3 ms·

Please don't call people "Russian and Belarusian propagandists" just for pointing out political hypocrisy. As for the differences they seem like technical lega

Please don't call people "Russian and Belarusian propagandists" just for pointing out political hypocrisy. As for the differences they seem like technical legal details that do not really change the situation. But if you want other similar cases then here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interception_of_EgyptAir_jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...

maratc 5y ago
> Please don't call people "Russian and Belarusian propagandists" I didn't call anyone that; I've just pointed out that this is the argument these propagandists make. To be clear, I'm not calling you "Russian and Belarusian propagandist" either, I'm just pointing out you and them make the same arguments. > they seem like technical legal details But legal details is all that matters. If two guys sleep with the same girl, one a day before her 18th birthday, the other one day after, the acts may be similar — however, because of "technical legal details", one of these acts has no consequences, while the other is a statutory rape and may lead to imprisonment.
- h_anna_h 5y ago
  Ethically though both are the same act, this is the point. A lawyer might say "well achually" but that by itself does not make the western actions any better morally although it might give them a justification to pat themselves in the back.
  - maratc 5y ago
    This is the same tu quoque logical fallacy which goes all the way back to the Soviet propaganda and "in your place they are lynching Negroes"[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
    - h_anna_h 5y ago
      Pointing out hypocrisy would only be a fallacy if I tried to use it as an argument that the actions of Belarus are moral. I am not doing that.
      - maratc 5y ago
        "Appeal to hypocrisy" is the other name of tu quoque fallacy: Tu quoque, or _the appeal to hypocrisy_, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
        h_anna_h 5y ago
        I am aware. Not sure what your point is. I am not trying to discredit anyone's argument.

maratc 5y ago

> Please don't call people "Russian and Belarusian propagandists" I didn't call anyone that; I've just pointed out that this is the argument these propagandists make. To be clear, I'm not calling you "Russian and Belarusian propagandist" either, I'm just pointing out you and them make the same arguments. > they seem like technical legal details But legal details is all that matters. If two guys sleep with the same girl, one a day before her 18th birthday, the other one day after, the acts may be similar — however, because of "technical legal details", one of these acts has no consequences, while the other is a statutory rape and may lead to imprisonment.

h_anna_h 5y ago
Ethically though both are the same act, this is the point. A lawyer might say "well achually" but that by itself does not make the western actions any better morally although it might give them a justification to pat themselves in the back.
- maratc 5y ago
  This is the same tu quoque logical fallacy which goes all the way back to the Soviet propaganda and "in your place they are lynching Negroes"[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
  - h_anna_h 5y ago
    Pointing out hypocrisy would only be a fallacy if I tried to use it as an argument that the actions of Belarus are moral. I am not doing that.
    - maratc 5y ago
      "Appeal to hypocrisy" is the other name of tu quoque fallacy: Tu quoque, or _the appeal to hypocrisy_, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
      - h_anna_h 5y ago
        I am aware. Not sure what your point is. I am not trying to discredit anyone's argument.