ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 27th December 2016, 12:55 PM   #401
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Self assurance? Easy, I am not only absolutely correct, but driven to help educate my fellow skeptics.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:02 PM   #402
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,423
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Self assurance? Easy, I am not only absolutely correct, but driven to help educate my fellow skeptics.
You're almost there, great work after the conjunction.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:10 PM   #403
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,833
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Self assurance? Easy, I am not only absolutely correct, but driven to help educate my fellow skeptics.
As I repeat: Illusory Superiority. I am happy to continue to attempt to educate you.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:11 PM   #404
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
You're almost there, great work after the conjunction.
Thanks, and thanks for de-lurking and letting us know!

Bet it was a bit of a headache to wade through all those posts that consisted of nothing but personal attacks on tbd, huh.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:18 PM   #405
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,423
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Thanks, and thanks for de-lurking and letting us know!

Bet it was a bit of a headache to wade through all those posts that consisted of nothing but personal attacks on tbd, huh.
I'm good, thanks for the consideration! No headaches at all.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:40 PM   #406
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,952
I was willing to chalk all of his nonsense up to posturing, but it seems like he really does believe that he is the smartest person on the forum, if not the planet.

The beginning of wisdom is familiarizing oneself with what one does not know. Maybe he'll get there, some day.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:52 PM   #407
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
I was willing to chalk all of his nonsense up to posturing, but it seems like he really does believe that he is the smartest person on the forum, if not the planet.

The beginning of wisdom is familiarizing oneself with what one does not know. Maybe he'll get there, some day.
Well, let's start with what we "know" and we know that the post in question is a tu quoque fallacy. If you feel differently, by all means feel free to weigh in.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:19 PM   #408
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,952
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, let's start with what we "know" and we know that the post in question is a tu quoque fallacy. If you feel differently, by all means feel free to weigh in.
In your own words, what is a fallacy?

Also, why do you think they matter?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:42 PM   #409
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In your own words, what is a fallacy?

Also, why do you think they matter?
A defect in logical reasoning that may infect students of critical thought and that matter because they may be used as exercises to illuminate the path of knowledge.

I trust you are going to tie this in?
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 27th December 2016 at 02:46 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 04:54 PM   #410
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
In your own words, what is a fallacy?

Also, why do you think they matter?
I think this is not a trivial question. Let me give my answer, without reference to any texts.

I would say that a fallacy is a bit of erroneous reasoning used either to support one's claim or to cast doubt on the claims or arguments of one's opponent.

I should think that it is obvious why it matters. Good reasoning matters because it is more likely to lead to the truth (and to do so with better support which can more easily be evaluated) than bad reasoning. Good reasoning is essential if we care about truth and evidence.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:46 AM   #411
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
A defect in logical reasoning that may infect students of critical thought and that matter because they may be used as exercises to illuminate the path of knowledge.

I trust you are going to tie this in?


Can I ask, is there any academic individual or organisation in the whole world to whom you would listen if they told you that you were wrong?

In addition, when was the last time you were wrong?

Also, how old are you really?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 06:52 AM   #412
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Can I ask, is there any academic individual or organisation in the whole world to whom you would listen if they told you that you were wrong?

In addition, when was the last time you were wrong?

Also, how old are you really?
His answer is certainly more poetic than mine. "Illuminate the path of knowledge" is a humdinger of a phrase. I'm not sure it means anything much, but it's still a beaut.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 07:05 AM   #413
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
His answer is certainly more poetic than mine. "Illuminate the path of knowledge" is a humdinger of a phrase. I'm not sure it means anything much, but it's still a beaut.
It's the usual word salad - For some reason he seems utterly incapable of admitting error in any context ever. Which informs the whole, for want of a better word, exchange.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 07:16 AM   #414
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Can I ask, is there any academic individual or organisation in the whole world to whom you would listen if they told you that you were wrong?

In addition, when was the last time you were wrong?

Also, how old are you really?
what does that have to do with the post you quoted?
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 07:25 AM   #415
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
what does that have to do with the post you quoted?
Oh, not a lot, I just thought it was the best way to draw your attention to the unanswered questions.


Of course, I have no hope that they'll be answered, I just think those reading the thread need to be reminded, every so often, that there are questions you simply will not answer. I think it's a cognitive dissonance thing.


When was the last time you were wrong?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 07:56 AM   #416
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
It's the usual word salad - For some reason he seems utterly incapable of admitting error in any context ever. Which informs the whole, for want of a better word, exchange.
He has a pretty good knack for changing the subject as well. For instance, when we were discussing his either ad hoc or incoherent notion of "opposite", I wrote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If your definition of "opposite" is not ad hoc, then it follows that the opposite of

"The book is an autobiography or it is not written in English."
is

"The book is not an autobiography or it is written in English."
If the book is an English biography, then both the first statement and its "opposite" are true.

Do you agree that the second statement is the "opposite" of the first. (Hint: I don't.)
All of a sudden, he decided that this discussion was off-topic.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
TBD also showed the original statement was a tu quoque fallacy.

Just getting us back on track fellas on this most joyous of Holidays!
Later, when discussing the nature of tu quoque fallacy and the difficulty in interpreting plain English arguments written in an informal manner, I wrote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
In plain English arguments, there is always much left implicit. In order to evaluate an argument, then, one must try to determine what has been left out. The best way to do so, of course, is to ask one's interlocutor what he meant. This is not always possible, but surely it is almost always possible here on the forum. Barring this, one must provide an interpretation on one's own, tentatively stated but guided by principles of charity and fairness.

In this case, all we know is that, after A claimed the reason that Trump voters didn't vote Hillary is because she did X, B pointed out that Trump also did X. Now, of course this might suggest that Trump voters are hypocrites, but only if we accept A's claim and that is precisely what is at issue. B's response must instead be an attempt to refute A's claim and that makes perfect sense. The doing of X cannot explain why Trump voters didn't vote for Hillary, since Trump also did X. A's explanation is inadequate.

Note as well that even had B's point been that Trump voters are acting inconsistently, this isn't really hypocrisy (it is not they that said one ought to act one way and then acted another) and it doesn't even approach a tu quoque fallacy since they are not proposing any arguments.
Again, he decided to go on a detour to an earlier issue.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Then lets bring this to an end shall we?

What was the purpose of the accusation of hypocrisy?

TBD's position is that it is an attempt to make a substantive, albeit fallacious argument.

Your position is:????
Seemed like a simple question, didn't it?

The mental gymnastics employed to avoid answering it were spellbinding

Tbd's position and analysis is established.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:05 AM   #417
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
He has a pretty good knack for changing the subject as well. For instance, when we were discussing his either ad hoc or incoherent notion of "opposite", I wrote:


All of a sudden, he decided that this discussion was off-topic.



Later, when discussing the nature of tu quoque fallacy and the difficulty in interpreting plain English arguments written in an informal manner, I wrote:


Again, he decided to go on a detour to an earlier issue.

Oh yes, lots of detours. Anything that leads down a path that might end up with him not being totally right about anything is to be avoided. I still want to know if there's anyone, anywhere that he considers expert enough to provide him with information about anything.



I have to say, I admire your persistence in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 09:42 AM   #418
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
He has a pretty good knack for changing the subject as well. For instance, when we were discussing his either ad hoc or incoherent notion of "opposite", I wrote:


All of a sudden, he decided that this discussion was off-topic.



Later, when discussing the nature of tu quoque fallacy and the difficulty in interpreting plain English arguments written in an informal manner, I wrote:


Again, he decided to go on a detour to an earlier issue.
a "detour" to an "earlier issue"? Jeepers.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 11:10 AM   #419
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
a "detour" to an "earlier issue"? Jeepers.

Not gonna answer my questions?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 11:11 AM   #420
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
a "detour" to an "earlier issue"? Jeepers.
Yes. I wasn't discussing whatever questions you suddenly decided were crucial, and you never responded to my perfectly pertinent response.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:09 PM   #421
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Not gonna answer my questions?
No, of course not, they are flippant, frivolous off topic nonsense
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:12 PM   #422
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
How about, then, responding to my analysis of the dialogue in the OP, found here? Surely, it is quite on topic and neither flippant nor frivolous.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:12 PM   #423
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes. I wasn't discussing whatever questions you suddenly decided were crucial, and you never responded to my perfectly pertinent response.
well actually at least one of those questions i asked was directed to somebody else, and your entire discussion of "opposite" was due solely to your misapprehension of my comment.

anything about the actual subject matter of the tu quoque in question?
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 01:23 PM   #424
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
How about, then, responding to my analysis of the dialogue in the OP, found here? Surely, it is quite on topic and neither flippant nor frivolous.
I already did, it is specious on multiple levels.

Quote:
In this case, all we know is that, after A claimed the reason that Trump voters didn't vote Hillary is because she did X, B pointed out that Trump also did X. Now, of course this might suggest that Trump voters are hypocrites, but only if we accept A's claim and that is precisely what is at issue. B's response must instead be an attempt to refute A's claim and that makes perfect sense. The doing of X cannot explain why Trump voters didn't vote for Hillary, since Trump also did X. A's explanation is inadequate.
First of all we are evaluating B's claim, not A's claim. Second, "A's explanation is inadequate" (which is not the issue of course) only because you are accepting that B's claim is true, when not only has it not been proven it does not falsify A's original claim. Third, you have grossly misrepresented what B actually wrote.

But you suggest that it is not a tu quoque because "they are not proposing any arguments." then explain what they are doing.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:14 PM   #425
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
well actually at least one of those questions i asked was directed to somebody else, and your entire discussion of "opposite" was due solely to your misapprehension of my comment.
The post I directed you to had ****-all to do with "opposite", your discussion of which was (as was clearly shown) either ad-hoc or led to a situation in which both a statement and its opposite are true.

In any case, have a gander at the post I actually pointed you to, rather than drag up your addled notion of the opposite of a proposition, which had nothing to do with the point at hand.

Quote:
anything about the actual subject matter of the tu quoque in question?
Haven't bothered to look at any posts in other threads, since I believe that the question raised in the OP has not yet been settled. Do you agree that the snippet of dialogue in the OP is not anywhere close to a classical tu quoque? If so, perhaps we can have a gander at another example and see what there is to be said about it.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:23 PM   #426
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I already did, it is specious on multiple levels.
Did you? Goodness, please point out your prior response, since I seem to have missed it. Thanks.

Quote:
First of all we are evaluating B's claim, not A's claim. Second, "A's explanation is inadequate" (which is not the issue of course) only because you are accepting that B's claim is true, when not only has it not been proven it does not falsify A's original claim. Third, you have grossly misrepresented what B actually wrote.
B's claim is in the context of A's original claim. It is a response to A's claim. What is the point of that response? Clearly to cast doubt on A's claim and hence to cast doubt on whether or not A's explanation of Trump voters' choice is adequate.

This analysis does not presume that B's claim is true. That is beside the point. We only care about the truth of B's claim if we are asking about the effectiveness of his rebuttal. Regardless of whether B's claim is true or not, however, it is clear that B is attempting to rebut A's claim.

Quote:
But you suggest that it is not a tu quoque because "they are not proposing any arguments." then explain what they are doing.
I believe that you have misinterpreted the referent of "they". In this context, "they" referred not to A and/or B, but to Trump voters. Let me reproduce the paragraph in question and see if you don't get it this time.

Quote:
Note as well that even had B's point been that Trump voters are acting inconsistently, this isn't really hypocrisy (it is not they that said one ought to act one way and then acted another) and it doesn't even approach a tu quoque fallacy since they are not proposing any arguments.
I know that sometimes people use "they" as a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. I do it in speaking and maybe even some informal writing, but that's not what I meant here.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:29 PM   #427
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
snip

The issue is whether B's claim ("What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her") is a tu quoque fallacy.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:41 PM   #428
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
snip

The issue is whether B's claim ("What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her") is a tu quoque fallacy.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. Let me help refresh your memory. As I've said, I am talking about the dialogue found in the OP, reproduced below (with a typo fixed).

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person A: Tu quoque!!!

Now, as you can see, this is different than the clumsily quoted excerpt above, which we can surely discuss at some point, but let's first deal with the dialogue discussed in the OP, independently of whether it accurately represents some other snippet of conversation.

Not quite sure how you're not getting that. Perhaps you are reading too quickly and hurrying to respond, rather than trying to actually understand your correspondents' posts.

ETA: Would still like a pointer to your earlier rebuttal to my post, which you alluded to here.

Last edited by phiwum; 28th December 2016 at 02:43 PM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:48 PM   #429
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. Let me help refresh your memory. As I've said, I am talking about the dialogue found in the OP, reproduced below (with a typo fixed).

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person A: Tu quoque!!!

Now, as you can see, this is different than the clumsily quoted excerpt above, which we can surely discuss at some point, but let's first deal with the dialogue discussed in the OP, independently of whether it accurately represents some other snippet of conversation.

Not quite sure how you're not getting that. Perhaps you are reading too quickly and hurrying to respond, rather than trying to actually understand your correspondents' posts.

ETA: Would still like a pointer to your earlier rebuttal to my post, which you alluded to here.
The dialog between A and B in the OP was modeled after the exchange that sts10 and TBD had and part of which TBD quoted above.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:49 PM   #430
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. Let me help refresh your memory. As I've said, I am talking about the dialogue found in the OP, reproduced below (with a typo fixed).

Person A: Trump voters didn't vote for Clinton do to her being untrustworthy because she did X.

Person B: Trump also did X, so why did Trump voters vote for Trump?

Person A: Tu quoque!!!

Now, as you can see, this is different than the clumsily quoted excerpt above, which we can surely discuss at some point, but let's first deal with the dialogue discussed in the OP, independently of whether it accurately represents some other snippet of conversation.

Not quite sure how you're not getting that. Perhaps you are reading too quickly and hurrying to respond, rather than trying to actually understand your correspondents' posts.
I pointed out that the dialogue in the OP bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the posts linked in the first sentence of the OP, and as such we are focusing on the actual posts.

So take a gander at the linked posts and ignore the grossly misleading "dialogue"

Not quite sure how you're not getting that. Perhaps you are reading too quickly and hurrying to respond, rather than trying to actually understand your correspondents' posts.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:53 PM   #431
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I pointed out that the dialogue in the OP bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the posts linked in the first sentence of the OP, and as such we are focusing on the actual posts.

So take a gander at the linked posts and ignore the grossly misleading "dialogue"

Not quite sure how you're not getting that. Perhaps you are reading too quickly and hurrying to respond, rather than trying to actually understand your correspondents' posts.
How is the dialog misleading?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:56 PM   #432
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
The dialog between A and B in the OP was modeled after the exchange that sts10 and TBD had and part of which TBD quoted above.
I don't want to bother discussing whether it was an accurate representation or not, so let's just treat the two as independent, deal with the OP and then look at the earlier exchange.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 02:59 PM   #433
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
How is the dialog misleading?
Because it mischaracterizes both A's comment (in point of fact, he mentioned that she lied about it) and B's comment (which used the word hypocrisy twice and mentioned Bush and Powell among other things).
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:01 PM   #434
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't want to bother discussing whether it was an accurate representation or not, so let's just treat the two as independent, deal with the OP and then look at the earlier exchange.
Well, you're not going to make very much headway on that because TBD does have a point about the validity of the argument of the original exchange was misrepresented.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:02 PM   #435
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I pointed out that the dialogue in the OP bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the posts linked in the first sentence of the OP, and as such we are focusing on the actual posts.

So take a gander at the linked posts and ignore the grossly misleading "dialogue"

Not quite sure how you're not getting that. Perhaps you are reading too quickly and hurrying to respond, rather than trying to actually understand your correspondents' posts.
I never said whether it was an accurate representation or not. It is a simpler argument and we may well deal with it independently of any other snippet of conversation.

So, once again, I ask whether you accept my analysis of this fictional dialogue, namely that B is apparently not using a tu quoque and indeed has called no one hypocritical, but rather seems to be pointing out the inadequacy of A's explanation to account for all of the evidence. Once we settle this issue, we may look at the original conversation and see what there is to say there.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:03 PM   #436
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't want to bother discussing whether it was an accurate representation or not, so let's just treat the two as independent, deal with the OP and then look at the earlier exchange.
I... am.... dealing with the OP. The OP links to the posts I am referring to.

Y'all want to have a hypothetical discussion about something I don't want to bother discussing because i already explained is misleading and inaccurate, knock yourself out. Somebody wake me when you are done.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:04 PM   #437
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
Well, you're not going to make very much headway on that because TBD does have a point about the validity of the argument of the original exchange was misrepresented.
One issue at a time. I have no opinion or, indeed, care whether the dialogue in the OP is an accurate representation of the earlier dialogue. The dialogue in the OP is short and fairly easy to evaluate, so we can take it as a warm-up exercise before we get to a thornier real-world discussion.

I haven't even looked at the latter, aside from a very quick skim of one quoted post. It may well be that I agree it's a tu quoque for all I know at present. We will see when we come to it.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:08 PM   #438
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
One issue at a time. I have no opinion or, indeed, care whether the dialogue in the OP is an accurate representation of the earlier dialogue. The dialogue in the OP is short and fairly easy to evaluate, so we can take it as a warm-up exercise before we get to a thornier real-world discussion.

I haven't even looked at the latter, aside from a very quick skim of one quoted post. It may well be that I agree it's a tu quoque for all I know at present. We will see when we come to it.
'k. Take your time.
__________________
INDOCTRINATED!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 03:11 PM   #439
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Because it mischaracterizes both A's comment (in point of fact, he mentioned that she lied about it) and B's comment (which used the word hypocrisy twice and mentioned Bush and Powell among other things).
Incomplete representation is not necessarily misrepresentation. How Clinton responded to the e-mail scandal and how the Republicans handle their own email security are both relevant to whether the accusation of hypocrisy was a tu quoque.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 05:28 PM   #440
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,629
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
'k. Take your time.
Very well, so you refuse to discuss the snippet that began this conversation. Let us look at the original discussion.

Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
"Storing work email on a private server" is not a violation of national security standards. It's questionable to archival standards, but since she turned them over when asked (and did not lie about it), and also asked the FBI to make her emails public, it's tough to argue that she was intentionally hiding much of anything from anyone.

Now, storing classified info on any computer connected to the internet is a violation, but that applies to Department of State email servers as well - but that's been discussed before.

Whether or not she was charismatic is subjective - but I found her to be vastly more composed, calm, and even jovial, than Trump when the two were debating.
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.
Far as I can tell, sts60 is venting. He does not suggest that we should dismiss the claims of Trump voters regarding Hillary just because they don't complain about similar behavior by Powell, et al. He says that they are hypocrites and this annoys him considerably.

This is not a tu quoque fallacy. It would be a tu quoque only if he concluded (implicitly or explicitly) that the Trump voters' argument that Hillary's email server was a bad thing can be dismissed since they don't apply this argument equally to other cases. He did not do this.

Therefore, it just is not the fallacy you claim it is.

Of course, if you really wanted to know whether this was his point and perhaps he left it unstated, just ask sts60. That's about the best way to figure out what someone meant.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.