What is the relativist fallacy ("that may be true for you, but not for me")?

Dodging an objective claim by declaring it "true for you but not for me" — as if a factual matter could hold for one person and fail for another at the same time.

The pattern: claim X is presented; rather than give a reason against it, the person says "X may be true for you, but it isn't true for me," and treats that as licence to reject it. It fails because, for objective claims, truth isn't indexed to individuals — the facts don't rearrange themselves per person.

A: "People who don't exercise tend to be less healthy." B: "That may be true for you, but it's not true for me."

The key is to separate three different things: a claim can be true about a person ("Bill has blue eyes"), a person can believe a claim, but "true for me" would mean the world itself is different for them — that "1+1=2" or "the Earth is round" actually fails in their private reality. Beliefs are genuinely personal; the truth of a factual claim is not.

Tip: It's often a polite-sounding way to exit an argument without conceding. Ask: is this a matter of taste (where "for me" is fine) or a matter of fact (where it isn't)? Only the latter makes it a fallacy.

Go deeper:

• Wikipedia — Relativist fallacy — the "true for me" dodge and the objective-truth assumption behind it.