5 ms·

whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

by erfgh 6y ago

jonathanstrange 6y ago
Not necessarily in this area. Wikileaks has exposed a number of US war crimes that went completely unpunished, while a person who was working on behalf of Wikileaks is being prosecuted on grounds that are fairly constructed and far-fetched even by US standards. Morally speaking, even if some of Assange's actions were immoral they might be considered excusable because the perils were outweighed by the benefits of these actions. It's not uncommon to reason that way. The same kind of reasoning is used to justify the means by the ends, e.g. purporters of the US drone strike program argue that the many civilian bystanders that are killed by those strikes are justifiable by the end, which is the extrajudicial killing of the alleged terrorist targets. It's called a balance of consideration argument, sometimes also "conductive argument". Obviously, the legal question is different from this, IANAL and I don't even know if lawyers use conductive arguments in this way. The judge in this extradition case certainly didn't, but that's not surprising since her job wasn't to judge Assange's actions.
- jboog 6y ago
  Assange literally encouraged people to infiltrate US intelligence agencies and "leak" classified intel. Let's not even get into his work laundering Russian hacked docs to damage the US, and then repeatedly lying about it. He also is credibly accused of being a rapist. The US has done some bad shit, no doubt, but that doesn't make Assange some saint. He's a bad dude.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    If I encourage people to leak Chinese classified documents, would that make me a bad dude too? I don’t think your reasoning is sound here.
    - jboog 6y ago
      If you raped two women, encouraged people to steal Chinese intel, and then worked with Russian intelligence to spread propaganda, yes, indeed you would be a bad dude.
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    CIA literally funded drug cartels. Obama literally authorized a drone strike on a "suspected terrorist US citizen" in Yemen. While the rape accusation was retracted. There's no equivalence of a proven fact vs accusation. Assange is unquestionably on a moral high ground here.
    - jboog 6y ago
      This is a straight-up lie. The accusations were never retracted. The women have maintained their allegations ever since. and Not even going to respond to your whataboutism here, just lazy argumentation.
konjin 6y ago
Calling out logical fallacies is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It comes from not understanding the difference between logical entailment and logical equivalence when given a set of premises and a conclusion. I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this. It’s not that I haven’t - but I’m 8 years out of uni and have completely forgotten how to apply Modus tollens and I suspect I’m not alone.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Being a hypocrite isn't a logical fallacy, but it isn't a good rhetorical stance for convincing others.
swebs 6y ago
Its a deflection, not a fallacy.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Referencing the US war crimes that Assange helped expose is important though. I'm not denying Assange committed crimes by leaking or helping to leak secret documents, but it was the moral thing to do to expose war crimes that would otherwise be (and which are being) covered up. In this case, the UK should not only consider the extradition request itself, but how they stand with regards to the US and their war crimes. And when it comes to war crimes, for the UK to be silent is to be complicit.

whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

by erfgh 6y ago

whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

Not necessarily in this area. Wikileaks has exposed a number of US war crimes that went completely unpunished, while a person who was working on behalf of Wikileaks is being prosecuted on grounds that are fairly constructed and far-fetched even by US standards. Morally speaking, even if some of Assange's actions were immoral they might be considered excusable because the perils were outweighed by the benefits of these actions. It's not uncommon to reason that way. The same kind of reasoning is used to justify the means by the ends, e.g. purporters of the US drone strike program argue that the many civilian bystanders that are killed by those strikes are justifiable by the end, which is the extrajudicial killing of the alleged terrorist targets. It's called a balance of consideration argument, sometimes also "conductive argument". Obviously, the legal question is different from this, IANAL and I don't even know if lawyers use conductive arguments in this way. The judge in this extradition case certainly didn't, but that's not surprising since her job wasn't to judge Assange's actions.

jboog 6y ago
Assange literally encouraged people to infiltrate US intelligence agencies and "leak" classified intel. Let's not even get into his work laundering Russian hacked docs to damage the US, and then repeatedly lying about it. He also is credibly accused of being a rapist. The US has done some bad shit, no doubt, but that doesn't make Assange some saint. He's a bad dude.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  If I encourage people to leak Chinese classified documents, would that make me a bad dude too? I don’t think your reasoning is sound here.
  - jboog 6y ago
    If you raped two women, encouraged people to steal Chinese intel, and then worked with Russian intelligence to spread propaganda, yes, indeed you would be a bad dude.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  CIA literally funded drug cartels. Obama literally authorized a drone strike on a "suspected terrorist US citizen" in Yemen. While the rape accusation was retracted. There's no equivalence of a proven fact vs accusation. Assange is unquestionably on a moral high ground here.
  - jboog 6y ago
    This is a straight-up lie. The accusations were never retracted. The women have maintained their allegations ever since. and Not even going to respond to your whataboutism here, just lazy argumentation.

konjin 6y ago

Calling out logical fallacies is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It comes from not understanding the difference between logical entailment and logical equivalence when given a set of premises and a conclusion. I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this. It’s not that I haven’t - but I’m 8 years out of uni and have completely forgotten how to apply Modus tollens and I suspect I’m not alone.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Being a hypocrite isn't a logical fallacy, but it isn't a good rhetorical stance for convincing others.

swebs 6y ago

Its a deflection, not a fallacy.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Referencing the US war crimes that Assange helped expose is important though. I'm not denying Assange committed crimes by leaking or helping to leak secret documents, but it was the moral thing to do to expose war crimes that would otherwise be (and which are being) covered up. In this case, the UK should not only consider the extradition request itself, but how they stand with regards to the US and their war crimes. And when it comes to war crimes, for the UK to be silent is to be complicit.