bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

帖子

0

评论

438

加入于

2 yr. ago

It might be useful to remember the Treaty of Versailles and the reparations that Germany was forced to repay.

Viruses thrive in winter because people stay inside and close together, allowing for easier transmission.

Is she trying to fast track disbarment? Lying to the court is an excellent way to, at a minimum, receive a suspension.

Only if they microwave after thawing.

Thoughts?

Not particularly. Depends on the subject matter. For instance, a politician might be critical of current campaign finance laws being too lax, but still take advantage of said laws. In that situation it wouldn't be hypocritical to say I want to change X, but until it changes, I'm following the same rules as everyone else.

Or maybe they are a hypocrite, I don't know. They could be the worst person to raise the argument, but my only point was that it doesn't invalidate the argument.

A hypocritical and dishonest interlocutor can still make a valid and sound argument. An ad hominem, whether Tu Quoque or otherwise, remains fallacious.

Whether you're being called immoral by Person A or B doesn't change the facts. Person A may be a bad person, they may not be the person you want to hear the argument from, but that doesn't change that they're right.

In propositional logic you only address one prong or aspect at a time. So using my example you could say yes, I am immoral for kicking puppies, but then by your logic, so are you. That wouldn't be an ad hominem because you aren't trying to invalidate their argument with your personal attack/logical argument.

Given a valid structure, true premises must necessarily lead to a true conclusion. A fallacy is an invalid structure; therefore, you cannot know whether or not the conclusion is true. If you can't know the truth value of the conclusion, you wouldn't be correct to reject their argument.

Using the go to example: Plato argues P1) All men are mortal, P2) Socrates is a man, C) Socrates is mortal. Valid structure, sound premises, the conclusion must be true.

Using the smoking example: P1) Person A claims smoking is dangerous, P2) Person A smokes, C) Smoking isn't dangerous.

This argument is invalid in structure because Premise 2 is fallacious. Premise 1 doesn't connect to Premise 2 to lead to the conclusion. Given no additional information, you would not be able to ascertain the truth value of the conclusion, it may or may not be true using this deductive argument.

It's considered a formal fallacy.

you're probably right to discount their arguments

You cannot square these two statements. If it's a fallacy then you are not justified in discounting their argument. They may be a hypocrite, but it doesn't mean that their argument isn't both valid and sound. The smoking example by the other reply is a great example.

I disagree for one that it is “in fact” a logical fallacy and also that their actions are immaterial to your actions.

You're free to disagree, but it doesn't change that you're wrong. If the argument is that your puppy kicking is immoral, it is a fact that your accuser's actions are immaterial. (Obviously we are presupposing that we agree what is immoral, and that puppy kicking fits that understanding.)

Assume there is Person A or Person B, the first kicks puppies, the second does not. Your argument holds that your puppy kicking would be immoral if Person B accused you, but somehow not immoral if Person A accuses you. That's obviously not the case; therefore, person A's actions are immaterial.

Tu Quoque is a fallacy because it does not actually address the argument made, it is a form of ad hominem attack. Given a valid argument, true premises will necessarily lead to a true conclusion. Fallacious arguments are not valid in structure; therefore you can't know if your conclusion is true.

Building on this idea, since Reagan Republicans have convinced people that government is the problem. So at this point, Republican voters don't even expect their representatives to ensure a functional government. Notice that every time there is bipartisan agreement on a stopgap funding measure that a cadre of the Republicans is livid, because they don't want the government to function.

They have been screaming for years about the crisis at the border, now that there's a Senate bill to address it, they vehemently oppose it.

Pretty much. Whataboutism could be any other bad thing, Tu Quoque is "you do too", so essentially you do the same bad thing.

This has a name, "Tu Quoque" and it is, in fact, a logical fallacy.

If someone calls you out for kicking puppies, it is not a fair counterpoint to say that they kick puppies too. Their actions are immaterial to your actions. If the question is one of morality, your actions are immoral regardless of whether or not your accuser is similarly immoral.

the f150 is one of the most meticulously designed vehicles for the last half century,

No, no, no.... it's a Ford. /s

He's under no obligation to care about or implement the wishes of the United States, but at least don't be so dishonorable as to take their money and weapons.

Bow chica bow wow....oh, you meant something else... /s

Ummm...you may want to review "Christianity", the Bible is profoundly violent and disturbing.

Literally, the point of Chevron was that we cannot expect legislators to be as knowledgeable as the experts working at specific agencies. So allow the agencies leeway to act within the scope of the grant authorized by Congress. If Congress sees an overstep, then they can rein in that authority. I would love to hear a well-reasoned argument on why this should be disturbed.

Although, I know it will be overturned and well-reasoned won't be part of the decision.

Computer programs exist that can draw legitimate districts. Lawsuits can challenge districts, and if found to be based on race or political affiliation they can be removed. Bad faith actors will forever be a problem though.

I like the German electoral system, they vote for individual candidates and then a party. The candidates get seated first, and then additional members from the party's ticket are added to create the proportion of representation that each party received.

No gerrymandering and no two party system, win-win!

Huge pet peeve here, but it's counsel not council.