Is everyone in this Reddit thread doing "No True Scotsman"?

The basic gist of this post is the idea that the Trump Assassin, Thomas Crooks, despite evidence of voting Republican,  he was anti-Trump, and thus not Republican.

What idiots like you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter what his voter registration says. He obviously hated Donald Trump enough to try and kill him. I haven't heard a single Republican call for that level of violence regardless of how they feel about him. You democrats on the other hand have been foaming at the mouth screaming for someone to "Take him out." for years. This is on you and you alone. Instead of trying to deflect blame you should be standing with your head bowed in shame for what you have done. You make me sick.

 

"Seems like" but in fact was the opposite.
He registered to counter-primary Trump.

 

It's funny cause there was a whole leftist movement around the time her registered to be a republican to get Trump out of the primaries. Plus, even if he was a legit republican then, a lot can happen to one's mind to turn them to be radical for the other side in 3 years.

 

This is just coping. Like not all Republicans are in for Trump.

I am not sure if your summary is a fair assessment of what was quoted. You said, "...he was anti-Trump, and thus not Republican." Reading the rant, I don't see that claim being made. The argument appears to be he was registered Republican so he can vote against Trump in the primary and he was Republican but became radicalized the other way. So I don't see a no true scotsman here.

This isn't to say the rant isn't chock full of reasoning problems. Without knowing what this actually in response to, I will just assume for the sake of this analysis, that he is responding to "the shooter was a registered Republican". If that is the case:

1) "He obviously hated Donald Trump enough to try and kill him." non sequitur - this is irreverent to the fact he was a republican. As it was already pointed out, countless Republicans hate Trump and believe he has destroyed the Republican party, and if elected again, it will be the end of the party for good (and democracy).

2) " I haven't heard a single Republican call for that level of violence regardless of how they feel about him." Just because this person hasn't heard of any such calls doesn't mean they haven't been made. Perhaps this is fair if no such calls really exist but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

3) "You democrats on the other hand have been foaming at the mouth screaming for someone to "Take him out." for years." This is typical ignorant rhetoric that judges every group member based on the worst elements of the group. stereotyping (the fallacy) and perhaps the leading cause of political division today.

4) "This is on you and you alone." oversimplified cause fallacy The shooters gun fetish and his ability to get the military-grade weapon clearly played a role, and it is clear what party is responsible for that.

5) "Instead of trying to deflect blame you should be standing with your head bowed in shame for what you have done." Unless the person being responded to here was specifically calling for violence against Trump, this is an irrational conclusion.

6) "He registered to counter-primary Trump." conspiracy theory or claim without proper support at best.

Again, without knowing the exact argument being responded to, this is the best I can do.

 

Let's break down the situation outlined in the Reddit thread and see if a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is in play here.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when someone redefines a category to exclude counterexamples that disprove their assertion. Essentially, it's a form of circular reasoning where a person shifts the goalposts to protect their claim from being falsified.

In this case, the assertion seems to be that the individual, Thomas Crooks, despite evidence of voting Republican, is claimed by some to be anti-Trump and therefore not a "true" Republican.

Let's dissect this:

1. **Evidence of Voting Patterns**: There's provided evidence showing that Thomas Crooks voted Republican. This is a tangible piece of data that should be included in any logical consideration of his political affiliation.

2. **Claim of Being Anti-Trump**: Some in the thread argue that despite his voting record, his anti-Trump stance means he's not a true Republican.

To determine if a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is occurring, we need to analyze the logical structure:

- If the original claim is "All Republicans support Trump," then presenting an anti-Trump Republican should challenge this generalization.
- Responding to this challenge by saying, "No true Republican can be anti-Trump" would be moving the goalpost. Here, the category of 'Republican' is being redefined to exclude any counterexample that disproves the original claim.

**Logical Fallacy Analysis**:

- **No True Scotsman Fallacy**: By asserting that Crooks is not a "true" Republican because of his anti-Trump stance despite evidence he votes Republican, it fits the pattern of "No True Scotsman." It redefines what it means to be a Republican to exclude those who are anti-Trump, thus protecting the original assertion.

- **Cognitive Bias**: Confirmation bias might also be at play, where people are interpreting facts to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. If someone believes that all Republicans must support Trump, they might dismiss any evidence to the contrary or reinterpret it to fit their view.

- **Poor Logic and Reasoning**: This line of argumentation lacks sound reasoning because it uses a tautological definition (a true Republican supports Trump) which can't be falsified and thus isn't a strong, logical proposition.

In conclusion, claiming that Thomas Crooks is not a "true" Republican because he is anti-Trump, despite his voting record, appears to be an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. People in the Reddit thread who are advancing this argument are, in fact, engaging in this logical fallacy.

This strikes me as a classic Tu Quoque ad Hominem (Whataboutism) argument