'tu quoque' am I iwrong?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Below is a part of a post I made on another forum.

The response was that it is not tu quoque if the accusation of hyocrisy is true.:

xouper wrote: When others do it, they are "shallow, arrogant elitist". But when you do it, you feel justified in not suffering fools


Tu quoque/appeal to hypocrisy,a common logical fallacy.

If I am wrong,I will need to apologise.

[LastPoet]

No, the hypocritical behaviour may be true, but when the argument is made to dismiss the oponents argument it remains a fallacy. e.g. I am a smoker and you are too, if you say "Smoking is bad for your health!" and I say "neener neener you smoke too", that is a tu quoque. Instead my answer would've been "Smoking is proven good because of several studies proving smoking is good <cite sources> , the fact that you smoke yourself has no bearing in the validity of my argument "

As to the post you quoted itself, context is needed.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

No, the hypocritical behaviour may be true, but when the argument is made to dismiss the oponents argument it remains a fallacy. e.g. I am a smoker and you are too, if you say "Smoking is bad for your health!" and I say "neener neener you smoke too", that is a tu quoque. Instead my answer would've been "Smoking is proven good because of several studies proving smoking is good <cite sources> , the fact that you smoke yourself has no bearing in the validity of my argument "

As to the post you quoted itself, context is needed.

Thank you,that is my opinion

Context: OK,if you can be bothered wading though it:


Context of my accusation of arrogant, shallow and elitist was in response to a thread the guy started entitled "Stoopid people" (note the reference to MENSA) I think you might be able to guess the content of some of the responses.

My argument of tu quoque was from another thread on the definition of arrogance:


Quote:

Can it ever be earned?
I don't think you can earn the right to be offensive.

In a free society I have every right to be offensive and to be offended. It's called 'free speech' .What I do not have is a right NOT to be offended.

Have you ever been arrogant?

Constantly;I do not suffer fools.

To answer the question overall: One of my guiding life rules is "try not to be a c--t". When I make the effort, I usually succeed. However, my moral compass comes from conscience. I accept no other source..

I consider arrogance in myself and others an annoying personality foible not a moral issue,unless one deliberately sets out to cut others.
[quote]


To which he replied:

Quote:

Bunyip wrote:I do not suffer fools.

Now you know how I feel. When others do it, they are "shallow, arrogant elitist". But when you do it, you feel justified in not suffering fools. Now you know how I feel.


THAT was the basis of my tu quoque claim.

However,seems I may owe the arsehole an apology.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000

The Stoopid people' post quoted in full.

Quote:
There are some very smart people on this forum who have excellent critical thinking skills and I enjoy reading their comments.

[rant] Unfortunately, there are also a few regulars here at the other end of the spectrum whose reading and thinking skills are almost non-existent. (What would a bell curve be without tails at both ends?) Those people are simply unable to compose a valid argument and often fail to recognize valid arguments from others, especially if it contradicts their position. Those people are also too stoopid to recognize I'm talking about them. And no I'm not going to name names, that would be against the rules. The smart people here know who the stoopid ones are, but the stoopid ones don't have a clue who the smart ones are.

I should put those stoopid people on my ignore list but apparently I'm too stoopid to protect myself from reading and responding to their BS. Often it's just a huge waste of my time and energy. On the other hand, shooting fish in a barrel can sometimes be gratifying. But not often enough.

I was at a Mensa lunch the other day and one of the stoopid ones -- yes there are a few stoopid people who can score high on an IQ test -- where was I -- ok, one of the stooopid ones made a stoopid argument and I replied with a simple one line rebuttal. You could hear a wooshing sound as my remark went right over his head, but John sitting across from me blurted out a short chuckle. He got it. In fact John is one of the quickest wits I've ever met. He almost always gets my point immediately without further explanation, and vice versa. Too bad more people aren't as smart as John.

I may need a break from this place. Quitting this forum is easy. I've done it a thousand times. Maybe once I learn how to deal with stoopid people, I won't need this forum anymore.

http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/heresign.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZkdHImCuQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here%27s_Your_Sign

[/rant] [/whine] [/butthurt] [/etc] [/whatever]

Anyway, thank you to all the really smart people here for making this an enjoyable place to visit.

[Cato]

I think your communication partner is suffering from QUphobia. QUphobia is the fear of meanings of words that contain two Qs and two Us. I digress.

The appearance of hypocrisy 'must' be true in at least one instance for tu quoque. The fallacy exists when the hypocrisy is used as a means of refuting the proposition. Example:

Me: Smoking has been proven to have adverse affects on health.
Them: Do you smoke?
Me: Yes
Them: Then smoking isn't bad for you.

This is an example of the tu quoque fallacy.

[Angrboda]

Tu quoque is just a special case of ad hominem, and ad hominem is a non sequitur because nothing about the proponent of a claim effects the logical validity of the claim unless the claim is in some way dependent on a quality of the advocate. (E.g. "As an expert in biology, I can tell you that mammals didn't evolve into whales." "You have focused your studies and professional work almost exclusively on arthropods; you are not an expert in the relevant area.")

And as to the specific fallacy of tu quoque, nothing about the opposing advocate is relevant, as the opposing advocate's claim's only relevant criteria is whether it is true or not; nothing about the opposing advocate can effect the soundness of a claim about someone else, only the claim's falsehood can do that.

Oh, and I think you've got an extra i, pad.

[jonb]

If I am wrong,I will need to apologise.

As you probably know, I try to look at peoples motivations, rather than just what is said. Advice from me (and remember I am an unreliable source) is that you would not have made this post if you did not feel uneasy. So I think you may have to man up and back down. On the other hand the guy is probably a *%&$ so fcuk him.

[Jackalope]

My opinion (worth every penny you paid for it, BTW).

It is my understanding that the fallacy of tu quoque takes two forms: The "you too" form (appeal to hypocrisy), and the "inconsistency" form (your argument is inconsistent with prior claims).

It is not necessarily tu quoque to point out that another's argument is inconsistent with prior claims or that they are a hypocrite. It is tu quoque to do so, and then claim that because of the prior inconsistency or hypocrisy that their current argument is without merit.

Pointing out hypocrisy or inconsistency can just be a way of saying "you know, dude, perhaps you haven't thought this through completely" without being fallacious. Much like calling someone a "stupid jerk" is only an ad hominem in the context of "You're wrong, because you're a stupid jerk" and not "You're wrong because of X, you stupid jerk.". The latter form is merely insulting.

[Lion IRC]

Below is a part of a post I made on another forum.

The response was that it is not tu quoque if the accusation of hypocrisy is true.:

xouper wrote: When others do it, they are "shallow, arrogant elitist". But when you do it, you feel justified in not suffering fools


Tu quoque/appeal to hypocrisy,a common logical fallacy.

If I am wrong,I will need to apologise.

It's presumed that the term tu quoque applies to something which is equally as true as that to which it stands in relation.

The accusation that a logical fallacy has been committed isnt met with the reply....no you're wrong, I dont do that!

It is met with the reply...so what if I do?

skepticforum.com ?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Umm. Thanks, I think. Am I wrong? Lion seems to saying I'm right. I'm confused.

jonb; Yes I feel uneasy; I felt I was right at the time,but not so much when challenged by Xouper. That is because most people on that forum respect his intellect. It has occurred to that I may have simply been arrogant because I think the guy is an arsehole. AND that in fact he may be smarter than me ,and that it is I who have misunderstood the concept,not him.

[Lion IRC]

Is the thread at Skeptics Society Forum?
I''d like to read it.

I stopped posting there shortly after Karyn and Numan got banned.