Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
Firstly it's important in discussions to agree on a definition of a word, otherwise you can have people making cases based on entirely different things. Sex is fairly vague and, while I understand what you most likely mean by it, your definition is only one of a range of definitions. Bill Clinton famously had a different idea of what sexual relations meant than probably most people.
So, whilst you consider sex to be a consensual act, rape is technicality a sexual act, whether it's sexually motivated (though it may not be), or a sex crime, or simple considered a sex act by the mechanics. There are other terms which are less ambiguous, and I suspect in trying to be polite you may have substituted one as it's swearing or profanity, but which I would consider to be a consensual act, but again you're better off discussing and exploring the definition and trying to come to a concensus rather than just have your own intransigent opinion and be damned. On the topic of no true Scotsman, which irrelevantly I am, my initial reaction is absolutely not.* That requires a category or classification of person, with a claim that they don't do something. Two classic examples of this which I grew up with are that no true Scotsman :
Both are factually incorrect, tradition does not disqualify someone from a nationality. In fact it's a form of bigotry, dismissing someone else's opinion simply because it doesn't match your own. Obviously this doesn't just apply to Scotsmen, so an example may be no true Liverpool supporter would want Manchester United to win in the champions league. *Without seeing exactly what was said I can't say for sure, but I can't imagine how what you described could be NTS. Is there a different fallacy? Possibly argument by pigheadedness<>? |
answered on Monday, Jul 09, 2018 01:12:07 AM by Bryan |
Comments |
|