# Is "I know I am, but what are you?" a valid counterargument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845 "2009-08-09T17:16:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/1 "2009-08-09T17:16:21Z")
I’ve seen this a lot in various fora and such lately, and it is increasingly starting to bug me. Someone (who could, say, be identified with group Y) will point out some henious behavior on the part of members of group X; someone, who could be said to strongly identify with group X, will then come and chime in, “But look at all those assholes who belong to group Y! They did this, this and that horrible thing!” Those making such counterarguments may not even _acknowledge_ the truth of the original claims; often they don’t even attempt to spin said events into something more favorable to their in-group, and typically they don’t even acknowledge them at all. The specific examples I am thinking of, of course, are the whole vitroil and shoutdowns and such by ostensible Republicans at the Town Hall meetings taking place across the country. Attempts to point out the racist signs, the confrontational tactics, and overall crappy level of discourse (term used very loosely) being practiced by said individuals will typically result in a reply which will describe similar tactics that were used by some liberal organization 6 months ago, where left-identifying people shouted down some right-leaning speaker at a campus event or such. Of course the answer to my question is that this is a completely bogus arguing tactic. The sins of someone else (who you may not like a priori) must not deflect the original discussion-two wrongs don’t equal a right and so on, nor does it necessarily make both “sides” morally equivalent when you do this. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/2 "2009-08-09T17:34:20Z")
Not since Tarzan died. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/3 "2009-08-09T17:42:06Z")
Yes, it’s a valid counterargument. _If you’re six._ Otherwise it’s usually an emotional response or a dodge. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/4 "2009-08-09T17:57:55Z")
It’s an often clumsy attempt to use a rhetorical argument called _tu quoque_. The model they’re trying for is: Person 1: I think it’s wrong that group A is doing action X. Person 2: But, when group B did action X, you said they were right to do so. Why are you complaining about group B doing so? (with the implication that person 1 doesn’t really have a problem with action X, only with group B) It’s an attempt to undermine the person’s argument by pointing out that the person who’s making the argument is being hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/5 "2009-08-09T19:03:05Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It’s an attempt to undermine the person’s argument by pointing out that the person who’s making the argument is being hypocritical. And it can work IF the person was really someone who defended it when it was their side and IF the situations are similar enough. Too often, it’s the Clinton got a blow job school of lame equivalence. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/6 "2009-08-11T16:03:03Z")
This sort of argument was VERY liberally used by Irish Republican supporters. When asked to justify a bomb that had left innocent shoppers smeared over the surroundings as human paste they would ignore the question and say “Ah but four hundred years ago the British did such and such to the Irish people…” Quite often they’d even make up THAT part of the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Miltonyz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Miltonyz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miltonyz)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/7 "2009-08-12T05:21:32Z")
If people were angry because Bush had grilled baby for Sunday dinner, but were silent about Obama’s love for smoked infant hocks it seems like it would perfectly fair to point out the hypocrisy. My thoughts are 1. Humans are naturally hypocritical. Partisan’s doubly so. 2. We don’t like to believe that we are hypocrites. 3. We have these large brains that in a nanosecond can create a rationalization for why our behavior is not hypocritical. That’s why those hippies that create traffic jams and make us late for work are a-holes and people that interrupt town hall meetings are conservative crusaders. Or why warrantless wiretapping was the coming apocalypse, until it wasn’t. I guess for that reason I think a you to argument is worthless. It spins off into an argument about which method of cooking a baby is more cruel with both sides triumphant in their own minds. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense it’s late. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/8 "2009-08-12T12:29:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, it’s a valid counterargument. _If you’re six._ Otherwise it’s usually an emotional response or a dodge. After age 6 the ultimate counter-argument is “_so is your face_”. So if your face always makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/9 "2009-08-12T13:50:07Z")
I’m just waiting for the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” phrase to be spewed out. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/10 "2009-08-12T14:24:53Z")
Yes, despite the wishes of some SDMB members who love to prefer Latin charges, this argument is sometimes meritorious. Several things need to be said. First, to mollify our Latinists, yes, it is called _tu quoque_. And yes, it is classified as an “informal fallacy.” But yes, there is a great gulf fixed between the formal fallacies, which vitiate the logical structure of the argument, and the informal fallacies, which are merely _occasionally misleading_ modes of argumentation. Technicians apply them mechanistically, but informal fallacies are much more slippery creatures. It is easy to see how _tu quoque_ might be rehabilitated. Principally, what it endeavors to show is that the rule of conduct proposed by X (you shouldn’t disrupt town hall meetings, say) is being proposed disingenuously. If person X really believes that there is some rule of conduct R, we would expect that X’s behavior would conform to R. That X’s behavior does not so conform suggests that X does not believe there is any such rule or that the rule admits of exceptions that he is hiding for rhetorical advantage. What _tu quoque_ is then, is the recognition that our private beliefs, although directly inaccessible to others, still are thought to be indirectly revealed through our behaviors. Actions speak louder than words. Now there is a counterargument that instead of saying, in effect, “You don’t really believe in this rule you are now advocating,” we should respond with some sort of theoretical account for the falsehood of the rule (something like “It is sometimes OK to disrupt a town hall meeting because town hall meetings are designed to give only the illusion of open debate, beliefs that actually challenge the dominant narrative of the town hall organizers will only be aired via subterfuge”). I think this turns on a naïve view of how we do ethics, but it’s not completely without value. However, I think my explanation has scotched the notion that the _tu quoque_ tag can be applied to arguments and dispensed with in the absence of any further dealings with them. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/11 "2009-08-12T14:45:24Z")
> [@Miltonyz](#): > > If people were angry because Bush had grilled baby for Sunday dinner Ugh. Too fatty. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/12 "2009-08-12T14:52:39Z")
IMHO, most of the above misses the real issue. A lot depends on what the argument - or underlying argument - is. If the entire argument is “such-and-such behaviour is wrong” then much of the above applies. But generally, the real argument - either spoken or unspoken - is actually “such-and-such behaviour is wrong and therefore Group X which engages in it are a bunch of jerks so we should all repudiate them and support Group Y”. And in this context it’s perfectly valid and logical to point out that Group Y also engages in the exact same behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/13 "2009-08-12T21:15:10Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Yes, despite the wishes of some SDMB members who love to prefer Latin charges, this argument is sometimes meritorious. > > Several things need to be said. First, to mollify our Latinists, yes, it is called _tu quoque_. And yes, it is classified as an “informal fallacy.” But yes, there is a great gulf fixed between the formal fallacies, which vitiate the logical structure of the argument, and the informal fallacies, which are merely _occasionally misleading_ modes of argumentation. Technicians apply them mechanistically, but informal fallacies are much more slippery creatures. > > It is easy to see how _tu quoque_ might be rehabilitated. Principally, what it endeavors to show is that the rule of conduct proposed by X (you shouldn’t disrupt town hall meetings, say) is being proposed disingenuously. If person X really believes that there is some rule of conduct R, we would expect that X’s behavior would conform to R. That X’s behavior does not so conform suggests that X does not believe there is any such rule or that the rule admits of exceptions that he is hiding for rhetorical advantage. > > What _tu quoque_ is then, is the recognition that our private beliefs, although directly inaccessible to others, still are thought to be indirectly revealed through our behaviors. Actions speak louder than words. > > Now there is a counterargument that instead of saying, in effect, “You don’t really believe in this rule you are now advocating,” we should respond with some sort of theoretical account for the falsehood of the rule (something like “It is sometimes OK to disrupt a town hall meeting because town hall meetings are designed to give only the illusion of open debate, beliefs that actually challenge the dominant narrative of the town hall organizers will only be aired via subterfuge”). I think this turns on a naïve view of how we do ethics, but it’s not completely without value. However, I think my explanation has scotched the notion that the _tu quoque_ tag can be applied to arguments and dispensed with in the absence of any further dealings with them. So is your face. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/14 "2009-08-12T21:19:17Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > So is your face. Ugh, that’s so first-grade. Everyone knows grown-ups say “NO U.” ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/15 "2009-08-12T21:25:09Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Yes, despite the wishes of some SDMB members who love to prefer Latin charges Heh. It is pretty weird how often I see _tu quoque_ on the SDMB considering I have never once heard it in real life. And say it outloud if you’re wondering why. It’s a dumb, pretentious-sounding term. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/16 "2009-08-12T22:38:49Z")
To quo quo quo que is to love love love que. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/17 "2009-08-12T23:14:17Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Heh. It is pretty weird how often I see _tu quoque_ on the SDMB considering I have never once heard it in real life. And say it outloud if you’re wondering why. It’s a dumb, pretentious-sounding term. Then say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/18 "2009-08-12T23:28:46Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Then say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” That’s admitting that your side is wrong, though (and very likely establishing a false equivalence between the original issue and the distraction). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/19 "2009-08-13T02:37:37Z")
Pee-wee assures me it is. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845/20 "2009-08-13T15:49:51Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Not since Tarzan died. Tarzan is not dead. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-i-know-i-am-but-what-are-you-a-valid-counterargument/505845.md?page=2)