3 ms·

>If you want to see a real socialist No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Saying there is someone out there that is worse actually does

>If you want to see a real socialist No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Saying there is someone out there that is worse actually does nothing to address the original point. Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative?

yongjik 13y ago
Dude, calling Obama a socialist is not comparable to calling Romney conservative. It's more like calling Romney gay. Oh, you say he isn't gay? No true homosexual Scotsman, it seems.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Who says discussions on the Internet should be free of fallacy?
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Agreed. I bet there was very little debate in soviet Russia or in nazi Germany, so at least we have some kind of debate here. We are clearly better than those two examples.
haberman 13y ago
> No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Perhaps, but this is not No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman involves ignoring a counterexample to a general/universal claim. For example, if I said "No Republican would vote to increase the deficit" and you countered by saying "actually, George W. Bush is a Republican and did in fact vote to increase the deficit," and I responded by saying, "well, no TRUE Republican would vote to increase the deficit," that would be No True Scotsman. Because I'm ignoring the fact that my broad, sweeping rule has a clear counterexample. Those elements are not here in this case. I did not make a broad sweeping claim, instead I made a specific one (Obama is not a socialist). Ergo, it is not No True Scotsman. > Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative? "Liberal" and "conservative" describes a spectrum of political belief. If some tea party members have much more extreme views than Romney, then yes, it would demonstrate that Romney is less conservative than more extremely conservative people, but does not refute that he is right-of-center.

yongjik 13y ago

Dude, calling Obama a socialist is not comparable to calling Romney conservative. It's more like calling Romney gay. Oh, you say he isn't gay? No true homosexual Scotsman, it seems.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Who says discussions on the Internet should be free of fallacy?

IgorPartola 13y ago
Agreed. I bet there was very little debate in soviet Russia or in nazi Germany, so at least we have some kind of debate here. We are clearly better than those two examples.

haberman 13y ago

> No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Perhaps, but this is not No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman involves ignoring a counterexample to a general/universal claim. For example, if I said "No Republican would vote to increase the deficit" and you countered by saying "actually, George W. Bush is a Republican and did in fact vote to increase the deficit," and I responded by saying, "well, no TRUE Republican would vote to increase the deficit," that would be No True Scotsman. Because I'm ignoring the fact that my broad, sweeping rule has a clear counterexample. Those elements are not here in this case. I did not make a broad sweeping claim, instead I made a specific one (Obama is not a socialist). Ergo, it is not No True Scotsman. > Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative? "Liberal" and "conservative" describes a spectrum of political belief. If some tea party members have much more extreme views than Romney, then yes, it would demonstrate that Romney is less conservative than more extremely conservative people, but does not refute that he is right-of-center.