General Discussion

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

50. So what? Logic demands tht everyone consider this: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Fri May 9, 2014, 06:30 PM

May 2014

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

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

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
####

I am posting this for people here who enjoy and are interested in logic (Which interest I realize is probably at odds at remaining a happy and contented person, but still)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush [View all] Cali_Democrat May 2014 OP

How DARE you discuss his actual history. jeff47 May 2014 #1

The question is why the obsession? Arent there better things to discuss? Like the TPP or rhett o rick May 2014 #35

why permit lies to perpetrated? Sheepshank May 2014 #68

So you are saving humanity from the lies of Greenwald? I doubt that you really believe that. nm rhett o rick May 2014 #94

humanity? condescending much? Sheepshank May 2014 #144

That's what I thought, you are saving us from ourselves. Talk about condescending. rhett o rick May 2014 #145

Ha ha ha...it's only "obsession" when the other guy does it, I guess. MADem May 2014 #100

Ha...Ha...Ha..to You, My Friend....GG isn't the "Man Behind the Curtain" KoKo May 2014 #108

Funny how that works, huh? One minute you're trashing others for a "cult of personality", Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #106

There is no stronger cult of personality here than the Emoprog Empire, OilemFirchen May 2014 #126

They are a goldmine, rich with delicious irony. Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #130

apparently he couldn't write before 2006 Whisp May 2014 #54

So, sort of like Sen's Kerry and Clinton? Scootaloo May 2014 #2

Where in my post did I say the Democratic party had its hands clean? Cali_Democrat May 2014 #4

Well, you're going after Greenwald for "jumping ship" when Iraq became a clusterfuck Scootaloo May 2014 #6

By that logic, from this moment on you are forbidden to post anything ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #15

First, look up what "logic" means. You're misusing hte word Scootaloo May 2014 #22

Another semantic bullshit artist. When their foolishness is pointed out ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #42

No, I ask for consistency Scootaloo May 2014 #47

I'll give this one more shot. You are free to ask all the questions you wish. 11 Bravo May 2014 #63

your principles are like the leaves on a tree, ronnie624 May 2014 #133

Ahh, another internet shrink. You know me so well for having never met me. 11 Bravo May 2014 #140

You have posted more than 17,000 comments here, lol. ronnie624 May 2014 #142

Well, you've got me there. You claim to have read many of my posts, but ... 11 Bravo May 2014 #143

It's cool because those others aren't saying bad things about daddy ...er .. I mean Barack Obama. GoneFishin May 2014 #90

You're misstating Kerry's position. blm May 2014 #111

No, ProSense May 2014 #5

The Greenwald faction will do and say anything alcibiades_mystery May 2014 #7

Isn't it clear ProSense May 2014 #9

Well said.. very "tedious". Cha May 2014 #36

Exactly! Andy823 May 2014 #46

This ^ ^ ^ Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #57

well stated Thinkingabout May 2014 #58

Well said! Spazito May 2014 #79

Thank You!!!! Stellar May 2014 #86

!!! Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #118

Oh my God. You win the Internet. That was a sorely needed smack on the ass that was just too precise Number23 May 2014 #52

Yet he voted for the Iraq War Resolution Scootaloo May 2014 #8

Yet you're using him to excuse Greenwald. n/t ProSense May 2014 #10

No, I'm saying "don't pretend Democrats are paragons on Iraq" Scootaloo May 2014 #13

The OP mentioned Obama, ProSense May 2014 #16

The OP calls out greenwald for doing the same thing most Democrats did Scootaloo May 2014 #19

No, it doesn't. There is no collective mention of "Democrats" in the OP. n/t ProSense May 2014 #20

Yes, it does. Greenwald's very naughty for being against the war after he was for it. Scootaloo May 2014 #26

No, it doesn't. Your point is a red herring. n/t ProSense May 2014 #29

You seem desperate to avoid a topic of ethical standards and internal consistency Scootaloo May 2014 #33

The only ProSense May 2014 #34

And good for Obama Scootaloo May 2014 #37

What? ProSense May 2014 #40

You keep thinkin i'm defending Greenwald Scootaloo May 2014 #43

So ProSense May 2014 #49

"why do you have a problem with that?" Scootaloo May 2014 #62

So you agree with the point, but are ProSense May 2014 #65

Post removed Post removed May 2014 #76

Stop trying to deflect from the OP. This is all about an inability to stomach criticism of Greenwald ProSense May 2014 #78

Post removed Post removed May 2014 #82

Exactly. Poor Greenwald can't take it and neither can his fans. But, they're right there Cha May 2014 #121

Barack Obama did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution. ucrdem May 2014 #98

Neither of those two said anything REMOTELY like this: OilemFirchen May 2014 #51

But they did vote for the war in question Scootaloo May 2014 #66

Four years earlier. OilemFirchen May 2014 #75

That's Greenwald in 2006 talking about how he felt in 2001. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #120

And in 2002. And in 2003. Including unwavering support for the Patriot Act. OilemFirchen May 2014 #125

You're factually incorrect. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #127

Rage? OilemFirchen May 2014 #128

Safe to assume. There it is. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #136

that's pretty much the case alrighty stupidicus May 2014 #71

I can be more trusting of a person who has the wisdom to change an opinion KoKo May 2014 #3

His troubling unethical behavior as an attorney is shocking as well. MohRokTah May 2014 #11

His bigotry towards immigrants indicates geek tragedy May 2014 #17

Same clanging gong jollyreaper2112 May 2014 #12

Its as tiresome as the Repugs screaming "Bengazi" bahrbearian May 2014 #28

He was also a Tom Tancredo- style xenophobe. geek tragedy May 2014 #14

Greenwald was a nobody when he supported the Iraq War cpwm17 May 2014 #18

The obsessive trashing of Greenwald is impressive, though not in a good way. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #21

Not as "impressive" as the "obsessive" defense of Greenwald. ProSense May 2014 #25

It depends on the meaning of 'horrifying'. randome May 2014 #31

Well, no, you're factually wrong DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #23

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #24

Not sure what you mean by debunked. maddezmom May 2014 #32

Greenwald is just another Beck or Limbaugh Progressive dog May 2014 #27

"He is selling his brand of hatred without regard to truth." Agreed. Cha May 2014 #38

You are attacking Greenwald for standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership bvar22 May 2014 #30

Are you trying to interject sense in this hate swarm? Seems like at least two per day. rhett o rick May 2014 #39

Some things come and go...and some things remain consistent...BUT... KoKo May 2014 #44

They will continue to disparage Greenwald and Snowden until the next victim comes along. rhett o rick May 2014 #129

Is that ProSense May 2014 #45

That rationalization is as twisted as the post you are attempting to defend. bvar22 May 2014 #53

The only thing "twisted" is trying to defend your leave-Greenwald-alone "rationalization" ProSense May 2014 #59

I'll stick with "twisted", bvar22 May 2014 #67

More ProSense May 2014 #70

Yep. bvar22 May 2014 #72

Someone is projecting. ProSense May 2014 #73

Prosense, you are responding to someone using a Manny Goldstein push poll as "proof" of... Number23 May 2014 #56

LOL! n/t ProSense May 2014 #74

The only "argument" more bizarre is the insistence that somehow, the Pulitzer win is troubling Number23 May 2014 #88

C'mon. That's the bestest poll on the internets! OilemFirchen May 2014 #77

Really?? I'll give it a go... 100% of the people sitting in my chair right now think that poll is Number23 May 2014 #81

Oh hell. My cat just threw up a hairball. OilemFirchen May 2014 #83

LOL, when I saw that poll in the post, I laughed so hard, I swear I almost broke a rib! Spazito May 2014 #91

I know. Even though sometimes I feel bad laughing, I can't help it Number23 May 2014 #97

You are right, laughter is a gift and on DU, at times, it is a gift that just keeps on giving! Spazito May 2014 #104

Which way is the wind blowing today? Hahahaha!!! Major Hogwash May 2014 #41

So when did Hillary Clinton withdraw her support for that illegal war? n/t malaise May 2014 #48

So what? Logic demands tht everyone consider this: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque truedelphi May 2014 #50

removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan??? WHEN the EFF did Bush to that? benld74 May 2014 #55

Greenwald's superior intellect seems to think so Whisp May 2014 #60

Um, he means removal as the government of Afghanistan. Hissyspit May 2014 #85

I'm sure he is grateful for your interpretative skills Whisp May 2014 #116

Tell me something. Hissyspit May 2014 #123

No it doesn't make sense. But he has a history of doing that. Whisp May 2014 #124

It's only "stupid" Hissyspit May 2014 #138

That puts him a lot of steps ahead of Hillary and Kerry and the other politicians who voted for it. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #61

If your posts are ignored whatchamacallit May 2014 #96

And this is relevant, how? davekriss May 2014 #64

It's a strange and unhealthy obsession you have. morningfog May 2014 #69

Christopher Hitchens? Andrew Sullivan? come to mind. YOHABLO May 2014 #80

What a pile of shit OP this is. Hissyspit May 2014 #84

Well it is much better than the OP you rec'd which was a response to mine Cali_Democrat May 2014 #89

The OP was accurate, more so than yours. Hissyspit May 2014 #93

The admins did a great thing.... Cali_Democrat May 2014 #99

So what was wrong in the OP that got deleted? Hissyspit May 2014 #102

Good for you!!! Cali_Democrat May 2014 #107

What was inaccurate in that OP? Hissyspit May 2014 #109

Look at the second sentence in that OP.... Cali_Democrat May 2014 #110

So, nothing? Hissyspit May 2014 #113

Yup. The post you rec'd and referred to as "accurate" is now non-existent... Cali_Democrat May 2014 #117

Did you even read it? Hissyspit May 2014 #119

"It was an accurate debunking of your post" Cali_Democrat May 2014 #122

Prove yours was the better OP. Hissyspit May 2014 #137

I already did. nt Cali_Democrat May 2014 #139

So if what Glenn Greenwald thinks about a subject is critical to which side you fall on, GoneFishin May 2014 #87

Could you point me to any available links Crunchy Frog May 2014 #92

I don't care if he is a turd from Satan's spawn's ass. Keeping on reporting on the NSA Glenn. GoneFishin May 2014 #95

Does he still "report" on the NSA? OilemFirchen May 2014 #103

Funny, really, you're using a carefully limited excerpt from his book titled, scarletwoman May 2014 #101

Indeed! KoKo May 2014 #115

Thanks for the post. ronnie624 May 2014 #134

I keep telling you guys, "asshole" doesn't even begin to describe it. Tarheel_Dem May 2014 #105

tells you all you need to know greenman3610 May 2014 #112

About Greenwald, or the original poster? Hissyspit May 2014 #114

It's a remarkable thing, it is. OilemFirchen May 2014 #131

Assholes ... slipslidingaway May 2014 #132

So NSA Overreach Riftaxe May 2014 #135

DU rec... SidDithers May 2014 #141