7 ms·

You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatabou

You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

StavrosK 8y ago
I suggest you read the article you linked.
- narag 8y ago
  I suggest you read the article you linked. Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"? Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.
    - narag 8y ago
      That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.
- consumer451 8y ago
  I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.
    - consumer451 8y ago
      Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to? If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        Jeez, what's with the Wikipedia links all the time? People drive by, throw a term around, and leave. How am I committing gaslighting? Am I rearranging the furniture in your house while you're away or something?
        consumer451 8y ago
        I should not have said that second part. To break it down, can you please explain to me which war crimes you are referring to, and how they are related to the beginning of this thread?
        8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
buboard 8y ago
Not everything is whataboutism. The parent is making a propositional fallacy in the form of a question "If A then B. B therefore A" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
- consumer451 8y ago
  This is a fair and logical argument. However, in this context, I would still like to know the what the grand parent was referring to when they mentioned “war crimes.” Btw, personal opinion: I am completely biased against Assange given his lack of openess against everyone but the Democratic Party. I used to think he was one of my heroes, now I think that he is just someone trying to save his own skin. His actions and reading his AMA’s on Reddit really changed my opinion regarding the idea that he might be an unbiased arbiter of truth. Assange is no Snowden.
  - buboard 8y ago
    I believe he s refering to civilian deaths which went undocumented, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak I believe the hero-worship of such persons is not useful. But they have changed the landscape and raised the bar for transparency from governments worldwide, which is undeniably a good thing.

You are responding to textbook whataboutism, aka “tu quoque logical fallacy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

StavrosK 8y ago

I suggest you read the article you linked.

narag 8y ago
I suggest you read the article you linked. Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"? Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...
- StavrosK 8y ago
  He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.
  - narag 8y ago
    That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.
consumer451 8y ago
I apologize if I missed something in the thread and misinterpreted it. I did read the link, can you please enlighten me with your interpretation?
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Whataboutism is when an argument is presented with a counterargument of hypocrisy, ie literally what the person replying to me was doing. The argument was "the US leaders are protecting themselves by extraditing Assange, who uncovered their crimes", and the reply was "but Assange is a Russian asset, so he's not so great either". Asset or not, the crimes were still committed, and the people who committed them are still guilty.
  - consumer451 8y ago
    Pardon my ignorance, but just so I understand, when you said “Does that excuse the war crimes that were committed?” Which war crimes were you referring to? If I understand the thread correctly, you also seem to be committing textbook gaslighting[0]. If I am misinterpreting the thread, please correct me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      Jeez, what's with the Wikipedia links all the time? People drive by, throw a term around, and leave. How am I committing gaslighting? Am I rearranging the furniture in your house while you're away or something?
      - consumer451 8y ago
        I should not have said that second part. To break it down, can you please explain to me which war crimes you are referring to, and how they are related to the beginning of this thread?
        8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

buboard 8y ago

Not everything is whataboutism. The parent is making a propositional fallacy in the form of a question "If A then B. B therefore A" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

consumer451 8y ago
This is a fair and logical argument. However, in this context, I would still like to know the what the grand parent was referring to when they mentioned “war crimes.” Btw, personal opinion: I am completely biased against Assange given his lack of openess against everyone but the Democratic Party. I used to think he was one of my heroes, now I think that he is just someone trying to save his own skin. His actions and reading his AMA’s on Reddit really changed my opinion regarding the idea that he might be an unbiased arbiter of truth. Assange is no Snowden.
- buboard 8y ago
  I believe he s refering to civilian deaths which went undocumented, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak I believe the hero-worship of such persons is not useful. But they have changed the landscape and raised the bar for transparency from governments worldwide, which is undeniably a good thing.