Would a true Buddhist engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy? The No true Scotsman fallacy is a rhetorical trick to avert criticism of a generalization by appealing to the impurity of counterexamples i.e., "no true Scotsman would do such a thing!"

My question is whether or not a true Buddhist would ever appeal to such a juvenile rhetorical trick?

I'm thinking that no true Buddhist would ever do this as I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation. What's the community think?
I see The True Scotsman Fallacy as a joking illustration of reification. There is obviously no such thing as THE TRUE Scotsman. It's an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Every Scotsman is different and not all of them even live in Scotland! How can we possibly say that some of them are "true" and some are "fake"?

Similarly, "TRUE Buddhist" is an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Believing that True Buddhists actually exist or that someone is a true Buddhist while someone else is not, are two examples of reification.

So to ask "would a true Buddhist engage in The True Scotsman Fallacy" is akin to asking whether a reification would engage in reification. And of course it happens all the time! Someone considering himself a "true Buddhist" (I don't want to name any users here but I can think of a few) is by definition rather prone to engaging into a "no true Buddhist would do or say X, Y, Z" line of argument. Not to say that, even more generally, someone considering himself a sentient being is probably rather likely to have an unconscious predilection for engaging into all types of reifying views that lead to quarrels and arguments.

In fact the entire Buddhist path (according to Mahayana interpretation) can be seen as growing up from naive reification and into the "wisdom" (wisdom or prajna being a short word for "a skillful modus operandi based on special insight into the nature of phenomena with awareness of the rewards of, the dangers of, and the escape from - reification"). In this sense of course, a "true Buddhist" (from streamenterer and above, or from 1st Bhumi and above in Mahayana) would NOT engage into naive reifying definitions like "the true Buddhist" or "the true Scotsman" etc.

Which is why "a true Buddhist" would never ever consider him or her self "a true Buddhist". If this sounds like a paradox, welcome to true Buddhism ;)