Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]:
This form of argument is a informal fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
Well, I will just stick with my original premise that there were a bunch of long-time FReepers who were either never conservative to start with or had devolved into liberalism over a period of time. The fact remains that we don’t need people polluting a conservative forum with the notion that liberalism is the answer.
“No true Scotsman”
Talking aboot the mighty Scots, are ye?
“A Scotsman was at a baseball game. It was the first time he had ever seen the sport so he sat quietly.
The first batter approached the plate, took a few swings and then hit a double. Everyone was on their feet screaming “Run, Run!” This happened two more times, with a single and a triple. The Scot was now excited and ready to get into the game.The next batter came up and four balls went by. The umpire called “walk” and the batter started on a slow trot to first. The Scotsman, extremely
excited now, stood up and screamed, “R-R-Run ye basstarrd, rrrun!” Everyone around him started laughing. So the Scotsman, extremely embarrassed, sat back down.
A friendly fan, seeing the Scotsman’s embarrassment, leaned over and said, “He can’t run - he got four balls.
“The Scotsman then stood up and screamed, “Walk with prrride,mon...walk with prrride!”