ByteDance may be using the app to collect data on Americans and pass it on to the Chinese government. The app’s algorithms also are capable of influencing public opinion in the United States, where the platform has about 150 million users.
Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the “No True Scotsman” or “appeal to purity” fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.
That’s why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea’s case, and thus wouldn’t argue that stating it isn’t truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.
Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.
The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China’s policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn’t fall under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.
“If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist”
In a way yes… accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.
So… yeah, you honestly just don’t understand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, “in a way yes” you are.
As I mentioned earlier, you don’t understand the no true Christian fallacy.
I did not use no true Scotsman, I used no true Christian. There is no true Christian because it’s IMPOSSIBLE, it has nothing to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is to change the meaning of what a true Scotsman is.
Christians recognize that other Christians are not true Christians, but believe themselves to be, but they are not because it’s impossible, because of the self contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible.
In the same way there are no true communist countries because it’s impossible. But they are communist in being authoritarian and CLAIM to be communist, and claim to have roots in Marxism.
To what degree they actually have is irrelevant, because all attempts at communism have resulted in oppression of the people and civil rights like freedom of speech. And this is no different in China than all other Communist countries, so as I see it, China is as communist as any other so called Communist country.
Just like a Christian who believes in trinity is as Christian as one who doesn’t.
You are actually making the no true Scotsman fallacy, by saying China Isn’t true communism. Because they “use sugar in their coffee”, and no true Scotsman/communist does that.
Using North Korea as a counter example is an obvious strawman, because democracy has 1 very specific requirement, which is free and fair democratic elections, despite that there are many degrees of democracy, depending on how actually free and fair elections are. By that definition North Korea is an extremely poor democracy, and you can feel free to call China a poor communist regime, but they all are.
While the specific context and criteria may differ between the “No True Scotsman” and “No True Christian” fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you’ve essentially applied the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the concept itself.)
I didn’t argue that China isn’t Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates “free and democratic elections,” I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.
In essence, you’re basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea’s definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.
Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the “No True Scotsman” or “appeal to purity” fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.
That’s why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea’s case, and thus wouldn’t argue that stating it isn’t truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.
Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.
The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China’s policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn’t fall under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.
So… yeah, you honestly just don’t understand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, “in a way yes” you are.
As I mentioned earlier, you don’t understand the no true Christian fallacy. I did not use no true Scotsman, I used no true Christian. There is no true Christian because it’s IMPOSSIBLE, it has nothing to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is to change the meaning of what a true Scotsman is.
Christians recognize that other Christians are not true Christians, but believe themselves to be, but they are not because it’s impossible, because of the self contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible.
In the same way there are no true communist countries because it’s impossible. But they are communist in being authoritarian and CLAIM to be communist, and claim to have roots in Marxism.
To what degree they actually have is irrelevant, because all attempts at communism have resulted in oppression of the people and civil rights like freedom of speech. And this is no different in China than all other Communist countries, so as I see it, China is as communist as any other so called Communist country.
Just like a Christian who believes in trinity is as Christian as one who doesn’t.
You are actually making the no true Scotsman fallacy, by saying China Isn’t true communism. Because they “use sugar in their coffee”, and no true Scotsman/communist does that.
Using North Korea as a counter example is an obvious strawman, because democracy has 1 very specific requirement, which is free and fair democratic elections, despite that there are many degrees of democracy, depending on how actually free and fair elections are. By that definition North Korea is an extremely poor democracy, and you can feel free to call China a poor communist regime, but they all are.
While the specific context and criteria may differ between the “No True Scotsman” and “No True Christian” fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you’ve essentially applied the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the concept itself.)
I didn’t argue that China isn’t Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates “free and democratic elections,” I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.
In essence, you’re basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea’s definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.
Cooperations can be private too, and absolutely a part of Communism.
No they don’t, because no true Scotsman is moving the goal post, which no true Christian is not.