3 ms·
Because it's not an argument against the action, it's a complaint about the lack of other actions. The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanct
by XorNot 5y ago
Because it's not an argument against the action, it's a complaint about the lack of other actions.
The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanctions are not a good response, or won't have the intended response, instead they have posted a list of other injustices to which we did not implement sanctions or otherwise take action.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago>Because it's not an argument against the action Indeed, it is not per se. >it's a complaint about the lack of other actions No, it is not per se. It is a meta-level argument on inconsistency. >The poster has not presented an argument as to why the sanctions are not a good response, or won't have the intended response, instead they have posted a list of other injustices to which we did not implement sanctions or otherwise take action. Yes, there is nothing fallacious about that.
- avereveard 5y ago> meta-level argument on inconsistency If you think that a regional scale conflict and a country yelling nuclear annihilation at every turn are at the same level and needs the same, consistent, response you have no place discussing meta arguments.
- LudwigNagasena 5y agoThe fact is that there is no fallacy. Whether the comparison is warranted is a whole nother issue. There is no reason to gish-gallop.