..................... .......

Originally Posted by arathbon

Due to confusion in a previous thread I feel like clarifying something.

Tu Quoque is actually specific to the person attacked either acting in a hypocritical way or having previously made a claim logically inconsistent with the current claim in a different argument.

The specific quote referred to was not a Tu Quoque as it dismissed any argument Icecream could make because the poster disagreed with one claim he made.

In the future if you're going to use terms like that please get them right.

Why start a whole new thread that will antagonize and feed the trolls endless rage?

Because misuse of terms like that is a particular pet peeve of mine.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Because misuse of terms like that is a particular pet peeve of mine.

Ok, well if you truly want to get your point across, post a link to the thread, previous is ambiguous

Is there any way to delete a thread that you realize is pointless and petty?

Hahah... Here is a link... http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tu-quoque.html

1-Person A makes claim X.
2- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3-Therefore X is false.

Example is in my forum signature...

Originally Posted by Icecream

Hahah... Here is a link... http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tu-quoque.html

1-Person A makes claim X.
2- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3-Therefore X is false.

But that's not the fallacy you were pointing out. The other poster stated that because you were incorrect here that everything you said was false. That is a more generalized Ad Hominem fallacy rather than a tu quoque fallacy. Tu quoque is specific (as this post states) to the attacked either acting in a way you would not expect if their claim were true, or having made contradictory claims to their current claim.

Originally Posted by arathbon

But that's not the fallacy you were pointing out. The other poster stated that because you were incorrect here that everything you said was false. That is a more generalized Ad Hominem fallacy rather than a tu quoque fallacy. Tu quoque is specific (as this post states) to the attacked either acting in a way you would not expect if their claim were true, or having made contradictory claims to their current claim.

That was the fallacy I was pointing out, check my response to Mowicz.

Show me the messages that support your statement I highlighted in bold font.

Great, so from now on I have conclusive proof that everything you say is utter bullshit.

This is what you were referring to when you stated

Your signature is an example of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Yet this is not a Tu Quoque fallacy. It is a straight Ad Hominem as it follows the form

1. Icecream made a statement I judge to be stupid
Therefore,
2. Everything Icecream says is utter bullshit

As you have pointed out that is not the form of a Tu Quoque.

Let me put it another way.

Tu Quoque refers specifically to an Ad Hominem argument referring to an instance in which an arguer either flip flopped or acted hypocritically.

Mowicz didn't suggest you were wrong because you were hypocritcal but because he thought you were stupid. That is just an Ad Hominem (maybe an Abusive Ad Hominem) but definitely not a Tu Quoque Ad Hominem.

Originally Posted by arathbon

This is what you were referring to when you stated


Yet this is not a Tu Quoque fallacy. It is a straight Ad Hominem as it follows the form

1. Icecream made a statement I judge to be stupid
Therefore,
2. Everything Icecream says is utter bullshit

As you have pointed out that is not the form of a Tu Quoque.

No it is a Tu Quoque because he is trying to say that my future claims are wrong because they are inconsistent with the claim I made by mistake ("Do not assume I was trying to mean something"). Let's assume the claim was intentional, then it is a hypocritical claim. However, it does not mean that my future claims are false. Mowicz was claiming otherwise.

EDIT : He did not claim I was stupid. Do not mention the word "thought". You cannot know what goes inside a person's head. He did not claim I was stupid, which is the reason why it was not a simple Ad Hominem.

Originally Posted by Icecream

No it is a Tu Quoque because he is trying to say that my future claims are wrong because they are inconsistent with the claim I made by mistake ("Do not assume I was trying to mean something"). Let's assume the claim was intentional, then it is a hypocritical claim. However, it does not mean that my future claims are false. Mowicz was claiming otherwise.

How is "Do not assume I was trying to mean something" a claim that is hypocritical with any future claim?

EDIT : He did not claim I was stupid. Do not mention the word "thought". You cannot know what goes inside a person's head. He did not claim I was stupid, which is the reason why it was not a simple Ad Hominem.

Ok well the implied argument is as I stated. Whether he thinks you're stupid or not, its how the post reads.

Originally Posted by arathbon

How is "Do not assume I was trying to mean something" a claim that is hypocritical with any future claim?



Ok well the implied argument is as I stated. Whether he thinks you're stupid or not, its how the post reads.

There was no claim of him saying I was stupid. It is not about how you read it, because you have a different understanding and it seems you like to paint over your understanding. He may or may not think that, but the fact is : He did not claim it so the fallacy is a Tu Quoque.

It is not a hypocritical claim, but he used it like if it was one.

Great, so from now on I have conclusive proof that everything you say is utter bullshit.

Originally Posted by Icecream

There was no claim of him saying I was stupid. It is not about how you read it, because you have a different understanding and it seems you like to paint over your understanding. He may or may not think that, but the fact is : He did not claim it so the fallacy is a Tu Quoque.

It is not a hypocritical claim, but he used it like if it was one.

Ok standardized the argument he made in the following post:

Great, so from now on I have conclusive proof that everything you say is utter bullshit.

Unless I'm nuts it would go as follows

1. Some sort of implied premise related to your quote
Therefore,
2. Everything you say is bullshit

Hypocritical in the context of Tu quoque means either contradictory with a past statement on the same subject i.e. "Last week you said the opposite of what you said now" or contradicotry with your actions i.e., "You claim smoking is bad yet you smoke yourself?"

I don't see anywhere in the thread where he claims you made hypocritical statements. Indeed I have only see places where he claims you made illogical or incorrect statements.