(Post a new comment)

	scifantasy 2007-06-30 01:12 pm UTC (link)
	"I'm A Scotsman," maybe, since this sounds a lot like the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	jim_smith 2007-06-30 07:46 pm UTC (link)
	So basically this concept was already invented by somebody else and doesn't need a Jurisimprudence law in the first place. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

scifantasy
2007-06-30 07:50 pm UTC (link)

I'm not going to say that--though it's likely that matters of True Scotsman issues will usually be spoken by someone using himself as a standard, (a Scotsman saying it), it's not strictly necessary. I once got smacked down in an argument by someone pointing out I was applying True Scotsman to Republicans, and I wasn't in the "Real Republican" set I was trying to (re-)define.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jim_smith
2007-06-30 08:10 pm UTC (link)

I suppose the spirit of the No True Scotsman fallacy requires that the person committing the fallacy consider himself to be the figurative True Scotsman, yes.

But the point of the fallacy is the overgeneralization of what all Scotsmen do, and the failure of the highly subjective qualifier "true" to refine the generalization into a factual statement. In your example, you were being hypocritical for declaring what "True Republicans" should do without being a Republican yourself. But you were also still making the same basic logical fallacy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

scifantasy
2007-06-30 08:13 pm UTC (link)

I suppose the spirit of the No True Scotsman fallacy requires that the person committing the fallacy consider himself to be the figurative True Scotsman, yes.

No, my point is that it doesn't. I was making an archetypal example of the fallacy without being a Republican, after all.

This proposed law says that all people who make No True Scotsman fallacies will consider themselves True Scotsmen. This claim is not present in the fallacy itself, and is an interesting addition (one I don't agree with, by the way--it's as easy to define wrongness to include someone as to define rightness to exclude him, and in that case whoever is defining will define himself out of the group). So it may or may not be a worthy addition to the books.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	sarajayechan 2007-06-30 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	Law of True Somethingorother? (Glad you're making this law, too, it pisses me off when people whip out the True Fans or Real Gamers card) (Reply to this)

	anon_a_mouse 2007-06-30 04:32 pm UTC (link)
	The Real Ninja Rule. (Reply to this)

	mmanurere 2007-07-01 01:07 am UTC (link)
	Needs more Real Inspector Hound. (Reply to this)