There are more than a few people here that apparently don’t understand the tu quoque fallacy, and reflexively label a response as tu quoque when it isn’t.
There are legitimate instances of logical argument that involve pointing out past inconsistency or past similar behavior. There are also plenty of illegitimate instances. How do we tell the difference?
We look at what the argument is intended to prove.
A criticizes P done by Q.
In the past, A has supported P done by R.
Therefore, one of P’s arguments is not a reflection of his actual beliefs about P.
That’s not a tu quoque fallacy. That is legitimate argument.
Contrast with:
A criticizes P done by Q.
In the past, A has supported P done by R.
Therefore, Q is not bad.
This is fallacious, because who supports or criticizes P is not relevant to whether P is bad or good. It’s either the fallacy of appeal to authority or ad hominem, of which tu quoque is a special case.
Why the contrasting behavior is offered is key to determining if the fallacy exists.
A criticizes P done by Q.
In the past, A did not criticize Z, which is vaguely similar to P, done by R.
Therefore, A is an asshole, a hypocrite, and should immediately crave the pardon of the members of this board. And resign.
P was done by Q and is deemed bad.
P’ was done by ~Q, and ~Q was not literally cricified by the opposition.
Therefore, it’s perfectly fine that Q did P, because ~Q did P’.
Common example: Clinton got a blow job!
It all depends on what Clinton got a blowjob is intended to prove. That’s kind of the point of my little thread, here. There are legitimate arguments that might include Clinton got a blowjob and there are examples of tu quoque that end with Clinton got a blowjob.
Standing alone, Clinton got a blowjob is not fallacious. (Fellatious, yes, but I digress).
This is not what the argument is intended to prove - there’s no point to making this argument, because nobody gives a crap what A thinks about P. The “argument” of a tu quoque fallacy is that A was wrong to criticize P for doing Q. It’s fallacious because it doesn’t matter how many people do something bad - it’s still bad.
If the person is actually trying to make the argument that the arguer is a hypocrite, then that’s not a tu quoque. And it also has no place in GD - attacking the character of other posters is Pit territory.
On preview: this answers your prior post to me.
ETA: Oh, and “Clinton got a blow job” is never not a tu quoque.
If it’s meant to attack the character of the poster, it’s absolutely ad hominem.
But if the argument is that the criticism offered is not actually a product of sincerely held belief, then it’s not ad hominem, especially when the crticism itself goes to matters of ethics or opinion in the first place.
In other words, consider “It’s wrong to do P.” It’s at least somewhat relevant to discover if the speaker sincerely believes this position, or if he’s offering up only because this INSTANCE of P was done by A, who he dislikes. It bears on his credibility, in other words.
A: Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
B: Clinton never did anything that remotely came close to lying under oath.
A: Yes, he did. He got a blowjob and then denied “having sex.”
B: Clinton never got a blowjob!
A: Yes, Clinton got a blowjob.
I think people are naturally partisan and passionate about politics, and will tend to shade the severity of their scorn depending on the affliation of the offender. This is just human nature. Perhaps it’s unfortunate, but it’s not going away.
If joe points out some misbehaviour on the part of politician X, It’s not much of an argument to say “Well, you’re just annoyed because X is a member of the Sanguinary party. If X was a member of the phlegmatic party you’d be defending him! What about when Phlegmatic governor Y did this vaguely similar thing? I didn’t see you phlegms denouncing him!”
I mean what does that argument prove? It doesn’t say anything about the politician in question, or his actions. It just distracts the discussion, changing it from being about Politician X, to being about Joe’s mild human hypocrisy. If X’s actions are defensible, defend them. The person who pointed them out shouldn’t be the issue.
I think at some level your underlying point is “it’s sometimes a legitimate debating tactic to bring up what has happened in the past and people’s reactions to it”. If so, I guess it sometimes is, but so rarely that we’d be generally better off without it.
The thing is, it’s very difficult to really correctly and persuasively make such an argument, because you need two situations (past and present) that are close to identical, plus you need two quotes or reactions from exactly the same person which are clearly different, AND neither of them can be a lack of reaction (because how do you prove he didn’t comment because he was just busy that week?).
On the other hand, it’s super easy (and fun!) to poison just about any discussion by attempting to make such an argument so that you obfuscate what could be a meaningful debate into a “you’re a hypocrite” war.
I tried to make this point, not very successfully, in this thread. Look at post #8.
The credibility of the person making the assertion and digging into it cannot be anything but ad hominem. The only possible valid argument against “It’s wrong to do P” is to try and prove “It’s not wrong to do P.” Good luck doing that by pointing at some other guy.
Let’s be succinct. You wanna engage in the rhetorical approach of not winning an argument based on the merits of your position, but instead by confusing, intimidating, and/or undermning your opposition. That is the only reason to attack their credibility. And it’s crappy argument, and there are fallacies attached to the ways of doing it. Tu quoque is one of those fallacies. You don’t like seeing it? Attack the argument, not the arguer.
No, it isn’t (although strictly speaking it’s just an ad hom and not a tu quoque) . Even if that ad hom is accurate and “You don’t really believe that P is bad because when someone else did it you said it wasn’t bad, or was good!” it’s simply an ad hom and a red herring attempt to divert the discussion into discussing the participants and not their claims. Whether someone is right and P is bad has noting, at all, to do with whether or not they think IOKIARDI. Whether or not they are right has to do with a discussion of P, not a discussion of Q, or Person A.
Further, your formulation is overly simplistic to the point of absurdity.
“Lester McBadguy shot a father of four right in the face. This is a bad thing.”
“Ah-hah! Last year you said that when we bombed Mr. Alqaeda Killzalot it was a good thing, and he has children too. Obviously you have no problem at all with killing people. You are not accurately relating your beliefs about killing. What are you trying to hide? :dubious:”
(And of course, a discussion on whether or not Lester McBadguy did something wrong is neatly sidestepped)
Attacking the credibility, honesty, or impartiality of a poster may be emotionally satisfying, but in the sense of attacking someone’s claims, no, it is not a legitimate argument. If by ‘argument’ you mean “something designed to address and rebut any of the claims that someone has made in thread.”
I think a large part of what’s at issue here is that many of us have been arguing with each other about the same old shit for nearly a decade. Through 3 presidents and 6 different congresses, we’ve all been at each other’s throats. We all know each other’s attitudes and biases. You can almost predict the thread title and topic starter after certain current events happen. It helps (hurts) that most of us have never met, or even seen pictures of each other in a lot of cases. The social climate in this forum must have very, very little historical precedent.
Not at all. Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle is still taught in most Freshman Composition classes as an elementary introduction to argumentation, and one of its central ideas is that an arguer’s personal credibility has as much to do with the effectiveness of their argument as does their logic.
Yes, it’s true in a purely logical sense that the fact that someone lied the first two times they cried wolf does not prove that they are lying the third time. But in the real world, we know that’s the way to bet. Credibility matters.
There’s a difference between something that makes an argument effective with a certain type of person, and something that makes it a good argument. Most of the rhetorical fallacies actually make very effective arguments. Many of the logical fallacies do too. This doesn’t mean that those are then good arguments.
If a pathological liar tells you that the sky is blue, only an idiot considers his credibility and then posits that maybe the sky is really green.
Well, that was less than clear. How about quoting from a source who doesn’t fling about this accusation and have it flung at him:
Now anybody who isn’t terribly thick should be able to understand that. I suppose it should also be pointed out that the accusation of tu quoque around here is often made when it should be replaced or accompanied by false analogy. In addition, the implied premises are usually full of shit.
People get stupid when they get rabidly partisan. They do indeed say hypocritical things all the time. If a certain act is taken by your party, you will immediately rush to defend it, regardless of how you’d actually feel about the issue if you gave it some thought. And if it’s done by the other party, you unthinkingly attack it. So if the situation changes, and the person saying this thing is from a different side, then the blind attack/defend cycle will cause you to flip your position.
Then critics from the other side will say “gotcha! See! This is what you said before! You’re only basing your opinion now on which side it comes from”
And they’re right.
But the irony that they never seem to understand is that they, the accuser, do the same thing. They have the same mentality, and the same thought process. Not only that, but their motivation for making this accusation at all stems from the same hostile partisan mentality that they’re criticizing. So, essentially they are saying “See! You are a partisan hypocrite!” and the reason they’re saying this is because they, themselves, are a partisan hypocrite. There’s like a double layered cheesecake of irony that completely escapes them.
Edit: Speaking of this issue, how does one pronounce “Tu Quoque”? I have a feeling it’s dumb.