Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Tu quoque [a] is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
By invoking the fallacy, the contested issue of lying is ignored (cf. whataboutism). The tu quoque fallacy is a specific type of "two wrongs make a right". Accusing another of not practicing what they preach , while appropriate in some situations, [ a ] does not in itself invalidate an action or statement that is perceived as contradictory.
Tu quoque ('you too' – appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism) – stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it. [112] Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it. [113]
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally 'you also') is a response to an ad hominem argument that itself goes ad hominem. [14] Tu quoque appears as: A makes a claim a. B attacks the character of A by claiming they hold negative property x. A defends themself by attacking B, saying they also hold the same property x. [15]
Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or ...
Specious reasoning does not necessarily rely on malicious intent, and one could formulate a specious argument with what they see as sound logic, only to produce an idea that is flawed or factually incorrect. It is a general term that encompasses forms of logical fallacy, such as tu quoque and circular reasoning.
For example, there are cases where the tu quoque "fallacy" is no fallacy at all. [1] This argument, also known as appeal to hypocrisy , tries to discredit the opponent's argument by claiming that the opponent's behavior is inconsistent with the argument's conclusion. [ 4 ]
Why did America tolerate shameful poverty and lynch Negroes?" [45] In 2011, author Michael Dobson wrote that the phrase was a form of the pot calling the kettle black, and a "famous example" of the tu quoque fallacy derived from a "famous 1960s era Russian joke." [9]