsman one way) and your opponent started playing checkers (defined a Scotsman another way). As I said, we need to come to an agreement on the terms or we just can't use those terms with each other as we would simply be talking past each other.

Ludwig doubted that most of the great "perennial" philosophical problems that have reappeared again and again over the last 2500 years that have never been settled were unsolvable.

"there are no genuine philosophical problems [...] philosophy is just byproduct of misunderstanding the language." -Wittgenstein

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum, it's a well known fallacy. It is redundant to show that a fallacy is fallacious. Pretentious references to Ryle and Wittgenstein only make it worse.

[Harbal]

I wasn't talking about bikes or vibrators. I was talking about the biology of a woman between her legs.

Perhaps we could just define a woman with a bike between her legs as a lady cyclist then, but she could never be a true Scotsman, even if she were born and bred in Scotland.

[Harbal]

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

[commonsense]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is simply a category error. A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs and their chromosome type.

It's simple. Define a Scotsman and I'm sure that the reasonable and intellectually honest types will come to some sort of agreement.

No person born in Scotland or born of Scottish parents puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus was born in Scotland of Scottish parents and he puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus may be a Scotsman but he is not a true Scotsman.

There is no difference between a Scotsman and a true Scotsman. A Scotsman is a Scotsman and has nothing to do with what you eat.
It's not a problem of logic. It's a problem of improper language use, as are many philosophical conundrums.

I’m just saying that an undescribed noun is not the same as one that is differentiated.

[Trajk Logik]

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum, it's a well known fallacy. It is redundant to show that a fallacy is fallacious.

The problem of philosophy that Wittgenstein complains about is more at an incoherence in the language game being played. It's as though you sat down to play a game of chess (defining a Scotsman one way) and your opponent started playing checkers (defined a Scotsman another way). As I said, we need to come to an agreement on the terms or we just can't use those terms with each other as we would simply be talking past each other.

Ludwig doubted that most of the great "perennial" philosophical problems that have reappeared again and again over the last 2500 years that have never been settled were unsolvable.

"there are no genuine philosophical problems [...] philosophy is just byproduct of misunderstanding the language." -Wittgenstein

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum, it's a well known fallacy. It is redundant to show that a fallacy is fallacious. Pretentious references to Ryle and Wittgenstein only make it worse.

That isn't what I was doing, so your fallacy is the straw-man.

All I was doing was showing a different way of defining the fallacy as a fallacy of language use - a category mistake, or talking past each other, playing two different and incompatible language games as Witt would put it.

I wasn't talking about bikes or vibrators. I was talking about the biology of a woman between her legs.

Perhaps we could just define a woman with a bike between her legs as a lady cyclist then, but she could never be a true Scotsman, even if she were born and bred in Scotland.

I don't define a woman like that. I define woman like the vast majority of people that use the English language do. You are free to define it how you please, but don't expect me to waste my time discussing Scotsmen and women with you as we would simply be talking past each other.

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

[Harbal]

Perhaps we could just define a woman with a bike between her legs as a lady cyclist then, but she could never be a true Scotsman, even if she were born and bred in Scotland.

I don't define a woman like that. I define woman like the vast majority of people that use the English language do. You are free to define it how you please, but don't expect me to waste my time discussing Scotsmen and women with you as we would simply be talking past each other.

Please accept my apology, but when you first engaged in discussion with me I assumed you had freely chosen to waste your time.

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

Flash was trying to enlighten you, whereas I am quite content to leave you wallowing in your misunderstanding of the matter.

[FlashDangerpants]

No True Scotsman is not a conundrum

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

The thread was started by a clinical narcissist who boasted that he could fix the NTS "problem". All we did was mock him. There aren't any pages of me and Harbal trying to iron out the structure of it, or to solve what is absolutely not a conundrum nor a thing to be solved.

All you are doing is competing with Advocate to be the bigger nutjob. Get out of that race you fucking idiot, the prize is a padded cell.

[Harbal]

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

The thread was started by a clinical narcissist who boasted that he could fix the NTS "problem". All we did was mock him. There aren't any pages of me and Harbal trying to iron out the structure of it, or to solve what is absolutely not a conundrum nor a thing to be solved.

All you are doing is competing with Advocate to be the bigger nutjob. Get out of that race you fucking idiot, the prize is a padded cell.

This is why I never pretend to know more about philosophy than I do. I already have more than enough ways of making a fool of myself.

[Trajk Logik]

Perhaps we could just define a woman with a bike between her legs as a lady cyclist then, but she could never be a true Scotsman, even if she were born and bred in Scotland.

I don't define a woman like that. I define woman like the vast majority of people that use the English language do. You are free to define it how you please, but don't expect me to waste my time discussing Scotsmen and women with you as we would simply be talking past each other.

Please accept my apology, but when you first engaged in discussion with me I assumed you had freely chosen to waste your time.

You assumed wrong. I don't engage in conversation to waste my time. I engage in conversation to be productive in seeking and finding solutions to problems. It's only when I see that the other isn't interested in the same but would rather engage in ad hominems and straw men then I will see that I am wasting my time and stop. If you are saying that ANY conversation with you is a waste of time, and not just conversations about language-use and definitions, then thanks for the heads-up so that I won't be wasting my time in the future.

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

Flash was trying to enlighten you, whereas I am quite content to leave you wallowing in your misunderstanding of the matter.

You have a strange concept of "enlighten". Again, we would need to iron out the definitions we are using as I don't see anything Flash has responded to me with as "enlightening". It's just been straw-men and ad-hominems - all from someone who claims to know what a fallacy is.

But it's proving to be one to Trajk Logic.

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

The thread was started by a clinical narcissist who boasted that he could fix the NTS "problem". All we did was mock him. There aren't any pages of me and Harbal trying to iron out the structure of it, or to solve what is absolutely not a conundrum nor a thing to be solved.

All you are doing is competing with Advocate to be the bigger nutjob. Get out of that race you fucking idiot, the prize is a padded cell.

None of this, nor anything you have said to me up to this point, is an argument against anything I have said. All you have done is engage in attacking straw-men and when that didn't work, you attack me personally. Grow up.

[Sculptor]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Wrong on all counts
It's exactly like you do not understand the problem