3 ms·

Note how your whining about whataboutism effectively allows you to evade answering OP’s appeal to applying common standards for everyone, which is the only prop

Note how your whining about whataboutism effectively allows you to evade answering OP’s appeal to applying common standards for everyone, which is the only proper ethical response to hold. People who complain about whataboutism are the ones who want to get away with their hypocrisy and moral relativism whenever doing so serves their unsound political viewpoints.

kstenerud 4y ago
This is what makes tu-quoque such an insidious logical fallacy: It allows someone to sidetrack the conversation by changing away from the original subject. Had I followed along with this ruse, it would be trivial to keep piling on another country's bad behavior until the actual issue (Russia invading and annexing a neighbor) eventually gets buried in the noise from the resulting back-and-forth. And it often works because onlookers are fooled by the sleight-of-hand, while the accuser is left on the defensive because the subject has now shifted to something different of the interlocutor's choice that cannot be defended. They're called logical fallacies because they give the appearance of logical argument, but are actually invalid and prove nothing (and are in fact deceptions). I suggest you read up on them; I posted a link to the tu-quoque fallacy earlier.
- ghostwriter 4y ago
  You are wrong about it not proving anything, as it proves that you're intentionally trying to trivialize the conflict into an event of its own, by hiding the context of the prior events caused by other actors playing on the same field in their chronological order. Secondly, I'm yet to see a proof that it's indeed a fallacy, as you are yet to demonstrate how exactly OP's appeal to common standards is an unsound argument causing faulty reasoning. You're just evading the argument altogether whilst calling it a fallacy. I bet you're either cherry-picking definitions or not fully understanding the meaning of the term, especially when it serves your intent to hide your lack of consistency on the subject matter of military conflicts.

kstenerud 4y ago

This is what makes tu-quoque such an insidious logical fallacy: It allows someone to sidetrack the conversation by changing away from the original subject. Had I followed along with this ruse, it would be trivial to keep piling on another country's bad behavior until the actual issue (Russia invading and annexing a neighbor) eventually gets buried in the noise from the resulting back-and-forth. And it often works because onlookers are fooled by the sleight-of-hand, while the accuser is left on the defensive because the subject has now shifted to something different of the interlocutor's choice that cannot be defended. They're called logical fallacies because they give the appearance of logical argument, but are actually invalid and prove nothing (and are in fact deceptions). I suggest you read up on them; I posted a link to the tu-quoque fallacy earlier.

ghostwriter 4y ago
You are wrong about it not proving anything, as it proves that you're intentionally trying to trivialize the conflict into an event of its own, by hiding the context of the prior events caused by other actors playing on the same field in their chronological order. Secondly, I'm yet to see a proof that it's indeed a fallacy, as you are yet to demonstrate how exactly OP's appeal to common standards is an unsound argument causing faulty reasoning. You're just evading the argument altogether whilst calling it a fallacy. I bet you're either cherry-picking definitions or not fully understanding the meaning of the term, especially when it serves your intent to hide your lack of consistency on the subject matter of military conflicts.