Agreed. The to quoque begins and ends at “but your guy does it, too!”. This is noting that “behavior X by justice Y”, which the OP has stated must be ideologically driven is seen in behavior by justice Z, so it’s natural to ask if that is also ideologically driven.
I wonder what CapnPitt thinks of the Poisoned Well fallacy.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
He received new fame in the wake of allegations of sexual harassment during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate in 1991, as Anita Hill alleged that Thomas had mentioned to her that he was a viewer of Long Dong Silver’s films
[/QUOTE]
:eek:
He had a good argument which was totally fine and convincing. He should have stopped after “So Scalia correctly explained the result of American Trucking – he just got the positions that the EPA and American Trucking argued reversed.” I agreed with him at that point.
Everything else is just to draw attention away from the issue. If I wanted to poison the well, I’d tell you what I really think of him. But as usual, thread derailed because he has to bring up extraneous points and idiots like me have to rise to the bait.
Well, that’s a different argument than claiming what he did was a tu quoque. Your opinion of where he should have stopped is, perhaps, of some interest, but it’s not definitive. I suggest that, before staking out new territory, you clarify if you are giving up on the old territory.
I think it elucidates the issue.
In case I was unclear, the Poisoning of the Well was not a reference to something you could possibly have done in some hypothetical situation, but what actually happened in the OP of this thread.
You weren’t unclear. A thousand and one pardons please. I don’t think I was wrong though. Perhaps you thought it made the issue clearer. I disagree.