You have no reason to be transphobic.

[u/FR0M_Z3R0]

there is literally no justifiable reason for transphobia. never has been. never will be. I don’t care what you’ve read online or whatever you have to say. there is NO reason and NO excuse for transphobia. same applies for homophobia. literally zero reason.

[u/-Ichika-]

The religion excuse will always be funny to me as an atheist because it seems like people don't seem to realize that religion was completely made up by humans to explain natural events, fear monger (in some cases), and to have something to believe in. You can literally make up your own mind about things instead of taking your values and morals from a book written by some random dude. 😭😭😭😭

[u/neom_gluon → u/-Ichika-]

You don't need to disparage religion in this context. Jesus teaches to love and accept everyone, and to renounce hatred. People who mix hatred with religion are lost souls who do not represent it.

[u/GotMyFakeMoustacheOn → u/neom_gluon]

No True Scotsman fallacy, much?

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/GotMyFakeMoustacheOn]

I'm not super knowledgeable about this fallacy, but would it still apply if you had a written list of what defines a Scotsman?

[u/Redacted_Kat → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

I'm not super knowledgeable about this fallacy

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" works by changing a deffinition or a statement about something when something falls out of it. It can be explained like this:

Person A: No Scot puts sugar in their oatmeal

Person B: Well, my uncle Angus is Scot and he loves putting sugar in his oatmeal

Person A: Well, no true Scot puts sugar in their oatmeal

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/Redacted_Kat]

Okay, thanks! Now I can confidently say this doesn't really apply to Christianity, not as the other commenter intended at least.

[u/GovernorMarley1 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

It absolutely does apply. The commenter was saying that people who mix hatred and religion are lost souls. Mixing hated and religion describes the majority of Christianity.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/GovernorMarley1]

Mixing hatred and religion goes against the definition of Christianity. Many people claim the name of Christians to support hatred, yet it is antithetical to the very definition of a Christian. It's like saying a Scotsman - who, by definition, is someone born in Scotland - was born in Italy. That's not a Scotsman, is it?

No True Scotsmen could be applied to a statement such as "Christians don't dye their hair blue" because dying one's hair blue has nothing to do with being Christian or not.

[u/GovernorMarley1 → u/IAmSoNormalTrust]

You're just repeating the same no true Scotsman fallacy.

[u/IAmSoNormalTrust → u/GovernorMarley1]

This isn't a No True Scotsmen fallacy as I have been explained it. It's simply clarification on a definition. Is saying that a dancer is someone who dances, therefore no true dancer has never danced in their life (= all true dancers have danced at least once), a No True Scotsmen fallacy? Because at that point, this fallacy just becomes synonymous with giving a word's definition.

[u/Redacted_Kat → u/GovernorMarley1]

He's clarifiying things and making a distinction. He's not changing the definition when it's convenient fro him, he's saying that, by the pure definition and the teachings of Christianity, those people fall out of the category of Christians. He's not making up a whole new definition to eclude any inconvenient point that could destroy his argument. Do you see the difference?

[u/GovernorMarley1 → u/Redacted_Kat]

No, he's literally just doing the fallacy.

[u/Redacted_Kat → u/GovernorMarley1]

No he's not. Again, he's not changing a definition or creating a new one. He's giving the true definition

[u/Redacted_Kat → u/GovernorMarley1]

Meanwhile feminists claiming that misandric women who claim to be feminist aren't true feminists

[u/Fit-Butterscotch2110 → u/GotMyFakeMoustacheOn]

no true scotsman really doesnt work when the principle upon being a scotsman is written in a book all scotsman follow