Does the "No True Scotsman" fallacy apply directly or indirectly to an ideological basis, or is it just contained within a person-identifier? I guess that means that, much like the "True Christian", "True Liberal", "True Conservative" or whatever person-identifiable terms, these people must fall under the category of, "True" Social Justice Engineer.

This also includes my rants about how being "rational" is also used as nothing more than another "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You know, it implies "being calm" suddenly means you're right, but in actuality both sides will stand in opposition, throwing baseless and irrelevant chatter about "sensationalism", "who is being more emotional than who", etc. What that then boils down to is yet again, "No true rational person would ever say that." That also means that no calm person has ever said anything wrong. That's blatantly just not possible; these people who are being calm in their delivery have never made a single mistake in their lives. Actually, when proven wrong, they go right back to claiming how everyone who isn't as calm as them are obviously "sensationalists" or are too emotionally attached to their argument. You know, like how gun-nuts are far too attached to their weapons, because that's all they live for and therefore threaten violent revolution if someone takes away their toys? (LOL)

Of course, this would then be about the concept of "whoever coined the term is part of the Master Race, and everyone who uses it should bow down and suck his cock." This Luigi Tapparelli f*cker who is apparently a Jesuit is always used as the basis of how people, how do you say, "slandered" his wonderfully asinine "social justice" term. He also uses paradoxical claims which are completely irrelevant to the topic which apparently is supposed to suddenly make his point correct. I could talk like that, too with that morale booster tone of voice like all the other religious speakers who, for some f*cked reason, almost always have the same tone of voice. (You could practically hear the "Amen's" echoing off the walls with his manipulative choice of words. I swear those guys are picked from an American Idol lineup to see who has the closest, stereotypical voice like the rest, but that's irrelevant.)

I'm going to assume that parts of this are his own excerpts, but also due to the fact that this person writing said article about him needs to be taken down a notch off his pedestal:

Something that this Weegee (lol) apparently wrote:
"Here in a few words is the theory of social existence based upon the facts of history, and likewise confirmed by those facts. The existence of associations of men united by nature, equal to one another in their nature, unequal in their persons, free in their power of choice and therefore in need of a principle of unity: these are the chief facts of history to which we have applied the universal principle of duty. The results of this application are that man needs always to be governed, and so he is, in point of fact; that he who governs is stronger and at the same time possesses authority, and so he actually is; that subjects are not sovereigns, and in point of fact they are not. . . . Compare this theory of the facts of history with the hypotheses of the social contract where man is by nature free but in fact is in chains; by right is sovereign but in fact is a subject; creates the society, but in fact is created by it; confers authority, but in fact has no part of that authority; has made a pact, but did no negotiating; did it to secure all his rights, and meanwhile gave them away; believes every state to be a republic, yet sees there are monarchies; believes all men are equal, yet sees everywhere a hierarchy of classes; believes it gives consent, yet sees things happen despite it; believes it gives laws, yet sees that it receives them. . . . Compare these two doctrines, I say, and judge which of them is true!"

Sentence one apparently makes the assumption that what he's about to say is true without question; don't question him. Don't you love when when people throw around the terms "facts" and "truth" around repeatedly to make it seem less stupid, but in turn makes it dumber?

This person uses terms to make a "hierarchy" seem less like a "hierarchy" that is supposed to be obeyed based upon what the "hierarchy" is supposed to convey. What is the "hierarchy" supposed to convey? Everything claimed within this is a paradox; it claims that who is free isn't free, who is the subject of it isn't the subject of it, and who rules it isn't who rules it. It's basically used as justification that everything the Jesuits/Catholics say is law without question, because who is writing the laws isn't the one who is writing the laws, but everyone should believe them, because history says everyone should believe them. My history says no; you're an idiot and are trying to coerce me into believing you, because you're actually the "hierarchy" of your time, and are trying to tell me that you're not and are actually the "subject". Of course, since this argument is so ass-backwards, anyone can use this to justify their new, dictator/monarch-level laws and make it seem like they have your best interests at heart. Since people apparently changed the underlying definition of "social justice", I don't see how they can't take that to say anything else they want. This is because it's a morale booster, it's meant to sensationalize whatever law they want put in place, but it is so generic that the statement itself could only justify more government rather than less, because no one knows where the "hierarchy" is coming from or what relevance it even conveys.

This person also uses terms throughout this to justify "men" being in the workforce. This person is also in the age of the "hierarchy" that despised the concept of women working, and he barely made an effort to remedy that. The idea of using nothing but "father", "son", "he", and "men" throughout these excerpts quite exemplifies that Weegee didn't even bother to at least address the possibly of someone other than a paradoxical man pulling the strings and using circular logic.

Here are two things said by the person writing about him:
-This is the phrase he said right after the excerpt above:

"The liberal theories of society are nothing more than theories, mere speculation. They are not drawn from history and are insufficient to explain the realities of history."

Now, depending upon the lovely baseless assumptions and "No True Scotsman" fallacies ridden throughout the entire concept of the article, what is to say about the term "liberal"? Well, let's take this addendum stated on the top of this page about Ludwig von Mises against anarchy

"[Note: In the following excerpts from the works of Ludwig von Mises, American readers must keep in mind the differences in terminology which are sometimes encountered between the way Americans use political labels today and the way those same words were used by Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century European scholars such as Mises. For example, the term "liberal' does not here refer to the Big-Government, welfare-statist tax-and-tax, regulate-and-regulate, and spend-and-spend modern American "liberalism" which characterizes political life in the United States at this time and which is advocated most avidly by the American Democrat Party. Quite the contrary, what Mises means by "liberalism" is classical liberalism -- the system of limited constitutional government, politically unhampered markets, respect for private property, and freedom for the adult individual who lives at peace with his neighbors. In the United States, these ideals are generally called "conservatism" today as the U.S. has strong classical liberal traditions and institutions including the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, private ownership of property, free enterprise (in earlier times of our history at least), respect for the rule of law, etc. When Mises extols the benefits of what he calls "liberalism" here, he does not mean the Big-Government authoritarian leftism of modern American liberalism as demanded by such politicians as Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Albert Gore, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, or the Clintons, but rather the free and open society that emerged as a result of imposing on government (both kings and parliaments) constitutional and legal restrictions -- and especially the general policy of laissez faire with respect to non-violent activities of production and trade -- so that individual freedom and enterprise could thrive without coercive interference.]"

That whole bit about "classical liberalism" sounds like it ramps up more context about the whole, "No True Liberal would ever do that" clause. Only, it's become more diluted than the claim even adheres to. Is it odd to conclude that "classical liberalism" is what makes up "conservatives" today, whereas making the assumption that Weegee claiming to be conservative matches him up with the "classical conservative" bit which resolved around even worse blatant stupidity than today? Of course, "No True Conservative" would ever be like how they were in the 1700's, as can conclude about Weegee's lack of understanding about his totally religious dictatorship. You know, because since I view him as being part of the "hierarchy" that it must mean that what he is saying is correct because I view him as a dictator?

Second phrase by this author:
"Taparelli has a good claim to being the father of Catholic social teaching."

There you have it. Since Jesus' interpretation and broken assumptions through piss-poor wordings and 40+ English translations of the Bible is completely irrelevant with his paradoxical claims, Luigi "Da Weegee" Tapparelli is the new father of religious paradoxical claims.

I grow tired of these things, and I had that feeling that this was going to be one hell of a trip.