In defence of True Scotsmen

[LeftishBrit]

I think that True Scotsmen sometimes get a bit of a bad rap, in religion and in politics.

Of course, there is always debate about what Christianity, or Islam, or leftism, or Conservativism consists of. And from a logical point of view, it *is* unreasonable to say that 'Tom is no true Christian, because he supports violence toward innocent Iraqis and is preoccupied with punishing gays instead of helping the poor' or 'Ahmed is no true Muslim because he approves of blowing people up as a political technique and executing anyone who disagrees with him, instead of following a life of peace and justice' or 'Joe was no true leftist, because he oppressed people outside his own elite, and murdered and starved millions, instead of creating social justice and equality for all.' Because there can always be other people who disagree and consider that Christianity is about punishing social nonconformists, and that Islam is about bringing the faith to all at the point of a sword, and that socialism is all about crushing deviationists. And religious books tend to say lots of things that contradict each other, and as political philosophies are largely defined by those who practice them, it's hard to say which interpretation is correct.

But morally or politically? I consider that religions and many other ideologies tend to be tools as much as driving forces, used by harsh or kind people in the cause of kindness or harshness. And I would prefer that people consider that the harsh and violent are not true Christians, or Muslims, or leftists, or for that matter Scotsmen, and that they use their beliefs or identities in the cause of kindness, than that they use Christianity, or Islam, or Communism, or nationalism to justify harsh or violent actions.

So if people wish to use the No True Scotman argument, I will take it as an attempt to reject and exclude nasty people from one's group. Not a bad idea, generally.

But then of course I'm only of 25% Scottish descent, and I don't like porridge, so I'm obviously No True Scotswoman!

[PETRUS]

1. Yep, and

I tend to think people too often use such terms (how about "freedom!") in order to deceive. Policies should not be justified with vague ideological abstractions. Tell me what kind of world you want and how you think we can get there. Then we can discuss your goals and prescriptions honestly, debate their merits, implement policy, measure the results and compare them to your stated intentions. I know my point has more to do with politics than religion, but I think it's closely related to your observation.

[MineralMan]

2. The lack of a universal definition of Christianity is at fault

with this. The denominationalism that has so divided Christendom has resulted in there being no real definition of what a Christian is that is accepted by all Christians. So, any sect or denomination can freely declare any other as not true Christianity. And that extends right down to the individual Christian. In many ways, there are really no true Christians today. And yet, there are many hundreds of millions of them at the same time.

That's why it's meaningless to say that anyone who styles him or herself as a Christian is not a true Christian. It all depends on where you're standing.

[Meshuga]

4. Then perhaps it would be better to use the "No Good Scotsmen" argument...

...rather than the "No True Scotsmen" argument. :-)

This way it would be a good way to call out the Christian right while avoiding the tangents caused by the definition issue.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I agree.

[Warpy]

5. Exactly, added to a phony solidarity with people

whose actual beliefs are diametrically opposed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. We have the same situation in the Democratic Party

There is no agreement on what a Democrat should be except an unRepublican.

Yet there are many who claim to be Democrats who espouse ideas that are typically considered Republican, such as being "pro-business" and for "small government."

[provis99]

6. A Democrat is one who registers to vote as a Democrat.

There, simple and easy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Unless they're a crossover voter or infiltrator or live in a state with nonpartisan registration

:shrug:

(Minnesota has nonpartisan registration, by the way.)

[provis99]

11. so they are "No True Democrat"?

[Meshuga]

9. Not necessarily

A former co-worker of mine who is a die-hard Republican (the Rush Limbaugh listening type) registered as a Democrat in Maryland so he could vote in the democratic primaries for a candidate he thought was against the Democratic party interest. His attempt backfired since the guy he thought was going to lose in November actually won.

I don't think my former co-worker is a true democrat based on his registration.

[provis99]

10. dude, you just used the no True Scotsman argument...

you missed the entire point of the OP.

[Meshuga]

12. If a person missed something here that person was you

I'm sorry but claiming that my former co-worker who is a proud and self-identified Republican is not a "true democrat" (based on your definition of a democrat) is not a true scotsman fallacy. :eyes:

I am merely disagreeing with your original assertion that someone is automatically a Democrat based on registration. In fact, it would be a no true scotsman fallacy for a Republican to use my former co-workers actions to disqualify him and say he is "not a true Republican." Ironically, your narrow definition of who is a Democrat would allow such fallacy.

The no true scotsman is a fallacy committed by an individual who denies that another person is a member of his/her group just because the other person did something (seen as negative) that a member of the group would supposedly not do. For example, someone who claims that "GW Bush is not a true Christian because of his politics" is committing the no true scotsman fallacy since Bush is clearly a proud and self-proclaimed born again churchgoing Christian.