You're completely misrepresenting what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. The key characteristic of a No True Scotsman fallacy is that the arguers original claim is revised to handle a counterexample. In the titular example, the arguer originally says "no Scotsman does x," and the obvious implied definition of "Scotsman" is simply a man from Scotland. But when faced with a counterexample (a man from Scotland who does do x), the arguer revises the original claim by adding the word "true." Under this revelation, the arguer's original claim is not an actual claim about what men from Scotland do, but rather a proposed definition for the term "true Scotsman."
Most of the time I see No True Scotsman called, it's because they were using ordinary imprecise language even though their group is real and the word they used for it is reasonable. Not because they were proposing a 'true' definition.
Such as 'no vegan eats meat' 'what if they had fries at mcdonalds with secret meat in the oil' 'okay no vegan purposefully eats meat' 'ha! you narrowed the group! no true scotsman! you lose!'
>You're completely misrepresenting what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. The key characteristic of a No True Scotsman fallacy is that the arguers original claim is revised to handle a counterexample.
Yes. I don't think I'm misrepresenting it. Revising an original claim to handle a counterexample is something that is essential in actual conversations. It can just mean you forgot an important distinction in your original claim.
>Under this revelation, the arguer's original claim is not an actual claim about what men from Scotland do, but rather a proposed definition for the term "true Scotsman."
That's beside the point. In real life conversations, we often use the term X to mean the essense of X (the true X) and not just the bare notion of X. That is, there's nothing fallacious about the following exchange:
The example you give about metal fans and Bieber is a perfect example of No True Scotsman. The term "metal fan" will be widely understood to mean "someone who likes metal music," not "someone who never listens to anything other than metal music." The initial claim is clearly false, so the person revises the claim to contain the word "true," which reduces the argument to nothing more than "well I refuse to consider you a metal fan if you listen to Bieber."
