Talk:No True Scotsman/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 16 May 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Ice Cream

Lovely! Have an ice cream cone...on me!.DocSock 13:39, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Mmm, goaty. By the way, who added the external link to the horribly written page that tries to claim that NTS isn't actually a fallacy? --Kels 13:59, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Broadwing Communications Services, Inc. FOCC-SPRBLK-6 (NET-66-243-0-0-1)

                                 66.243.0.0 - 66.243.191.255

River Valley Ranch FOCC-RIVERVALLEYRANCH-WAS-1 (NET-66-243-175-32-1)

                                 66.243.175.32 - 66.243.175.39

Anyone we know? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Just to expand that IP is from Manchester, Maryland ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 15:27, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Its CP sysop Ymmotrojam!! Welcome why not sign in with your own user name? ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 15:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, cool. Hi, Mr. Jam! Nice to meetcha! --Kels 16:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

It's all geek to me. Presumably someone trying to make an obscure point. --Kels 14:13, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Signed: Your friendly neighborhood spiderman. --66.243.175.34 14:37, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Mr. Parker. Could you elaborate a bit on the point you're trying to make? Your link is pretty incoherent and seems to focus on a single, narrow case and doesn't even do that very well. --Kels 14:38, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll leave my "point" for you to discover. However, you are incorrect in your original question about this article: "tries to claim that NTS isn't actually a fallacy?" The article says nothing of the sort. As far as horribly written, in what way? You couldn't understand it? If you mean that it's a pretty basic (no frills) webpage, I agree, but that does not say anything about the content. Also, I have the same question with your use of the word "incoherent". Show examples. As far as the "focus on a single, narrow case"; so what. Do you really expect them to cover every single example under the sun? You can't write off what it says simply based on the fact that it only uses one example. You are simply giving your own opinions, and are not objectively disagreeing with the arguments of the article. --66.243.175.34 14:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

You come to rationalwiki, expecting that it will be like your Conservapedia, trying to spread your "cited" "facts" in place of our opinion. See, unregistered IPs are inherently deceitful and love to engage in mockery of our articles. Godspeed! --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I'm not writing it off, I'm saying it's poorly written, and doesn't seem to apply to this case very well. If you can explain your "point" (why the quotes?), then by all means do so. I'd love to hear it. --Kels 14:59, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Again, please show some examples of "poorly written". And how does it not apply? It's not the exact same example as Andy and Conservapedia (which I'm not necessarily defending), but it is a common example that atheists love to use. Oh and Wikinterpreter, I totally agree about IP addresses. I find this one deceitful myself. --66.243.175.34 15:43, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, thanks for the link, 66.243.175.34, if that's your REAL name, but it just wasn't quite condescending enough. Could you find one that makes all Atheists out to be poo-flinging monkeys? As to the actual 'argument', such as it is, I'll agree that it's probably best to refer to people as "self-proclaimed (whatever)"--that way, when a self-proclaimed Liberal advocates burning witches at the stake, you don't get to say ALL Liberals want to burn witches at the stake. And when some evil spoilsport points out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, nobody gets to say ALL Christians want to exterminate the Jews. (Although Martin Luther, apparently, _did_. Sad but true.) --Gulik 16:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I'm not an atheist, so that doesn't count here. And honestly, if it's not addressing what's actually in the article, then why bother? Really, I'd like to hear you justify your own inclusion of it. Not that your apparent refusal to do so is reason to take it out, but I'd still like to hear your side. --Kels 16:03, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I think I understand the general point, as it applies. The argument is that Hitler/chritianity is not an NTS case...I would agree, but on simpler terms. Hitler just wasn't very into Christianity. Period. He was into Fascism, National Socialism, the occult, occasional christian imagery, but most of his "religion" was nationalist, and promoted through art, eugenics, law, etc.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I see where you're going now. Not that it applies really to the article itself, mind you. Just one case where it's (sometimes) wrongfully applied. As I'm sure a lot of fallacies are misapplied, although I haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't apply here. Hmm, maybe I'll rewrite the link so it's got a little more context then. --Kels 16:16, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

There, how's that look? --Kels 16:23, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Who is a true conservative?

According to President Bush himself, McCain is a true Conservative. I'm sure Andy will agree and promote it to Main Page News. Or not. P.S. Sorry if this is kind of offtopic here. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 15:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Well, that all depends on one thing: Is President Bush a true conservative? --Sid 15:11, 10 February 2008 (EST)

He is, until he's caught doing something wrong or his term runs out. --Kels 15:15, 10 February 2008 (EST)

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, Hillary Clinton is a true conservative. -All Hail Tuna 15:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)

See comments on CP's Richard Nixon talk page, which not only disown him as a conservative, but suggest he was a commie. Weaseloid 07:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Definition of "True Christian"

Wiat, is this article suggesting that there IS a definition of what a "true" Christian is? Ridiculous. Whether Hitler meets "the definition" or not is irrelevant, there is no definition of "real Christian". Get rid of it.^{— Unsigned, by: 92.193.47.104 / talk / contribs}

I believe anyone who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian. Daecon 13:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I find that to be it's own, inverse fallacy: "No false Christians" An individual is taken as a model for a group, despite the example conflicting with inclusion.^{— Unsigned, by: 98.87.213.71 / talk / contribs} 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what the article says is: (actually, there are several, depending on the church, and a multitude through the ages).--Bob^{bing up} 14:01, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

(ec) True, but there really isn't any neat way of judging who can be called Christian. Self-identification is the best we have. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 14:03, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I would imagine that we could have multiple definitions of "Scotsman" as well.--Bob^{bing up} 14:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps equal to roughly ((current number of Scotsmen)+1)? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:15, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The Hitler/Christian Controversy Reopened

I don't see that the Hitler/Christian example is in any way exempt from the No True Scotsman fallacy. In fact it's a pretty textbook example of it. As Daecon said above, somebody who identifies themself as Christian can be assumed to be a Christian, unless there is clear evidence that they are lying (about this specifically). Thus, from a rational non-Christian perspective, we can assume that Hitler, who professed to be a Christian, was indeed a Christian.

However, if we look at Hitler from a Christian perspective, assuming for a moment the full the range of beliefs this entails, we will see that Hitler was unconscionably sinful, evil and no doubt festering in the shiny pits of Hell at this very moment. We cannot possibly reconcile Hitler's professed Christianity with his sinfulness and damnation. Thus, he is not a true Christian - his claim to Christianity was only a sham. Q.E.D.!

So the distinction between whether he was a Christian or a 'true Christian' is an arbitrary one dependent on whether we identify ourselves as (true) Christians. Almost exactly like the True Scotsman example.

This kind of definition of 'true' religion is used all the time in religious diatribes like The Watchtower, which pose a dichotomy between "true religions" (which fit the author's conception of the term) and "false religions" (e.g. ones which tolerate homosexuality or divorce). Godspeed thee! Weaseloid 16:40, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

(Incimadentally, Thomas Shirk - the author of that 'Hitler No True Christian' rhetoric piece which is cited - seems amusingly ignorant of the facts regarding Mr Hitler, including the manner of his death. Shirk writes that "it is (barring a deathbed conversion for which there is no evidence whatsoever) valid to say that Hitler was not a Christian". I'm not sure that Hitler had a "deathbed" as such. Does a sofa count? Would a "deathbed conversion" have excused him of the mortal sin of suicide moments later? Or would the conversion have had to have been made at the exact same moment as biting the cyanide capsule? It's a rhetorical minefield.) Weaseloid 16:56, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Now now I read the article again it's a bit self contradictory. We say: Like any fallacy, NTS can be incorrectly applied. An example of this would be the case of someone claiming that Hitler was not a true Christian may not necessarily be guilty of this fallacy, given that there actually is a definition of what a true Christian is, and Hitler may fall outside that definition

But then we say there are many definitions of Christian. We do need to clarify it or remove the example.--Bob^{bing up} 17:08, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Re W's first comment, does one have be sin-free, or at least free of major sins to be a Christian? I thought Christianity taught that we are all sinners and can only achieve salvation (after death) by accepting Jesus as Christ? What if Hitler just couldn't help himself, and hated the bad things he did, and begged Jesus daily to help him sin less? ħuman 17:45, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree the example is a poor one. Anyway to get rid of it while keeping the interesting EL? And coming up with a better example? I added a quickie, but it's not really a "named group". ħuman 17:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Re my comments on Christianity: I didn't seek to suggest that Christians do not regard themselves as, to some extent, sinners. However, many Christians' view of a figure such as Hitler is to suppose that he was probably sent to Hell for the things he did, and some may believe that he was 'evil'. They cannot reconcile their view of Hitler with their view of a 'true Christian' who may commit sins but acknowledges them & seeks forgiveness. I know of no evidence to suggest that Hitler repented any of the deaths he brought about. He stood by his decisions.

Really what determines whether this is an example of NTS fallacy is whether the distinction between 'true Christians' and 'false Christians' is one which can also be recognised, understood and acknowledged by non-Christians, or whether it is a distinction which exists only in the minds of some Christians to differentiate themselves from other Christians whose ideas or actions they do not like. Weaseloid 19:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

It still looks like a bad example to me. Are we, as a group, really able decide who is a "False Christian" (or Scotsman) or not? As was stated earlier self identification of Christians would seem to be the only way to go. For example are (or were) the following True Christians: Andrew Schlafly, The Pope, George Bush, Tony Blair, Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton.--Bob^{bing up} 03:43, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

In fact, I don't think that a legitimate example of NTS being misapplied will easily be found. It would need to be a case where there is an objectively recognised difference between 'X' and 'true X' (rather than a subjective difference perceived only by members of group 'X').

The Thomas Shirk 'No True Fallacy' source kindof disproves its own point: "Atheists love to use this [accusation of NTS fallacy] in order to force Christian apologists to accept their definition of everything from the meaning of the word “evolution” to something Christians should know better than they: what it means to be a Christian". Isn't this just implying that Christians themselves have the only valid opinions on the definition of Christianity (& therefore whether Hitler was a Christian)? Weaseloid 03:53, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

No true Liberal

A politician continually claims to be a Liberal. The causes and policies he trumpets do not seem to support that claim.

These include going to war against Iran and North Korea, a total free marketplace economy, shutting down 90% of govt bureaucracies, capital punishment for jaywalking, a govt set-aside for building only Catholic and Protestant churches, declaring Philadelphia to be a vegetarian-free zone, accusing George Soros of violating the McCain-Feingold act, a one-year moratorium on taxes, drilling for oil in the Hudson River, banning Barbara Streisand from the greater Wash DC area, and closing down the NYT, WashPost, and any radio shows that are not right-wing.

On weekends he joins others in closing down soup kitches and on vacations goes whaling with ten Republican senators.

A Libertarian and a bevy of non-Liberals insist that the aforementioned politician is a Liberal in spite of all Liberal protests that he is not.

Are prominent Liberals correct in saying that politician is no Liberal, and those that insist that he is are wrong, and obviously so?

-- Rem^Beau 07:32, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure the entire concept is clear here (and it's probably partly our article's fault). The "No true Scotsman" fallacy only is an issue if it follows a couple of other things - at the very least, the claim someone reprehensible is part of some group, then people in that group claiming they aren't to avoid "guilt by association". Essentially it only comes up in discussions that are more like flame wars than debates. For example (getting close to the original "joke"), I am Welsh. Fine. Now, if I bask in the reflected [glory] of all the wonderful things that it means to be Welsh, I risk also being scorched by the flames of any evil Welshmen burning in their Hell. (already we are in the land of pride/guilt by association, which is itself a fallacy). Now, if I were to try to salvage my pride in spite of the evildoers, I might make the dumb mistake of saying, "well, obviously they weren't true Welshmen". A more intelligent and appropriate response would, "well, yup, of course we're not all perfect, and some were right scoundrels, but I still liked the valley in which I grew up." Maintaining the fallacy depends on wanting to claim some moral high ground for some group one belongs to, as if it automatically reflects oneself, leading to denial of any wrongdoing by other members of that group - or claiming that they aren't really part of the exalted group. For my part, I doubt there is a single liberal politician, pundit, or organization that hasn't made me cringe at least once, if not more often. None of us are perfect in any way. ħuman 17:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Would it be appropriate to now remove the 'Misapplication' section of this article? All it tells us is that the NTS fallacy can be falsely applied (as can any fallacy or any other label for that matter), but the example given & explained in the external source is somewhat problematic. Plus wasn't it just planted there to try & undermine the message of this article? Weaseloid 17:42, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm fine with that, actually. I only put it in as a response to the thread above, and was hoping someone would come along with a better way of putting it. --Kels 17:48, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but please to keep the EL, it's hilarious. ħuman 17:55, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice work, ħuman. Weaseloid 19:39, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Saved people vs. believers

• Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.- John 3:16
• And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.- Acts 16:31

Believing in Jesus's resurrection and being saved are the same thing. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I guess if the Bible says it, it must be true. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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} 29 November 2011

Said person is defining the word "geologist" in a biased way.

The discussion refers to this reverted insertion. --ZooGuard (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are defining "geologist" as "someone who understands, uses, and respects the accepted methodologies and principles of geological science." That's what a real geologist is. People who claim to study geology but don't follow basic methods and principles are, in fact, not true geologists. No true Scotsman was born in Warsaw, lived the rest of his life in Kuala Lampur, and has no Scottish heritage or interest in Scottish identity or culture. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still an argument from definition and so proves nothing. ^{Don't click here} 10:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edit that Wizymon added, though, it was not really an argument from definition or trying to prove anything about what geologists are, as they didn't really utter the words "by definition". It could have been a reasoning from probabilistic inference for all you know, you don't really know what was going on in the person's mind when he/she was saying "real geologists in Kentucky". Nullahnung (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/Wizymon, it looks like someone trying to "turn atheists' arguments against them" or accuse the aforementioned group of hypocrisy, or something like that. Not exactly a good-faith editor.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

religious paragraph: atheism example is incorrect

"Another example would be Communism. Many of the world's most brutal Communists have been avowed atheists. Regardless of their irrational views on other matters, they did not believe in God (excluding a personality cult)."

This is in no way an example of no true Scotsman in regards to atheism. No Atheist would claim those brutal communists are no true atheists, they are atheists but their brutality was motivated by their other (irrational) views not by atheism. It's like claiming Hitler committed his atrocities because he was a vegetarian and then using this as an no true Scotsman example for vegetarians.

For example Stalin. He fought religion because he strove to be the one and only absolute ruler, the church simply was a rival power that had to be dealt with. In 1941 he started tolerating religion, the Russian orthodox church, Islam and Buddhism were given a privileged status. Stalin began using religion for propaganda purposes. Religious institutions were under his control and he used them for his own goals. If he was an atheist motivated by atheism to eradicate religion, he would never have done that. Stalin was a communistic dictator that took every measure he deemed necessary to increase his power, he was not an atheist motivated by atheism to commit brutal acts versus a whole variety of people: opposition-leaders inside the communistic party, heads of state, prime ministers and party-leaders of soviet republics, military leaders, clergy, intellectuals, artists, supporter of Trotsky, supporters of Zinoviev, right-wingers and regular citizens.

So in my opinion it would be better to remove the example from the no true Scotsman page, I didn't do this myself because I am not interested in starting an edit war and explaining my point in advance seemed a way to avoid that.

82.75.176.92 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a case of bad writing. I'm for it's excise from this article unless somebody can explain it in a way that makes sense. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"No Atheist would claim..."

No true atheist? :^> Geek USA (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it me or do people often make false accusations of the NTS?

Surely it isn't a fallacy when the person really doesn't meet the definition. For instance, I was born in England to English parents, I don't have any Scottish ancestry that I'm aware of and I haven't lived in Scotland for any longer than a two-week holiday, so clearly I don't meet the requirements to be considered a Scotsman by any definition, so if I did claim to be one, surely it would be perfectly reasonable for somebody to say "you're not really a Scotsman"? This is especially the case when things they say/do completely contradict the definition of what they're claiming to be, such as somebody claiming to be a vegetarian even though it's well known that they eat meat, as a vegetarian by definition is somebody who doesn't eat meat. It just seems to me as though a lot of people (including on RW) interpret it as "people are whatever they claim to be", which is just asinine. TheSocktor (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your thinking of this wrong. It's a variation of moving the goalposts. Prima: "No thing in category X have attribute Y", Secunda: "What about Z?"(It's always valid to dismiss this class of claim by counter-example) Prima: "Well Z isn't a true X because it has attribute Y", thus simultaneously moving the goalposts and begging the question.

When it comes to self-identification, that's crucially relevant to alignment with movements or beliefs(which you're lying and saying this isn't about). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"No True Scotsman" and Ambiguously-Defined Groups

How does one decide if a statement excluding some entity from a group is NTS when the group does not have a clear definition that the ad hoc exclusionary criterion isn't apart of?

For example, take many social movements. Take feminism. Often in a debate, whilst trying to discredit the movement, some anti-feminist will point to a small minority of people who have said irrational things, such as the ever popular "what about the feminists who say that all intercourse is rape?"

Of course, very few feminists hold this belief, and even the people whom the comment is commonly attributed to (Dworking and MacKinnon) never said it. In fact, the only place I ever see linked when somebody makes this claim the same obscure blog run by somebody who is obviously not completely mentally adjusted who thinks that all intercourse is rape, and that a perfect utopia would be one in which we segregated men into atomized camps away from society where they would eventually die off.

If somebody makes a claim that "feminists say all intercourse is rape," is it that fallacious to respond that no true feminist says this, in light of the fact that the idea has no standing in the vast majority of feminist discourse and literature, and most feminists probably do not believe it to be true?

I guess it would still be an NTS. It would just be that conceding to an anti-feminist that an incredibly small minority of feminists hold this particular crazy belief doesn't give their argument against feminism much strength.

How about cases where the properties of the person do seriously call into question whether they can count as part of a group, but do not provide certainty that they don't, because the group is loosely defined? There is no standard definition of feminism, and there exist many different streams. Holding that "the sexes are/should be equal" is not enough to be a feminists, because many people espouse that view and do not identify as feminists. So, say we come to somebody like Christina Hoff-Sommers, who calls herself a feminist, but spends the majority of her time arguing that concerns about rape are over-exaggerated, that the pay gap isn't real, that there is a "war on boys," works with a conservative think tank (there is no tradition of "conservative feminism" anywhere), supports GamerGate, and generally argues with feminists more often than she agrees? Is she merely a voice who questions some of the beliefs of her group? Or is she an anti-feminist who appropriated a term in order to gain credibility?

If I say that "feminists hold that X," and somebody responds "BUT WHAT ABOUT HOFF-SOMMERS THO, SHE DOESN'T HOLD THAT X" is it fallacious for me to question that she is a "true" feminist? She probably claims to hold the belief that the sexes are or should be equal. She might even say that women are disadvantaged compared to men, even if she never seems to care about talking at length about it or do anything about it. Is that enough to make her a feminist, when most of her behaviour is identical to that of any anti-feminist?

There are other social movements that are amorphous enough that any definition is almost impossible, and one is hard-pressed to say when an exclusionary criterion is ad hoc or not. But it seems that we know when something's bullshit when we see it.

Take Occupy Wall Street. Conservative media took snapped a few photos of skinheads who believe that the Jews secretly run the banks, and ran with the headline that OWS is antisemitic, despite the fact that we've seen little evidence that this gathering, which anybody could stand in, was one in which antisemitic sentiments had much currency. It feels fair to distance the movement from a few bigots

But now, GamerGate will say the same sort of thing. "We don't harass or dox people! Those aren't real Gators! No true GamerGater would do that! We're all about journalistic ethics!"

What are the criteria of being a member of GamerGate, and how do we distinguish "true Scotsmen" from "trolls," if they are even different in this case? Anybody who's used the hashtag?

The difference between the OWS case and the GG case, to me, seems to be that there weren't widespread reports of Jews systematically being harassed and abused at OWS congregations. However, whether committed by "True Scotsmen" or not, there is a long list of harassed female game developers, journalists, and their sympathizers, that is easily tied to the GG controversy. It seems far more ridiculous to say that no instance of abuse documented as being committed against targets of GG's criticism were initiated by members of GG than it is to say that four antisemitic signs in a crowd weren't representative of the most pressing concerns and most prevalent actions of the OWS protesters.

Thoughts?

Geek USA (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: Iph / talk / contribs} 03:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Seems to the opposite of Ad Hominem

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

I have to do more research on identifying this fallacy , I recently used it to describe an argument that could rationally be considered its opposite of how it has been defined here and so I'm having misgivings..I'll explain so that if someone already knows an alternate fallacy rule that more directly applies they might reference it here: The person was using a slew of fallacies to establish a fertile platform to characterize what would otherwise be outrageous and convoluted positions At some point they were challenged and decided they might invalidate the opposite position by essentially saying any discussion of the concepts conclusion constituted validation of the conclusion and therefore made those arguing in opposition to the conclusion were in fact supporting it by arguing against it. Ostensibly disqualifying their opposition to it, and thus their argument. I interpreted this as a manner of arguing that their arguments are invalidated due to complicity with the conclusion and thus lacking no moral or logical high ground to attack the conclusion. ie If you denounce or argue against scotsmen/scotland you are a scotsman(as to discuss Scotland one thus becomes a scotsman, however...no true scotsman can argue against Scotland or the morality/logic of being scottish that is hypocrisy, thus if you yourself ARE a scotsman you cannot effectively denounce other scotsmen nor Scotland itself. I kid you not, that was the logical heirarchy..it was pretty bad and I shouldn't even have indulged a contribution to the discussion but I couldn't resist..so I did and now I wonder if I may have misidentified which fallacy is at the core of this argument. I definitely know it is one or more fallacy arguments but it seemed a bit mostly derivative of a no true scotsman scenario but perhaps its opposame. Its clearly a convolution of logic, but to name it I'm not so sure anymore.99.49.254.141 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC) If I had to name it I'd call it positive exclusion. a form of no true scotsman wherein the argument is disqualified by being excluded from opposing the original position due to a perception of hypocrisy..or something like that. Kind of also like moving the goal posts now that fully analyzing it 99.49.254.141 (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)