WHY YOURE NOT A VEGAN PART 2: TU QUOQUE So due to the tremendous popularity of my last post and more especially the sheer staggering amount of tu quoque I received I figured this would be a good place to start. First some definition: Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/,[1] (Latin for you, too or you, also) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an argument that intends to discredit the opponents position by asserting the opponents failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponents position based on criticism of the opponents inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented. Wow thats a lot. But let me sum it up. Tu Quoque is when instead of arguing with someones point you point out that they are a hypocrite and while this FEELS like a valid point it very much is not. Its also something that Ive found exclusively applied to the question of eating animals. Lets look at some examples: Eli: So...eating meat is immoral Steve: Well...you have an iphone dont you? Eli: Yes...I do. Steve: And you know that people who work in those factories have it really bad right? Youve read about the long hours and brutal conditions? Eli: Yes. I have. Steve: Well I think its pretty hypocritical of you to judge ME when you have an iphone Now, silly as that sounds if you look at my previous post almost EVERY single argument that was posted was not about my point...but was about my hypocrisy. The fact that Im a hypocrite (even if we suppose that I am) doesnt make me wrong about something factual. Heres a broader example: Hitler: 5 +6=11 Eli: But....YOURE HITLER! You are the worst of the worst! I hate you hitler! Boooo! Bad hitler! Now everything I said in that interaction is true but it doesnt make the person Im speaking to wrong. Lets look one last example. This is a very tricky one and one that most often comes from sensitive caring, and very morally aware people who for some reason make a connection logically that doesnt exist Eli: Eating meat is wrong.... Stephanie: I disagree! Eli: Oh really? Why? Stephanie: Do you understand the brutal treatment of soy farmers to migrant workers? Do you understand the disconnect people have from their food these days? Do you realize the pesticides used to make YOUR food have been proven to cause cancer in the local population? That soy has been modified with estrogen to make it more addictive? The animals and rainforest slaughtered for rice crops? Again this all seems relevant. After all we are talking about the morality of what we eat but look at my statement. Does the morality of soy farmers affect whether or not eating meat is wrong? Are all of those things bad? TOTALLY! But....they arent actually related to the question of whether or not eating meat is wrong. THAT is a question about farming practices and a GREAT one...but not the topic at hand. The distinction REALLY does matter. Thanks to everyone who has chimed in so far. I really do appreciate the useful dialog and I hope nobody (who doesnt deserve it) has felt attacked or dismissed. I want to change your mind and in order to do that I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that Im willing to change mine Next week: ARGUMENT FROM DIFFERENCE
Posted on: Mon, 05 May 2014 00:32:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015