Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
"Two wrongs make a right" has been considered as a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis , "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.
Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it. [113] Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.
The proverb "two wrongs don't make a right" highlights the illogic of claiming innocence because of someone else's bad behavior.Such excuses are a form of whataboutism and a discrediting tactic.
The example above was worded in a way to make it amenable to the template given above. However, in colloquial language, the tu quoque technique more often makes an appearance in more subtle and less explicit ways, such as in the following example in which Person B is driving a car with Person A as a passenger:
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. For example: No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
A further problem is that the essay it titled and fundamentally linked to "Two wrongs don't make a right" and yet that fallacy includes a lot more behavioural possibilities than is being discussed here. For example, an editor adding lots of unsourced crap to an article might say "it was full of unsourced crap already".
Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum). Below is an example: Since only man [human] is rational. And no woman is a man [male]. Therefore, no woman is rational. [1] The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male.