No Proper Statesman: Difference between revisions
From Liberpedia
(Created page with "* No true Scotsman * The ‘No Proper Statesman‘ is a fallacy akin to the ‘No true Scotsman‘. It is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“States do not violate individuals’ rights”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, the user instead modifies the original assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric,… [http://www.proper...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* [[No true Scotsman]] | * [[No true Scotsman]] | ||
* The ‘No Proper Statesman‘ is a fallacy akin to the ‘No true Scotsman‘. It is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“States do not violate individuals’ rights”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, the user instead modifies the original assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric,… [http://www.propertyrightsmatter.com/well-no-proper-statesmen/] | * The ‘No Proper Statesman‘ is a fallacy akin to the ‘No true Scotsman‘. It is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“States do not violate individuals’ rights”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, the user instead modifies the original assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric,… [http://www.propertyrightsmatter.com/well-no-proper-statesmen/] [https://web.archive.org/web/20180304215912/http://www.propertyrightsmatter.com/] | ||
* [[Proper government]] | |||
[[Category:Logical fallacies]] | |||
Latest revision as of 08:21, 9 May 2023
- The ‘No Proper Statesman‘ is a fallacy akin to the ‘No true Scotsman‘. It is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“States do not violate individuals’ rights”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, the user instead modifies the original assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric,… [1] [2]
