No ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy claims Scots don’t put sugar in their porridge.
That is no true ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
I would say such a person may be committing the fallacy - but might not. Sometimes definitions do legitimately need clarifying with further detail along the way.
The fallacy occurs when the new snippet of definition is conspicuously created arbitrarily to avoid addressing (and in response to) a refutation.
Sort of. The argument doesn’t even have to proceed; it simply needs to have the same definition used to prove itself. I dated a girl once who, some time after we broke up, decided to become an evangelical Christian just to please her new boyfriend. She informed me that Christians were so blessed by God that they never get sick.
Her: Real Christians never get sick.
Me: Didn’t you tell me that (boyfriend’s brother) got mononucleosis just a month ago?
Her: Well, I guess he’s not really a Christian.
Me: But doesn’t he go to church and all that jazz?
Her: Real Christians never get sick, so he must not be a real Christian inside.
It is, as
The “Victory by definition” term is very apt. A genuine No True Scotsman fallacy is one where the statement implicity creates a definition of the set that is not logical or generally accepted:
No true American would learn to speak French. (Assumes a definition of “American” that defies logic or accepted usage.)
No true man doesn’t like football. (Defines “man” in an ethnocentric, illogical manner.)
No true friend of mine would refuse to lend me $5000. (Places an illogical, self-serving condition on the definition of “Friend.”)