On Catholicism!

[Kyuuketsuki]

As I understand it, the No True Scotsman is a recognised fallacious argument where a debater, in essence, argues that their opponent cannot understand why something is so without either becoming what they are/experiencing what they have/knowing what they know. Someone (someone other than you that is ... sorry but I wouldn't trust you to tell me my weight correctly even if you'd just measured it) will no doubt correct me if I have misunderstood it.

You have used that style of argument on several occasions in this forum and are therefore guilty of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

That isn't what I understand to be the True Scotsman fallacy.

Here it is:

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."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)


In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e., a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

But you're ignoring my answers right?

OK ... can someone else clear this up?

I believe that if someone of group X (for instance Christian) sees someone else who also claims to be of group X behaving in a fashion they don't approve (they consider their behaviour to be un-group X like) and as a result brands them something other than group X or not a true group X person then that is invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Simple question ... am I right and if not which fallacy (if any) is it?

Kyu