tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15895111.post5097284204629032109..comments2023-11-03T12:44:19.948+01:00Comments on Orwell's Picnic ~: No true feministHilary Jane Margaret Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03771332473693479830noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15895111.post-63368239499776622362013-08-29T21:53:17.805+02:002013-08-29T21:53:17.805+02:00So, a couple more thoughts occured to me on the wa...So, a couple more thoughts occured to me on the way; and to preface, I should say that the True Scotsman fallacy I first heard by that name pretended to hinge on whether Scotsmen salt their porridge.<br /><br />What your Hamish MacDonald is actually doing (what draws him into the fallacy) is his initial fallacy of <i>non sequitur</i>: all men are fallen, of course, while on the other hand morals and virtue are irrespective of race. By reverting to "no <i>true</i> ___" in the face of an actual moral outrage, Hamish is actually getting closer to the truth: to commit a moral outrage, one has to make (and thereby makes) himself less of a true man, and this is recognized, where authority exists, in eventually abrogating the ordinary rights of men or citizens (e.g., to corporal liberty).<br /><br />Just to ... er... get that out of the way. Not that it has any bearing on what currency "feminist" trades with in public conversation.a Christophernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15895111.post-59024800487754415772013-08-29T05:47:49.865+02:002013-08-29T05:47:49.865+02:00Well,... yes. On the other hand...
Everyone know...Well,... yes. On the other hand...<br /><br />Everyone knows what makes a Scotsman; equivocation about what makes a feminist can be committed by deluded and seductor alike. So, I think it's closer to the etymological fallacy than the True Scotsman fallacy. (I'm in favour of women, I agree that women are rational animals too, et.c. ... aren't I a feminist, then? ... What else could the word mean, eh? ... Oh.)a Christophernoreply@blogger.com