# Rancid Priebus is a disgusting human being **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195 "2016-03-26T02:56:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [March 26, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/41 "2016-03-26T17:53:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > First of all. > > AGAIN. > > It’s not _tu quoque_. > > Tu quoque is a logical fallacy in which the argument is made that X is bad, and then supposedly refuted by pointing out that the rhetor himself does X, so therefore X is not bad. > > [Cite.](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html) Eh. For people who identify closely with “their side”, the difference between you and your side is not so significant. But if you want, we can call it “Two Wrongs Make a Right”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/42 "2016-03-26T17:54:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Eh. For people who identify closely with “their side”, the difference between you and your side is not so significant. But if you want, we can call it “Two Wrongs Make a Right”. Still no! What is my argument? (A) It’s right, because the other side also does it -or- (B) It’s scummy, but not limited to the GOP ---
**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:** [March 26, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/43 "2016-03-26T17:56:38Z")
You didn’t make an argument. You just posted the other wrong. Exactly as in the example [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/44 "2016-03-26T17:57:25Z")
> [@](#): > > …So I contend virtually nobody actually gets defrauded by the RNC mail… “…virtually nobody…”? WTF does that even _mean_? One? Five? A thousand? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/45 "2016-03-26T18:04:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I contend virtually nobody actually gets defrauded by the RNC mail. But the DNC mail actually generates money for the DNC that donors intended to go to Bernie Sanders. And yet, by your own logic, “virtually nobody” will be fooled by the DNC either, because when you get to the actual donation page, there is language that makes clear that the solicitation comes from the DNC, and is not speaking for the candidate or the candidate’s campaign. That is, in both cases, if you’re willing to read every detail closely and pay attention, you can avoid being deceived. Your contention seems to be that everyone will be so careful. But that’s unrealistic, as a long history of scams and deceptions demonstrates. You and i are well-educated people, people with advanced degrees who are attuned to check the fine print and to treat all such solicitations with suspicion. But plenty of people aren’t, and those people often get ripped off by a variety of practices that, while not necessarily illegal, are pretty damned scummy and immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/46 "2016-03-26T18:06:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You didn’t make an argument. You just posted the other wrong. Exactly as in the example [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right) From that link: > [@](#): > > This is an informal fallacy that occurs when assuming that, if one wrong is committed, then another wrong will cancel it out. Now, it’s true that in this thread i merely posted the link, instead of pre-emptively repeating, AGAIN, why this is not tu quoque. I had imagined, foolishly, that the 895,721 prior times I had posted my reasons for highlighting similar bad behavior from the other side in these threads that criticize only Republicans for behavior that both do… that those times might cause my argument here to be incorporated by reference. So, let me clarify: NOT TU QUQUE. Not “Two wrongs make a right.” Instead, I argue that the bahvior is bad, and it’s wrong, and two wrongs make two wrongs. But that there are TWO wrongs. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/47 "2016-03-26T18:08:57Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The part saying that it applies to mail that “constitutes, in fact, a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services” seems more relevant. The RNC wasn’t asking people to buy goods or services, but to just send money with no strings attached. > > Still sleazy. IANAL, but don’'t the words “past due” and “notice of delinquency” imply that there were some goods or services that had been provided? A while back, some weekly humor columnist (possibly Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post?) was commenting on the rapid changes in the telecommunications industry, one result of which was that Weingarten was receiving bills from companies he’d never heard of. Often, the bills didn’t do a good job of informing him, “We used to be your phone provider ABC Phone Corp. We’ve merged and/or and changed our name to XYZ Data Corp”. In such a confused climate, Weingarten wondered whether a scammer would be breaking any laws if they sent out random mailings requesting money (of similar appearance to telecomms companies’ mailings), along with the statement that the company “looks forward to providing you the quality service we are known for”, without saying anything more specific. If someone complained, Weingarten postulated, the company would reveal that the service was, say, watching out for tidal waves in Nebraska. While it made for an amusing column, I never assumed that such a plan would be legal. Was I wrong? If the RNC letter is legal, why would Weingarten’s purported plan have been illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/48 "2016-03-26T18:09:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > And yet, by your own logic, “virtually nobody” will be fooled by the DNC either, because when you get to the actual donation page, there is language that makes clear that the solicitation comes from the DNC, and is not speaking for the candidate or the candidate’s campaign. > > That is, in both cases, if you’re willing to read every detail closely and pay attention, you can avoid being deceived. > > Your contention seems to be that everyone will be so careful. But that’s unrealistic, as a long history of scams and deceptions demonstrates. You and i are well-educated people, people with advanced degrees who are attuned to check the fine print and to treat all such solicitations with suspicion. But plenty of people aren’t, and those people often get ripped off by a variety of practices that, while not necessarily illegal, are pretty damned scummy and immoral. No argument – I agree scummy and immoral are correct terms. I just don’t agree that scummy and immoral are limited to the RNC. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/49 "2016-03-26T18:10:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Still no! > > What is my argument? > > (A) It’s right, because the other side also does it > > -or- > > (B) It’s scummy, but not limited to the GOP My question is if it’s obviously wrong, _why do you have an argument in the first place?_ Does the RNC own your soul? Are you under legal contract to automatically defend them, no matter how weakly, even if it’s “But the other side does it _tooo!_”? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/50 "2016-03-26T18:11:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No argument – I agree scummy and immoral are correct terms. > > I just don’t agree that scummy and immoral are limited to the RNC. Nobody here has said it is. If they have-point it out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/51 "2016-03-26T18:11:54Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > IANAL, but don’'t the words “past due” and “notice of delinquency” imply that there were some goods or services that had been provided? > > A while back, some weekly humor columnist (possibly Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post?) was commenting on the rapid changes in the telecommunications industry, one result of which was that Weingarten was receiving bills from companies he’d never heard of. Often, the bills didn’t do a good job of informing him, “We used to be your phone provider ABC Phone Corp. We’ve merged and/or and changed our name to XYZ Data Corp”. In such a confused climate, Weingarten wondered whether a scammer would be breaking any laws if they sent out random mailings requesting money (of similar appearance to telecomms companies’ mailings), along with the statement that the company “looks forward to providing you the quality service we are known for”, without saying anything more specific. If someone complained, Weingarten postulated, the company would reveal that the service was, say, watching out for tidal waves in Nebraska. > > While it made for an amusing column, I never assumed that such a plan would be legal. Was I wrong? > > If the RNC letter is legal, why would Weingarten’s purported plan have been illegal? Weingarten’s proposal “constitutes, in fact, a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services, or both.” RNC’s does not. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/52 "2016-03-26T18:24:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Weingarten’s proposal “constitutes, in fact, a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services, or both.” > > RNC’s does not. But if Weingarten’s proposal would have claimed to be providing a service (albeit, a worthless one) after the customer had been fooled (by the confusing circumstances) into paying, how would that be more fraudulent than the RNC’s letter? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/53 "2016-03-26T18:28:31Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > But if Weingarten’s proposal would have claimed to be providing a service (albeit, a worthless one) after the customer had been fooled (by the confusing circumstances) into paying, how would that be more fraudulent than the RNC’s letter? Because one of the elements that must be proved in order to obtain a conviction under this statute is that the letter must, in fact, be a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services. Weingarten’s proposed letter is such a solitication. The RNC’s is not. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/54 "2016-03-26T18:36:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, let me clarify: NOT TU QUQUE. Not “Two wrongs make a right.” The accepted shorthand for the _tu quoque_ fallacy is not “two wrongs make a right”, but rather “you do it too!” It’s a fallacious attempt to gloss over wrongdoing by imputing the same behavior to the person (or side) pointing out the wrong. > **[Tu quoque](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)** > > Tu quoque (pronounced like 'too kwoh kway") (Latin for 'you also') is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it. The... Understanding the nature of a fallacy is a requirement for avoiding it in future. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/55 "2016-03-26T18:55:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nobody here has said it is. If they have-point it out. Post 38. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/56 "2016-03-26T18:56:42Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > The accepted shorthand for the _tu quoque_ fallacy is not “two wrongs make a right”, but rather “you do it too!” Accepted by you? Not by me. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/57 "2016-03-26T19:00:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Post 38. That is one of _your_ posts. Not that I expected a reasonable response from you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/58 "2016-03-26T19:09:17Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > …Understanding the nature of a fallacy is a requirement for avoiding it in future. Or deploying it in support of an argument so weak dandelions beat up on it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/59 "2016-03-26T19:24:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That is one of _your_ posts. > Not that I expected a reasonable response from you. Did you read post 38, you fool? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195/60 "2016-03-26T20:01:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Accepted by you? > > Not by me. _“Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.”_ [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque) The Internet provides a nice Latin to English translator which identified “You too” as the translation of _tu quoque_. You can also download the free Logical Fallacy poster at the linked site. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rancid-priebus-is-a-disgusting-human-being/750195.md?page=4)