Tu Quoque
Latin: “You, also” or “you, too.”
Similar type:
Argumentum ad Hominem
Two wrongs make a right
This fallacy occurs when trying to deflect the charges
against us by pointing to equally or greater charges against our accusers. This
is a diversionary tactic aimed at disarming our opponent by accusing them without
answering the charges posed. Whether the accuser is guilty of the same thing
does not remove the truth of the original charge. It is like the Red Herring
fallacy in that it attempts to lead the dogs off their trail and onto the
originator’s trail.
Examples:
Sal had borrowed the pencil of Mahmood but remembered that
he did not return it. He tells himself that it is okay to keep it since Mahmood
would not have returned his pencil if he had borrowed it.
Jameer: “Did you hear about what those terrorists that
killed all those people. That is wrong, maaaaaan!”
Murti: “Those terrorists are justified. After all, their
land was taken from them and their people murdered. It is morally right for
them to do what they do.”
Jameer: “Even when they kill children.”
Murti: “Yes! Payback is payback!”
Mularky was leaving a bakery and realized that he had
underpaid the store proprietor by 15 dollars for his goods. He decides not to
go back and give the 15 dollars to the store owner because the store owner
would have not returned the money to him if situation was reversed.
Beavis: “Hey, you shouldn’t smoke. Smoking is bad for your
health. I smoke because I can’t help it so don’t start.”
Bunker: “Hey, you smoke so how can you bother telling me not
to smoke?”
Beavis: “I just told you that it is bad for your health.”
Bunker: “What about you?”
Beavis: “Well, I’m older than you, that’s because.”
Thanks to WWW.fallacyfiles.org
thanks to John Sanidopoulos
thanks also to www.hebrew4christians.com
No comments:
Post a Comment