# Is there a name for this logical fallacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 27, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133 "2014-04-27T20:55:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/1 "2014-04-27T20:55:10Z")
I see this a lot in political “discourse” on the web. Someone is complaining about whatever the issue of the day is, and someone on the opposite side of the aisle will retort, “the politician I assume you voted for did it, too,” rather than debating the issue on its merits alone. Does this fallacy have a name? It sounds very similar to “tu quoque,” but it doesn’t quite seem to fit with that definition. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/2 "2014-04-27T21:12:11Z")
Sounds exactly like _tu quoque_ to me. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/3 "2014-04-28T16:39:39Z")
Strictly speaking, it’s not tu quoque, since it’s not “you do it”, but “politician you agree with does it”. It still seems close enough, to me. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/4 "2014-04-28T17:21:52Z")
tu quoque by proxy, let’s popularize it the phrase, not the practice ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/5 "2014-04-28T17:42:42Z")
It sounds like a version of the Straw Man fallacy, since the person is assuming (usually based on nothing more than their own predjudices) that their opponent is a supporter of some particular politican and/or that person’s actions. ie: Person A: “I oppose drone strikes against people in the Middle East” Person B: “YOU SUPPORTED THEM WHEN GEORGE BUSH DID IT, BUT NOW THAT ITS OBAMA DOING IT YOU OPPOSE IT, YOU FILTHY HYPOCRIT !!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:” 99% of the time, Person A has said no such thing, and it’s pure assumption on Person B’s part. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/6 "2014-04-28T17:46:49Z")
Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem, and appropriate here since it means literally “You too”. However, since there is no direct connection between voting for someone and the actions of that candidate it could just be considered simple ad hominem. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/7 "2014-04-28T20:19:53Z")
No, it’s a perfectly good (bad?) _tu quoque_. Your side does the same thing. Hey, Joe. Look at those Republicans, always getting caught with their pants down. How can you vote for them? So what, Mack. Those Democrats you voted for are no better. Remember Clinton? ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/8 "2014-04-29T18:31:34Z")
> [@naita](#): > > tu quoque by proxy, let’s popularize it > > the phrase, not the practice How would we make it sound Latin enough? How about _vos quoque_? ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/9 "2014-04-29T19:28:05Z")
Sounds like childish argument to me, like he is trying to say that two wrongs make a right. Not sure how that would translate into Latin. Perhaps Otway ongswray akemay away ightray. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/10 "2014-04-29T21:24:08Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > Sounds like childish argument to me, like he is trying to say that two wrongs make a right. Not sure how that would translate into Latin. Perhaps Otway ongswray akemay away ightray. Its just another way of saying, “Don’t be a hypocrite.” ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/11 "2014-04-29T22:14:12Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > Sounds like childish argument to me, like he is trying to say that two wrongs make a right. Not sure how that would translate into Latin. Perhaps Otway ongswray akemay away ightray. While I’ve seen just this sort of post in Great Debates, I don’t feel like it’s a tu quoque so much as an advance warning to the speaker for how they need to broach the subject. I believe the argument is that the person’s position is equivalent to a fad, like if a someone comes up to me and starts quipping how X band has created an instant classic, I don’t feel a strong need to check out that band when I know that he was saying the exact same thing about a different band just a month ago, and the month before that, etc. It’s easier to point out to them that they’re acting in a manner that’s going to require them to show a bit more evidence of genuine interest before it’s worth the time and effort to go along with their statements. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/687133/12 "2014-04-29T22:23:38Z")
Following up, it looks like it would be: > **[Appeal to motive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive)** > > Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy. > A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming th...