Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tactical Peek

(1,276 posts)
3. Luttig is guilty - of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Fri Nov 1, 2024, 08:28 PM
Nov 1
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar terms.[4][2]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[5]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The Republican Party is the national conservative party.

The Republican Party nominated Donald Trump for president three times, and elected him to office once, as a Republican.

Former president Donald Trump is today the leader of the Republican Party, a conservative Republican.

Wise up, Luttig.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Cable News Clips»Judge Luttig: Donald Trum...»Reply #3