Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

In my opinion, "no True Scotsman" is not a logical fallacy at all. It might sometimes be an evasion, but that would depend on what were the intentions of whoever used this argument.Admittedly, it is also my opinion that most "logical arguments" aren't. That is, they are not really logical arguments.What makes something a logical argument is the following of particular rules of inference to reach a conclusion. Those rules of inference are supposed to be formal, thus independent of the meaning of the terms involved. A logic fallacy is the incorrect application of those rules of inference.Most arguments, including most of what are called "logical arguments" are really arguments about the premises, or arguments about the meanings of the terms. Thus what is in dispute is not the logic.This thread already demonstrates my point. Several posters have disagreed with you over the meaning of "true Scotsman". And they haven't all agreed with each other as to what that meaning is.

ROTFLPeople disagree all the time about who is and who isn't a Christian.If there are two Christians in the room, there will be at least two different sets of standards as to what makes somebody a Christian.

I think you are taking the expression "no true Scotsman" too literally.When somebody uses the expression "No true Scotsman" in such an argument, that person is denying that the ordinary meaning of "Scotsman" is the right one, and insisting that his own personal (and subjective) meaning is the one that counts in this case. means something very different from The distinction you have been making between "Scotsman" and "Christian" simply does not seem relevant to the way NTS is used.