Talk:No True Scotsman

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Contents

[edit] No true Scotsman fallacy is not just about social groups

No time to edit now, sorry, but it's worth noting that the NTS fallacy is about ad hoc exclusions in order to sustain a universal claim. So, I the universal claim might be "all breakfast cereal is healthful," to which it is objected that Count Chocula isn't healthful. The NTS fallacy move would be to claim that Count Chocula isn't really a breakfast cereal. Social groups are just one example. — Unsigned, by: 130.56.94.27 / talk / contribs

[edit] Seems to the opposite of Ad Hominem

Conflicts with Ad hominem - attacking an organization's philosophy by attacking the characteristics of some members.

[edit] Attribution

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental syllogism reversed

It may seem rather rash of a contributor new tonight to reverse one of two inputs to the fundamental syllogism when I am not even from Scotland (though my name is Ian) but I am confident that the essence of the fallacy was expressed with the reverse of the P2 required, presumably as a confusion of what was happening. The first trio is surely P1, P2 are the two premises of a purported syllogism and C1 is its claimed conclusion, all three steps being in the underlying structure embedded in one person's argument asserting their fallacious claim. This is not the same as what is happening in the next trio, a conversation where two people (A and B) are stating things and A is attempting the fallacy (on-the-spot arbitrary redefinition special pleading by A) after B attempts to show an exception disproving A's claim in his first assertion.

In the first trio, P1, P2 and C1 are the implied steps in the fallacy proponent's assertion which is false and earns the label of the article's title. That is, the same person is the one asserting all three lines representing the fallacy.

I hope that is clear.

[edit] Couple missing things

I think we could include Hitler in this article as being part of the idea, as people disavow his Christianity as "No true Christian" if you will. Second, this mentions "True Scotsman" and it redirects here, but we don't quite define it. Zero (talk - contributions) 04:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Chickenshit sexists called out by Nick Offerman

https://imgur.com/gallery/be8SY Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Man should provide like the good slaves they are and stop complaining.--2d4chanfag (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, so that's totally my point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
hmmm... then, is it the "what a real woman" part? Because if is, I can get you on that. So tried of seeing "a real man is X"--2d4chanfag (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools