> 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

> 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.