Woman and man accused of sex outside marriage and drinking alcohol faced what is likely to be one of the severest punishments since Aceh province adopted sharia law
No. That logical fallacy is completely misunderstood and posted everywhere. It only occurs when you continue to shift the goalposts. If someone makes a claim and defends it continuously, then the fallacy does not occur.
“No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, or other similar terms.[4][2]”
Thats not how sharia law works. They use it as a reason when its not.
Its clearly how it works in practice.
It‘s what happens when any religious text is beholden to interpretation.
Its what happens when any religious text ~~is beholden to interpretation. ~~
No true Scottsman, he?
No. That logical fallacy is completely misunderstood and posted everywhere. It only occurs when you continue to shift the goalposts. If someone makes a claim and defends it continuously, then the fallacy does not occur.
“No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.[1][2][3] Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, or other similar terms.[4][2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman