For those who don’t find “far-right” to be an applicable descriptor with what is known currently, I acknowledge that the meme creator could have been more precise with their word choice. However, I feel the difference is academic:

We can replace “far right” with the easily verified “not leftist” without changing the meme whatsoever, primarily because the meme is about Nancy Mace and her mercurial, disingenuous opinion, not (directly) about the shooter.

Edit - I modified it, though I still find it to be a distinction without a difference - alt version for those who prefer (whoops missed one first time)

  • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
    11·
    5 hours ago

    You need to have an actual example to present a counterfactual. You cannot presume one might exist and then argue as if your claims have validity.

    If you can find an actual example of a Christian denomination that does not see Christ’s death on the cross as an act that redeems the world of sin you can press the No True Scotsman claim but it needs to be real and it isn’t.

    • Null User Object@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 hours ago

      You absolutely do not understand No True Scotsman, then.

      This whole thing started with you arguing against someone that stated that there is no central authoritative body that decides who is and isn’t christian. You have yet to present one. Instead, you just present YOUR criteria, as if you’re the authoritative body, but your not, because there isn’t one.

      I could call myself a Christian and make up whatever criteria I want that makes me qualified, and there’s nobody to stop me.

      If you can find an actual example of a Christian denomination that…

      And even if I did, you would reject it because they don’t meet your definition of a Christian denomination, so I still failed to “find an actual example of a Christian denomination that…”

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 hour ago

        There is an understanding if what “Christian” means. Your argument, if valid, would mean there is no definition for the majority of concepts.

        But I’ll tell you that you are correct if it makes you fell better.

        If you could find an actual denomination that didn’t accept the redemption of Jesus and accepted his religious message and called you would have a group of Jews from the first two centuries CE. They did not see themselves as a new faith separate of Judaism.

        There never was an example of No True Scotsman you just have a flawed understanding of Christianity and this logical flaw you improperly cited.

        • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          19 minutes ago

          So you just massively showed you have almost no actual knowledge of historical Christian sects.

          Plenty of non-trinitarians sects don’t believe Jesus died for our sins. Some don’t believe Jesus was real at all. Others believe that God and Jesus is the same thing while others believe Jesus was God taking mortal form.

          And plenty of them don’t agree that Jesus even died for our sins.

          Christadelphaisn, Jehovah witnesses, oneness Pentecostals, universalists, to just name a few example of how varied things can be.

          That’s not even getting into old old stuff back around like 300-400CE.

          If there is literally any defining aspect of Christianity is that it never agrees with any other aspect of Christianity. It’s one of the single most fractured religions in our history.

          Also your a God damn moron you ARE using a no true scottsman fallacy. Go read the god damn wiki page on the fallacy. Holy fuck man.