Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The tu quoque argument follows the template (i.e. pattern): [2] Person A claims that statement X is true. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore, X is false. As a specific example, consider the following scenario where Person A and Person B just left a store.
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.
Logical Fallacies, Literacy Education Online; Informal Fallacies, Texas State University page on informal fallacies; Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (mirror) Visualization: Rhetological Fallacies, Information is Beautiful; Master List of Logical Fallacies, University of Texas at El Paso; Fallacies, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
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 ...
Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be ...
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 ]
Unrepresentative sample; Secundum quid; When referring to a generalization made from a single example, the terms fallacy of the lonely fact, [8] or the fallacy of proof by example, might be used. [9] When evidence is intentionally excluded to bias the result, the fallacy of exclusion—a form of selection bias—is said to be involved. [10]
Specifically, it is an informal fallacy, which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion. Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies, which contain erroneous reasoning in argument form.