4 ms·

Tu quoque... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wik

Tu quoque... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Your point doesn’t change the validity of the article, the poor working conditions for the employees, or the fact that perhaps such exports need to stop. Edit: What’s with the downvotes? So now HN is yet another forum where Whataboutism reigns? Shouldn’t we point out logical fallacies in arguments when we see them, or at least offer something constructive to the conversation? And, yes, this reply is constructive, since it points out that the parent reply is illogical and should be discounted.

skj 7y ago
The OP wasn't whatabouting, just pointing out that it's business as usual. Whataboutism as an accusation only take makes sense when it's whatabouting something from the accuser's camp, which doesn't seem to apply here.
- crazydoggers 7y ago
  The OP was clearly trying to throw shade at the article. The argument of the article is that they shouldn’t be exporting this gas. The comment was saying “well these other guys do worse.” That’s the exact definition of Whataboutism, and I urge you to read the Wikipedia articles to understand why that type of moral relativism is a logical fallacy. Otherwise why point out it’s “business as usual”. It’s not like the comment was adding information anyone didn’t already know. Trying to paint the comment as something else is just being purposefully obtuse.