5 ms·

>> This response is completely warranted when you don't lead by example. No, it is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikip

>> This response is completely warranted when you don't lead by example. No, it is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

pb7 7y ago
This informal fallacy is generally unrecognized. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make it an accepted norm. What you're doing is called the appeal to authority fallacy which is generally recognized.
- wizzwizz4 7y ago
  Both of you are wrong. Appealing to fallacies doesn't make a good argument, but neither does pointing that out knock down an argument. That'd be the “fallacy fallacy”. Appealing to "accepted norms" is another case of appealing to authority – except a less verifiable authority, in that case. Ironically, I am currently listing fallacies, which itself does not a good argument make – so I will add to it that that's not what “informal” means; the adjective is merely specifying that it is not a logical flaw, but instead falls into a broader category (such as implying stronger evidence than exists, or something). Your original argument is flawed, however; it neglects that organisations cannot increase the talent available to ethical companies and decrease the talent available to unethical ones by participating in the job market, and invokes an argument similar to the tu quoque fallacy by implying that Mozilla's actions have any bearing on how good its advice is. Merely calling out that you used a fallacy (and misidentified at that!) is not a sufficient counterargument alone.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Did you mean pb7, the poster you responded to, when you wrote "Your original argument"?
    - wizzwizz4 7y ago
      Yes.
  - pb7 7y ago
    Don't know where to begin with this one. Yes, "informal" isn't "logical", hence the italics specifying as much. No, my response wasn't a counterargument because what I was responding to wasn't an argument to begin with. There was nothing to defend because nothing of substance was produced. No, my original argument is not flawed because your counterargument has nothing to do with the concept we've been discussing in this sub-thread. Allow me to summarize: Mozilla sucks and yes, students should consider ethics in their job search which means they should probably not work for Mozilla.
    - wizzwizz4 7y ago
      You are correct in that there are no logical flaws with that argument. I misinterpreted what you were saying; sorry.
jshevek 7y ago
I don't see any actual logical fallacy here. Tu quoque is often misunderstood and mis-applied. Can you explain, in very specific terms, what you see as logically incorrect here?
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  There's not much to misunderstand, as the fallacy is fairly simple. Indeed, you can take the example shown in the wikipedia article and apply it directly to this topic: Mozilla makes the argument that young people should consider the ethical issues before taking jobs. HN user matheweis asserts that Mozilla's actions or past claims are inconsistent with their argument. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the argument that young people should consider the ethical issues before taking jobs is false. -- It should be incredibly clear how this line of reasoning is fallacious and therefore invalid.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    """ HN user matheweis asserts that Mozilla's actions or past claims are inconsistent with their argument. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the argument that young people should consider the ethical issues before taking jobs is false. """ This sequence strikes me as non sequitur and strawman. That is how "the reasoning goes" when one actually commits tu quoque, but merely pointing out hypocrisy is not tu quoque. Edit: It's possible that I have not read all of his comments. I'm only aware of this: "Mozilla wants young techies to consider ethics in their jobs? Rich words indeed from the corporation that more than doubled executive pay and then found themselves needing to lay off 70 people to save costs on a restructuring"
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. I believe everyone should give up flying because it's terrible for the environment, but I still fly on planes. My personal hypocrisy doesn't make air travel any better for the planet.
  - jshevek 7y ago

>> This response is completely warranted when you don't lead by example. No, it is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

pb7 7y ago

This informal fallacy is generally unrecognized. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make it an accepted norm. What you're doing is called the appeal to authority fallacy which is generally recognized.

wizzwizz4 7y ago
Both of you are wrong. Appealing to fallacies doesn't make a good argument, but neither does pointing that out knock down an argument. That'd be the “fallacy fallacy”. Appealing to "accepted norms" is another case of appealing to authority – except a less verifiable authority, in that case. Ironically, I am currently listing fallacies, which itself does not a good argument make – so I will add to it that that's not what “informal” means; the adjective is merely specifying that it is not a logical flaw, but instead falls into a broader category (such as implying stronger evidence than exists, or something). Your original argument is flawed, however; it neglects that organisations cannot increase the talent available to ethical companies and decrease the talent available to unethical ones by participating in the job market, and invokes an argument similar to the tu quoque fallacy by implying that Mozilla's actions have any bearing on how good its advice is. Merely calling out that you used a fallacy (and misidentified at that!) is not a sufficient counterargument alone.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Did you mean pb7, the poster you responded to, when you wrote "Your original argument"?
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    Yes.
- pb7 7y ago
  Don't know where to begin with this one. Yes, "informal" isn't "logical", hence the italics specifying as much. No, my response wasn't a counterargument because what I was responding to wasn't an argument to begin with. There was nothing to defend because nothing of substance was produced. No, my original argument is not flawed because your counterargument has nothing to do with the concept we've been discussing in this sub-thread. Allow me to summarize: Mozilla sucks and yes, students should consider ethics in their job search which means they should probably not work for Mozilla.
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    You are correct in that there are no logical flaws with that argument. I misinterpreted what you were saying; sorry.

jshevek 7y ago

I don't see any actual logical fallacy here. Tu quoque is often misunderstood and mis-applied. Can you explain, in very specific terms, what you see as logically incorrect here?

enraged_camel 7y ago
There's not much to misunderstand, as the fallacy is fairly simple. Indeed, you can take the example shown in the wikipedia article and apply it directly to this topic: Mozilla makes the argument that young people should consider the ethical issues before taking jobs. HN user matheweis asserts that Mozilla's actions or past claims are inconsistent with their argument. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the argument that young people should consider the ethical issues before taking jobs is false. -- It should be incredibly clear how this line of reasoning is fallacious and therefore invalid.
- jshevek 7y ago
  """ HN user matheweis asserts that Mozilla's actions or past claims are inconsistent with their argument. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the argument that young people should consider the ethical issues before taking jobs is false. """ This sequence strikes me as non sequitur and strawman. That is how "the reasoning goes" when one actually commits tu quoque, but merely pointing out hypocrisy is not tu quoque. Edit: It's possible that I have not read all of his comments. I'm only aware of this: "Mozilla wants young techies to consider ethics in their jobs? Rich words indeed from the corporation that more than doubled executive pay and then found themselves needing to lay off 70 people to save costs on a restructuring"
ForHackernews 7y ago
Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. I believe everyone should give up flying because it's terrible for the environment, but I still fly on planes. My personal hypocrisy doesn't make air travel any better for the planet.
- jshevek 7y ago