Talk:Tu quoque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Really?

Are you trying to say that if a homeless person on the street offers me advice on what I should do to be successful in life, that I should just ignore the state of his current disposition and simply critique his statements as to whether they are true or not? Seriously?

and if a pedofile offers me advice on what I need to do to be an outstanding citizen, i should simply critique what he is saying as to its validy.. and totally ignore his history? Seriously? Seriously?... I'll say it one more time... Seriously?

The definition of this fallacy, along with many other fallacies on wikipedia need SERIOUS review. The other one is "appeal to emotions" - humans use emotions to make judgements on a daily basis.

[edit] You/thou

I don't see why "tu" was translated as "thou." Yes it may sort of get across a distinction in Latin pronouns, but the fact remains that "thou" is not part of modern English. I've changed it. Minivet (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Brutus ref.

The 'historical reference' is not mentioned in the Marcus Brutus article. The "et tu, Brute" quotation is, however, mentioned. I may fix this myself, at some point. I doubt it will be any time soon, though. Maybe someone else might want to do something about this minor error. Zeno Izen 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Hominem?

There is no relation between the concept of "tu quoque" as a legitimate argument in a court of law or elsewhere (e.g. in world politics), and what "ad hominem" means. The argument of "tu quoque" belongs indeed to the family of "ad hominem" arguments but this does not mean that "tu quoque" should mean exclusively "ad hominem"! The link which directs the wikipedia reader who's looking for "tu quoque" to the entry for "ad hominem" should be removed and a separate articleon "tu quoque" must be created. (I do not have the background nor the knowledge to do so myself. I started a stub.) --The Gnome 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should remain as a category of ad hominem. tu quoque is diverting attention away from the logical argument at hand by focusing attention on alleged missdeeds of the othery party whether true or not. As such it is also attacking the person. The separate page could be left as a help to finding it.DLH 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with The Gnome - the use of tu quoque arguments in international criminal jurisprudence is enough to justify a separate "tu quoque" entry. [International Lawyer]

I agree with The Gnome, as well. Tu quoque is not necessarily ad hominem. And it has a sufficiently notable context to warrant a separate article. Hmm, it appears that all of this discussion is old, so probably moot. Ah life.Jance 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

Seems like we could get the point across without relating it to politics. Articles citing criticisms on the grounds of this fallacy can certainly point here, but I don't see reason to point the other way. I don't know if I can justify removing it, because it's technically correct. I just think we'd get the point across more clearly (particularly with readers predisposed one way or another politically) if we avoided this kind of sideways jab. Ojcit 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur, this is what gives wiki the appearance of a left leaning political forum!! Unsigned comment by Mentatdewd

I don't think including both Democratic and Republican examples, particularly with regard to a hot issue like the War in Iraq, is the best call here. I think both examples should be replaced with a more neutrally-charged example of the tu quoque inconsistency. It gives the appearance of bending over backwards to be politically balanced. It's a distraction. Venicemenace 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have examples of Carthaginians using the fallacy. Never liked those. kisses, scipio BonniePrinceCharlie 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremburg

I deleted the paragraph about the Nuremburg trials because it was such a poor example. A tu quoque argument would have been if they argued that the judges of the court or their superiors committed similar offenses. The argument they actually made was that the claimed moral and logical underpinnings of the court were flawed because of selective prosecution. If the judges had all been from non-combatant countries, the argument that the court was ignoring the war crimes of Brits and Americans would still be valid.

Suppose the article said Rosa Parks made the tu quoque argument that you let whites sit here, therefore you should let blacks sit here. If tu quoque is a form of fallacy it should not be used to describe valid refutation of the other side's argument. — Randall Bart 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppose the article said Rosa Parks made the tu quoque argument that you let whites sit here, therefore you should let blacks sit here.
Just on it's face, that would be a fallacious argument (akin to "you let ticket-holders watch the movie, therefore you should let non-ticket-holders in as well"). You'd need to add a premise such as "black people and white people are entitled to the same rights and treatment by the government" (which I believe to be true, mind you) for the argument to go through. But at that point, it would not be a tu quoque argument, it would be an argument from ethics (viz.,--it is wrong to deny people their rights). 64.234.1.144 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example

The single left example says "John Smith told the police he was at home alone on Friday night, but later said he was with friends at a bar; we can't take what he says about the crime at face value since he lied about his alibi.". I find this a poor example, as many people will assume a lying criminal is likely to keep lying. What about (chosen from the Dutch wikipedia entry):

  • "You say smoking is bad for your health. But you used to smoke yourself!"
  • "You say doing A is better than doing B. But last week you favoured policy B!"

Arakrys 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of the example is to show that the source claims both A and B (~A), which makes the source untrustworthy. This doesn't mean that either A or B are right or wrong (which would be the fallacious form of tu quoque), only that the source is inconsistent and thus untrustworthy (i.e., a secondary source is necessary).
To argue that "You say smoking is bad for your health. But you used to smoke yourself!" may fall under the first legitimate use of tu qouque: questioning the consistency or criteria of the critique, but it doesn't seem to fit under this second category (showing the unreliability of a source). To argue that "You say doing A is better than doing B. But last week you favoured policy B!" seems to be the same as the current example (viz.--demonstrating an inconsistent source of knowledge), albeit not as clear. My two cents. 64.234.1.144 06:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Layman's Terms

Would it be innacurate to state this as a "Takes one to know one" logical approach? Steneub 198.134.2.62 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Can someone add the pronunciation to the opening sentence? It is given here among other sites. Richard001 (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waitaminit...

Quoth the article: "You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."

The statement itself is logically fallacious, but is used as an example of tu quoque being able to be non-fallacious. I don't dispite that tu quoque can be used without fallacy, but I disagree that the sentence exemplifies this.

Reason the statement is logically fallacious: According to the statement: -I state that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances. -I support killing (humans, presumably) in self-defence. and from these two, the following optional conclusions are drawn: -I am being inconsistent -I believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified.

Well, first of all, the first conclusion CANNOT be drawn from those facts alone. See, those facts alone do NOT indicate that I condemn wrongdoing! Second, 'believing something is justified' and 'supporting it' are NOT identical. I may support unjustified things. I may support wrongdoing. I may be unabashedly evil and revel in it. What? Why not?

Perhaps I believe that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, and I support all wroingdoing, including taking human lives, under all circumstances, including self-defence. Further, I am in favour of doing unjustified things, because I'm evil and it makes things more fun. There's no inconsistency, and neither conclusion thus drawn would be correct. 65.87.20.98 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legitimate You-too Version 2

The example which is supposed to use the speaker's inconsistency to "disprove" their point, in fact, does not commit the fallacy subsequently attributed to it. Version 2 (the version intended to be illegitimate) for legitimate you-too needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge008 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)