'no true scotsman' page on wikipedia: 'Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
Here it changes from "no scotsman" to "no true scotsman". It doesn't begin with "no true scotsman".
Also on atheist.net where I learnt about it, I was told that it only applies if you change your previous definition by ADDING "true" to it afterwards to cover up your previous claim
Is that incorrect?
Here it changes from "no scotsman" to "no true scotsman". It doesn't begin with "no true scotsman".
Also on atheist.net where I learnt about it, I was told that it only applies if you change your previous definition by ADDING "true" to it afterwards to cover up your previous claim
Is that incorrect?
