Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8676289" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's... well, it's not anything close to a No True Scotsman.&nbsp; For that to occur, you have to have a class of things, and then point at a thing that absolutely should belong in that class and say it doesn't because it's fails some purity test that's not really a descriptor of the class.&nbsp; The titular example is of a Scotsman not wearing a kilt being No True Scotsman.&nbsp; Of course he's a Scotsman -- wearing a kilt is not the definitional determiner of being a Scotsman.&nbsp; And that is utter lacking in any form in the post you just accused of being a No True Scotsman fallacy.What I find helpful with the informal fallacies is to not deploy their names only, but rather to show the work of how the fallacy is occurring by pointing out the actual flaw in argument.&nbsp; Then, if you want to add the fallacy name, you've already shown your work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8676289, member: 16814"] That's... well, it's not anything close to a No True Scotsman. For that to occur, you have to have a class of things, and then point at a thing that absolutely should belong in that class and say it doesn't because it's fails some purity test that's not really a descriptor of the class. The titular example is of a Scotsman not wearing a kilt being No True Scotsman. Of course he's a Scotsman -- wearing a kilt is not the definitional determiner of being a Scotsman. And that is utter lacking in any form in the post you just accused of being a No True Scotsman fallacy. What I find helpful with the informal fallacies is to not deploy their names only, but rather to show the work of how the fallacy is occurring by pointing out the actual flaw in argument. Then, if you want to add the fallacy name, you've already shown your work. [/QUOTE]

Verification