Yeah. In my (admittedly sketchy) example I omitted the phrase which is usually understood in all blowhard declarations: "In my experience ..." which would have salvaged the situation; but still, your formulation is more rigorous.
But in the "No True Scotsman," the assertion is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy".
No. I think "no true Scotsman" usually asserted as a hasty retreat from the original, all-inclusive claim ("no Scotsman"), once the original claim has been rebutted with a counter-example. Sort of a moving of the goalposts.
I still believe it's a combination of equivocation ("Scotsman" is quickly redefined as "true Scotsman" to avoid refutation, which is clearly an example of equivocation) and petitio principii (one assumes that no real Scotsman woul[d] put syrup on his haggis in order to justify the equivocation of who is, or is not, a "Scotsman."
Continue to contemplate, grasshopper.
No. I think "no true Scotsman" usually asserted as a hasty retreat from the original, all-inclusive claim ("no Scotsman"), once the original claim has been rebutted with a counter-example. Sort of a moving of the goalposts.
Allow me to rephrase mu original statement, thusly: "But in the "No True Scotsman," the original assertion [meaning "No scotsman would..."] is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy," as it is not asserted as having followed from some general principle.
We are in agreement on the balance of your analysis: it IS "goal post moving" -- which I call a form of equivocation in this instance, one which is rationalized by begging the question of just what a "true Scotsman" would or would not do. Please accept my apologies for the lack of clarity in my previous reply.