Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have produced no evidence that we have committed any acts of violence, your statements therefore that we have the same legacy of violence and are thus a part of Christendom, fails.
If when you are doing a mathematical equation, if indeed you are a mathematician, which i highly doubt, you are given marks for showing your workings, how you cam ...[text shortened]... dence then i shall be pleased if you wasted my time no further with unsubstantiated allegations.
You want mathematical precision? That's why I wrote "No True Scotsman". That phrase alone provides the mathematical precision he needs.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is named such because of this example or something similar:
MacScotty: No Scotsman would refuse to eat haggis!
MacLogic: My friend Joe is a Scotsman, and he won't eat haggis...he's allergic to it...
MacScotty: Then Joe is not a true Scotsman!
The problem here is that "Scotsman" or "true Scotsman" is not defined. However MacScotty is willing to assert that certain people don't fit that definition. He uses the fact that he has not defined Scotsman to make his statement always true - by defining away anyone who would make it false as not being a "true" Scotsman. This is illogical.
In your case, "Christendom" is not defined, but you're willing to make claims about who is part of Christendom and who is not. Thus, the No True Scotsman fallacy, or in sillier but more specific terms, No True Christendom.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/