Brian63
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,639
- Location
- Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Freethinker/atheist/humanist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, but admittedly I still find it useful to employ during a debate, moreso for rhetorical and tactical purposes. For example, I sometimes post on Ray Comfort's Facebook page which is heavily populated by ignorant, dogmatic, illogical, asshole fundamentalist Christians. They will often criticize me personally and/or a position I hold. I could respond back by defending against those criticisms and exposing the accusations to be logically flawed. In practice though, it very often does not work well because those Christians will quickly change the subject and criticize me or another position I hold. They do not thoroughly evaluate and think about the substance of the positions. Debating is moreso seen as a game and opportunity for them to try and bully and intimidate me.
So I find that I often knowingly and intentionally commit the tu quoque fallacy instead. When they launch some stupid criticism on me, I simply turn it around and show how it actually applies to them. That method has appeared to be more effective, even if it does nothing to invalidate their criticism of me. I could try both, defending my views and criticizing the hypocrisy of theirs, and sometimes I do. But sometimes I think that takes up too much space and the points would fly over their heads. So I keep it simpler. If they are going to throw punches, they are at risk to receive counterpunches. Whatever words they use to try and damage me can also be used to damage themselves, so now they will be more careful in choosing their words.
When you are dealing with trolls and trying to get them to stop bullying you, or trying to expose their jerkish behavior for the benefit of the audience (even if not that person themselves), do you ever knowingly and intentionally commit the tu quoque fallacy because it is a powerful rhetorical tool? Calmly analyzing the logic of their argument proves futile. First, you have to get them to behave better, and that can be done by showing how hypocritical they are and making them afraid temporarily to throw punches at you.
Are there other fallacies that you knowingly and intentionally commit, when engaged in hostile debates with another person? Because it is immediately effective and necessary as a rhetorical weapon before getting to the real substance of your views.
Relatedly, I have read different definitions of a "strawman" fallacy and some explicitly state that it is an intentional misrepresentation of another person's views. Other definitions do not specify that. But I had long understood that a strawman could involve an unintentional, accidental misstatement of the other person's views.
Tu quoque is a logical fallacy, but admittedly I still find it useful to employ during a debate, moreso for rhetorical and tactical purposes. For example, I sometimes post on Ray Comfort's Facebook page which is heavily populated by ignorant, dogmatic, illogical, asshole fundamentalist Christians. They will often criticize me personally and/or a position I hold. I could respond back by defending against those criticisms and exposing the accusations to be logically flawed. In practice though, it very often does not work well because those Christians will quickly change the subject and criticize me or another position I hold. They do not thoroughly evaluate and think about the substance of the positions. Debating is moreso seen as a game and opportunity for them to try and bully and intimidate me.
So I find that I often knowingly and intentionally commit the tu quoque fallacy instead. When they launch some stupid criticism on me, I simply turn it around and show how it actually applies to them. That method has appeared to be more effective, even if it does nothing to invalidate their criticism of me. I could try both, defending my views and criticizing the hypocrisy of theirs, and sometimes I do. But sometimes I think that takes up too much space and the points would fly over their heads. So I keep it simpler. If they are going to throw punches, they are at risk to receive counterpunches. Whatever words they use to try and damage me can also be used to damage themselves, so now they will be more careful in choosing their words.
When you are dealing with trolls and trying to get them to stop bullying you, or trying to expose their jerkish behavior for the benefit of the audience (even if not that person themselves), do you ever knowingly and intentionally commit the tu quoque fallacy because it is a powerful rhetorical tool? Calmly analyzing the logic of their argument proves futile. First, you have to get them to behave better, and that can be done by showing how hypocritical they are and making them afraid temporarily to throw punches at you.
Are there other fallacies that you knowingly and intentionally commit, when engaged in hostile debates with another person? Because it is immediately effective and necessary as a rhetorical weapon before getting to the real substance of your views.
Relatedly, I have read different definitions of a "strawman" fallacy and some explicitly state that it is an intentional misrepresentation of another person's views. Other definitions do not specify that. But I had long understood that a strawman could involve an unintentional, accidental misstatement of the other person's views.
