For intrepid hunters of the wild fallacy, no internet environment boasts more witless prey than Yahoo! News.
Yesterday, I wrote about the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Today, I went on a Scotsman safari. I found this example in the first four comments of the first post (see below) I clicked on.
This is pretty much the entire original post:
I think it can accurately be summarized as “women, calm down; beauty doesn’t require a thigh gap” or, as my son said: “back in my day, we didn’t have thigh gaps.”
A reader and haver-of-a-thigh-gap hopped in to do a little special snow-flaking (it’s akin to a strawman fallacy, where you change the direction of the argument to one you are more comfortable with or better able to win). This is where the No True Scotsman creeps in. Two commenters write back to Little Miss Thigh Gap and insist that a thigh gap can only be the product of thinness, so her supposed thigh gap isn’t relevant or is No True Thigh Gap!
Granted, her entire first claim is ridiculous (“A ‘thigh gap’ is not from being too thin.”). But, the commenters don’t point out why her claim is wrong (a thigh gap isn’t either from being thin or not from it; there are more factors), they actually try to engage the claim with a Scotsman.
Commenters who change a discussion to one about their body, preferences, medical needs, etc. remind me of my mom. She always tried to divert discussions. My dad taught me to say, “We aren’t talking about you right now. When we are done talking about this issue, we can get back to you.”
Also, the dude who follows up with an invite and a testament to his morals. It’s the rare and illusive Scotsman/Negging hybrid.