6 ms·

Even more tax hypocrisy being spouted by the Guardian. http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-cay

by alva 11y ago

Even more tax hypocrisy being spouted by the Guardian. http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/ http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-sec... http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#4ec0bd22b232 http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insuf... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-media-firm-makes-186m-but-pays-only-200000-tax-8675818.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-med...

x5n1 11y ago
Ad-hominem. Does not make their articles any less relevant or wrong. Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- alva 11y ago
  ad hominem "directed against a person rather than the position" The Guardian position is that avoiding tax using offshore companies is morally wrong. The Guardian avoids tax using offshore companies hypocrisy "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." edit: You are right that it does not make their articles any less relevant and I did not claim that it did.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
  - devishard 11y ago
    One of the most valuable realizations I had in my mid-20s was that just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.
    - alva 11y ago
      Absolutely agree. I am not saying they are either wrong, or wrong because of this hypocrisy, in fact I agree with them regarding this issue. I do think it is important that those who read the Guardians moralising stance on tax are fully aware of it.
      - devishard 11y ago
        > I do think it is important that those who read the Guardians moralising stance on tax are fully aware of it. Why? Maybe it's important in some general sense, but it's certainly not important to this discussion. If, as you admit, it doesn't prove their stance wrong or right, then it really is just an ad hominem attack which has no bearing on this discussion.
    - zo1 11y ago
      That may be the case. Unfortunately, it also makes it almost 100% likely that whoever you are arguing with will dismiss your points because of it.
      - devishard 11y ago
        Which is why bringing up the Guardian's hypocrisy is counterproductive to a reasoned discussion.
    - vixen99 11y ago
      No but they are definitely shifty characters.
    - sievebrain 11y ago
      The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, and actions speak louder than words. If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much. In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), but actually engages in it rampantly themselves. Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Ad hominem and tu quoque are only logical fallacies if used as the premise for an argument that the conclusion is incorrect. The person you're replying to is making no such argument.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    It seemed implied to me.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Seems like the opposite to me. The commenter doesn't appear to be justifying this behavior on the basis that the Guardian does it, but rather criticizing the Guardian for participating in it.

by alva 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

Ad-hominem. Does not make their articles any less relevant or wrong. Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

alva 11y ago
ad hominem "directed against a person rather than the position" The Guardian position is that avoiding tax using offshore companies is morally wrong. The Guardian avoids tax using offshore companies hypocrisy "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." edit: You are right that it does not make their articles any less relevant and I did not claim that it did.
- x5n1 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- devishard 11y ago
  One of the most valuable realizations I had in my mid-20s was that just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.
  - alva 11y ago
    Absolutely agree. I am not saying they are either wrong, or wrong because of this hypocrisy, in fact I agree with them regarding this issue. I do think it is important that those who read the Guardians moralising stance on tax are fully aware of it.
    - devishard 11y ago
      > I do think it is important that those who read the Guardians moralising stance on tax are fully aware of it. Why? Maybe it's important in some general sense, but it's certainly not important to this discussion. If, as you admit, it doesn't prove their stance wrong or right, then it really is just an ad hominem attack which has no bearing on this discussion.
  - zo1 11y ago
    That may be the case. Unfortunately, it also makes it almost 100% likely that whoever you are arguing with will dismiss your points because of it.
    - devishard 11y ago
      Which is why bringing up the Guardian's hypocrisy is counterproductive to a reasoned discussion.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    No but they are definitely shifty characters.
  - sievebrain 11y ago
    The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, and actions speak louder than words. If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much. In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), but actually engages in it rampantly themselves. Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one.
mikeash 11y ago
Ad hominem and tu quoque are only logical fallacies if used as the premise for an argument that the conclusion is incorrect. The person you're replying to is making no such argument.
- x5n1 11y ago
  It seemed implied to me.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Seems like the opposite to me. The commenter doesn't appear to be justifying this behavior on the basis that the Guardian does it, but rather criticizing the Guardian for participating in it.