seen from China
seen from China
seen from Algeria
seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Egypt
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Sweden
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Macao SAR China
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
Black is the colour
And beauty is the game
Your hands they smell like gasoline
They cause my love to spill
The windy wind is blowing and the bedsprings creak their tune
My bros all call you Yoko
Say you’re gonna kill the band
Fallacies, fallacies
None for you, ten for me
All your lies won’t set you free
Fallacies, fallacies
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Got in an argument where someone is using it as an excuse to miss my entire point, so I feel like it's time for a rant about the phrase "No True Scotsman" and when it is actually a fallacy and when it isn't.
Starting with, it's an informal fallacy. Formal fallacies are where the whole form of the argument is fallacious, but informal fallacies are fallacies of content. In other words, the problem is with what you're saying, not just how you're saying it. But people love to treat NTS as a formal fallacy - like just saying "this person isn't actually X!" is automatically fallacious.
But sometimes, people do use words wrong, including for labels that they themselves claim. Sometimes this is intentional misdirection, sometimes they're mistaken, sometimes it's a combo of both - but either way, not every statement that "that person isn't a true X" is automatically fallacious. Sometimes that person really is not X! And it's fair to point that out.
Furthermore, NTS tends to be a problem when someone who is a member of group X is disclaiming some bad person from the group to deflect guilt by association or escape accountability.... but that's not always the case with those kinds of arguments. Sometimes it's more about pointing out hypocrisy. Like, someone saying "TERFs aren't true feminists" could be using it to deflect from histories of transphobia in feminist movements, but they could also be doing it to point out that TERFism increasingly shows little concern for actual feminist issues and instead treats hurting trans people as their no. 1 concern, to the point that they betray 101 feminist tenets for it. Another example would be saying that fundamentalist Christians "aren't very Christian".... is this a person saying that there's nothing bigoted in the Bible or that other Christians are fault-less? or is this a person pointing out the objective fact that the Gospels have a lot to say about fighting poverty but nothing about abortion, and so a person who is very concerned about restricting abortion rights but thinks poverty is not their problem doesn't understand the Bible well?
Like, are you saying "no bad person could be a part of my group!" or are you saying "there are specific qualities associated with this group that are required to be part of it, and this person claiming to be part of it does not fit those basic criteria at all"?
The former is usually what No True Scotsman is. The latter can be No True Scotsman depending on what criteria you choose - that's the whole point of it being an "informal fallacy" - but is not necessarily. Every ideology or group of any kind has some basic criteria. Requiring that someone believe in and work for gender equality in order to qualify as a "feminist," and therefore saying that someone who doesn't do that is not a feminist, is not No True Scotsman, it's just stating a fact.... just as much as it's not No True Scotsman to say that a person is not American if they've never been to America.
I think the constant -I’ve been bullied too, I didn’t turn like Snape- is interesting about the marauders fans, they used it so much to negate Severus’s trauma and surely to pat themselves on the back, because who else is going to do it? I don’t think they understand that if the marauders were real, the same people defending them would be their victims
It’s like when millionaires say, “I got rich, I wasn’t born rich,” as if that somehow disproves the existence of structural poverty. It’s a lucky exception fallacy, where you use your individual case to dismiss systemic realities, as if your personal success somehow cancels out the fact that the system is designed to keep most people from getting out of their circumstances. Basically, a shitty argumentative tactic.
July 29, 2025:
Beige Secondary, Mirror, Python.
Crypt of Fallacies' clan!
--
Q: What are the three most compelling arguments for the existence of gods - concise answer, name it if it has a formal name. And what are the most straightforward refutations of these arguments - concise answer.
Grok: Arguments for the Existence of Gods:
1. Cosmological Argument:
Description: The argument posits that everything that exists has a cause, and there must be a first cause or "uncaused cause" which is God.
Refutation: The universe might be eternal, negating the need for a first cause, or the cause could be an impersonal force rather than a personal deity.
2. Teleological Argument (or Design Argument):
Description: The complexity and apparent design of the universe suggest a designer, akin to how a watch implies a watchmaker.
Refutation: Complex structures can emerge from natural processes (evolution by natural selection), and the universe might not be precisely "designed" for life, considering most of the cosmos is hostile to it.
3. Ontological Argument:
Description: Proposed by Anselm, it argues that God is the greatest conceivable being; existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, hence God must exist.
Refutation: Existence isn't necessarily a property that can be predicated in this manner; the argument might commit the fallacy of assuming that because something can be thought, it must exist.
Straightforward Refutations:
Cosmological: Challenges the necessity of a personal first cause by suggesting naturalistic explanations like the Big Bang or an eternal universe.
Teleological: Points out that apparent design can result from natural selection and physical laws without a designer.
Ontological: Criticizes the logic by arguing that "existence" isn't a property like "redness" or "largeness" that can be part of a definition.
These arguments and their refutations highlight the ongoing philosophical debate about the existence of deities, showing that each argument has its strengths but also faces significant challenges.
==
This is the best they've got.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
making ten logical fallacies is a lot of work for a hat man (from benadryl hallucination) like me
we live in a world where everyone believes in black and white, when everything is painted in gray. therefore, how can an ideal world be anything but a fallacy?
I hate appeals to nature more than I hate other fallacies because they leave an implied "should", often times to things I don't want to do. "But it's natural to want (children, to be a mother, sex, to be pregnant, to be a homemaker etc.), it's part of (your biology/God's design)" Well no, not for everyone.
