Talk:Tu quoque

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.

No, actually

Tu quoque is just a logical fallacy. It simply points out that a homeless person could, without logical contradiction, give good advice on being successful. But that's all. Nobody is trying to say that you shouldn't be selective about who you take advice from, since it's pretty obvious that successful people usually give better advice than unsuccessful people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranfry (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe?

So, if a homeless person said to you "If you want to be successful in life, don't invest in Enron, like I did!" would you say "Hah! You are a homeless person! Your advice is clearly meaningless. I shall invest all my money in Enron!" I won't even go into the equivalent dialogue for a paedophile...

Straw man for the win. 43.244.33.36 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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The 'historical reference' is not mentioned in the Marcus Brutus article.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can be Wiki Bold, and add it yourself. :) I added it now, but don't hesitate to edit where you think WP needs it. :) 69.59.82.91 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Heh. Okay, I'll bite. Regardless of whether you condone "evil" or not, the simple fact is that the stance poses a logical inconsistency, introduced by the following two propositions:

1.) Killing is *always* wrong always.

2.) Killing is *not wrong sometimes*.

Now, whether you agree that being "wrong" is a bad (or good) thing, it is a logical necessity (according to bivalent modal logic) that if a thing, "A", is wrong *always*, it is never not-wrong; viz., it is never the case that "A" is anything except "wrong". This means that (2.) is false. If (1.) is true, then (2.) is false. Regardless of whether being "wrong" is good or bad, the logic holds true. To state both (1.) and (2.) is inconsistent (viz., illogical). 69.59.82.91 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

We need more related fallacies

Tu quoque doesn't quite capture the situation in which A accuses B of doing X, when A does X but B does not do X.

This situation is related to hypocrisy, projection, narcissism (apparently a common technique among narcissists), the pot calling the kettle black, and others, but not the same.

So who knows a name of a fallacy as I have described?

Stoppropaganda (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you doing any better

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but I have long loathed the argument "I don't see you doing any better!" But I am not sure if this counts as "Tu quoque" or not. Is there another logical fallacy that covers this? 43.244.33.36 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate uses

Both examples given as supposed "legitimate uses" of the tu quoque argument are false. Interestingly enough, neither was sourced. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this is "false"?

A makes criticism P.

A is also guilty of P.

Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.

How is it false to conclude from a person acting one way, and at the same time stating a belief contrary to that action, that the person is either not acting according to or not properly stating their actual values and beliefs? The only way that could be a false conclusion is if we reject bivalent modal logic, which then nullifies the whole article (since there are no such things as formal or verbal fallacies if we reject bivalent modal logic--those terms are only meaningful under that system).

Again, please explain how this is "false"?

A makes claim P.

A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.

Therefore, A is an inconsistent source of information.

Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy.

Therefore, A is an untrustworthy source of information.

The fourth premise ("Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy") is deductively derived from the semantics of the root term ("trust"). "Trustworthiness" is a direct corollary of consistency of information. So an inconsistent source of information is inherently untrustworthy.

At the moment, all of my books are packed, so I can't give third-party citations, but I'm fairly certain such information (on formal and informal logic) can be readily found on the net. 64.234.10.32 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research. You need to provide third party sources. Secondly, neither of your examples are actual examples of a Tu-Quoque argument. Tu-Quoque arguments use an appeal to hypocrisy to discredit the argument, not the person making the argument. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To quoque is often an ad-hominem fallacy, directed at the person[1][2][3], as well as a fallacy of presumption (e.g., two wrongs make a right). Some brief googling turned up several uses of the phrase along the lines that the article listed as legitimate uses:

The reason that this qualifies as a tu quoque fallacy is because the argument concludes "I don't have to accept your conclusion" from the premise "you don't really accept your conclusion either."

This looks like an statement against the consistency of an argument for vegetarianism, but it is actually a statement against a person arguing for vegetarianism. Just because a person fails to be consistent does not mean that the position they are arguing for is not sound.

Of course, that does not mean that it is illegitimate to point out such glaring inconsistencies. After all, if a person does not follow their own advice, it may be that they don't really believe it themselves - and if that is the case, you can ask why they want you to follow it. Or maybe they don't really understand what they are saying - and if they don't understand it, it is unlikely that they will be able to present an effective defense for it.[4]

And...

To be a fallacy, a logical argument has to be attempted to be made. While some people might try to make an argument that “what I do is ok” because “you do it also,” that, obviously, would be fallacious and what this fallacy is about. Just because a critic does the thing they criticize someone else about does not make it right. If that is what people mean by saying “and you do it too,” then they really have not defended themselves, and they have not proven what they have done is fine. And they have indeed fallen for this fallacy.

However, how often is that really the intent when people point out the log in the eye of the critic? Rarely do I see people say, “See, you do it too, therefore it’s alright.” What I see is something else – people point out “You do it too. Are you sure it really is the problem you claim it is?” That is, they are wanting the critic to examine what they have done and approved in the past, because, for themselves, they usually have found a way out for the criticism they are offering to others – and if so, then they should (in all honesty and openness) give the one they criticize the same benefit of the doubt they are giving to themselves. Indeed, many people point out “You do it too, but you also have not had problems about it until now,” to indicate that the question is whether or not it is a real or artificially created problem. That has to be examined, and to say “that’s a tu quoque” is to misread the reply.

But there is also another reason one might say, “And you do it too.” It might not be a defense of oneself; instead, it could be opening up the fact that it is a real problem[5]

And...

One convenient and not fallacious way [to use to quoque] is by pointing out the similarities between the activity of the criticizer ... and the activity about which he is being questioned. To label one [something] and not the other is ... itself a fallacy [of equivocation]. [...] Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof.[6]

Need more? 64.234.10.32 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a book reference as well:

Tu quoque arguments are probably popular because they are deceptively similar to a type of argument that is sound. For example, when the issue is not whether the accusation is true, but whether someone has a right to make that accusation, it may be legitimate to use a tu quoque response. ... In such cases an underlying moral principle is being invoked.[William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills, p. 155]

64.234.10.32 (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Add section back per refs above. 64.234.10.32 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And some cites for "inconsistent" as a synonym for "untrustworthy": [7] and in Jerome Rodale, Laurence Urdang, Nancy LaRoche, The Synonym Finder, p.1299, q.v. "unstrustworthy" ref. p.1294, q.v. "unreliable" (2.). 64.234.10.32 (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tu quoque just means acknowledging a hypocrite

doesn't it? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)