Non-capitalist society can be capitalist
By Dr.
Sohail Ansari
· Society can’t be anti-capitalist as long as it
likes the things only unequal distribution of money can buy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tu quoque
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.
Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque
(also known as: “you too” fallacy,
hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that
the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the
argument.
Logical
Form:
Person
1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.
Therefore,
Y must not be true.
Example
#1:
Helga:
You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating
fat burgers are no good for your health.
Hugh:
You eat fat burgers all the time so that can’t be true.
Explanation: It doesn’t matter (to the truth claim of the argument
at least) if Helga follows her own advice or not. While it might appear
that the reason she does not follow her own advice is because she doesn’t
believe it’s true, it could also be that those fat burgers are just too damn
irresistible.
Example
#2:
Jimmy
Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet he has had several
affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.
Explanation: The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of
bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual
immorality in general,
only that he is sexually immoral.
Exception: If Jimbo insisted that his actions were in line with
sexual morality, then it would be a very germane part of the argument.
Tip: Again, admit when your lack of self-control or
will-power has nothing to do with the truth claim of the proposition. The
following is what I remember my dad telling me about smoking (he smoked about 4
packs a day since he was 14).
Bo,
never be a stupid a--hole like me and start smoking. It is a disgusting
habit that I know will eventually kill me. If you never start, you will
never miss it.
My dad died at age 69 -- of lung
cancer. I never touched a cigarette in my life and never plan to touch
one.
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:
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.
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.
Examples
of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all
sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
2. Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be
supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."
3. Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented,
it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or
clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"
Comments
Post a Comment