Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Dark_Phoras]

I did the usual to check if a news is true or false. I checked the potential bias of the publication, the sources and also their potential biases. A right-wing propaganda website with a sweaty Hunter Biden in today's headline is quoting a poll conducted by two conservative "pollers" and "think tanks" with a lack of credibility.

 

[NoobletCheese]

@NoobletCheese Can you articulate a point?

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"

 

[Lacius]

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"

You literally aren't articulating a point. Be sure to tag me if you decide later to do so.

 

[tabzer]

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"

"I don't know what a Nazi is but I hate them!"

 

[NoobletCheese]

You literally aren't articulating a point. Be sure to tag me if you decide later to do so.

You said if it walks like a duck it quacks like a duck, so I showed you some people walking and quacking like ducks.

 

[Lacius]

You said if it walks like a duck it quacks like a duck, so I showed you some people walking and quacking like ducks.

Pretending that's what you did, you lazily posted images without articulating a point, and it would be whataboutism regardless. I've also been trying to get you to articulate a specific point, and you still haven't really done that. You should be embarrassed.

 

[NoobletCheese]

it would be whataboutism

The whataboutism fallacy-fallacy is when people falsely accuse others of committing the whataboutism fallacy.

The form of the fallacy usually goes something like:

Person A: Stop running so many stop signs.
Person B: You run them all the time.
Person A: Whataboutism!

In this case Person B isn't trying to argue that it's ok to run stop signs -- they're simply saying that a person who runs stops signs cannot tell others to not run stop signs, otherwise they would be a hypocrite.

A whataboutism fallacy would be if Person B said "you run stop signs too, therefore it's ok to run stop signs".

In other words: "you're a hypocrite, therefore some other unrelated proposition is true".

I don't believe I've accused you of being a hypocrite with regards to "if it walks like a duck then it's probably a duck".

All I've done is shown other instances of people walking like a duck -- you haven't actually said whether you think they are probably ducks or not.

If you say they walk like a duck but probably aren't ducks, then I would accuse you of hypocrisy, but I wouldn't use your hypocrisy to conclude "therefore white genocide is true". I would have to use other evidence to support that, such as people celebrating or encouraging decline of white population etc.

 

[Lacius]

The whataboutism fallacy-fallacy is when people falsely accuse others of committing the whataboutism fallacy.

The form of the fallacy usually goes something like:

Person A: Stop running so many stop signs.
Person B: You run them all the time.
Person A: Whataboutism!

In this case Person A isn't trying to argue that it's ok to run stop signs -- they're simply saying that a person who runs stops signs cannot tell others to not run stop signs, otherwise they would be a hypocrite.

A whataboutism fallacy would be if Person B said "you run stop signs too, therefore it's ok to run stop signs".

In other words: "you're a hypocrite, therefore some other unrelated proposition is true".

I don't believe I've accused you of being a hypocrite with regards to "if it walks like a duck then it's probably a duck".

All I've done is shown other instances of people walking like a duck -- you haven't actually said whether you think they are probably ducks or not.

If you say they walk like a duck but probably aren't ducks, then I would accuse you of hypocrisy, but I wouldn't use your hypocrisy to conclude "therefore white genocide is true". I would have to use other evidence to support that, such as people celebrating or encouraging decline of white population etc.

Whataboutism is when you respond to an accusation by making a counteraccusation. It doesn't matter if the counteraccusation is true, since it's irrelevant to the accusation itself.

I normally like to respond to and quote relevant pieces of a post, but I wanted to immortalize the entirety of your post. The blatant incorrectness makes me smile.

Edit: For example, if I condemned Person A for always snatching purses, someone else condemning Person B for doing the same thing is whataboutism and irrelevant to whether or not Person A did something wrong.

In your own example, Person B running stop signs is still wrong for running stop signs.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Whataboutism is when you respond to an accusation by making a counteraccusation. It doesn't matter if the counteraccusation is true, since it's irrelevant to the accusation itself.

I normally like to respond to and quote relevant pieces of a post, but I wanted to immortalize the entirety of your post. The blatant incorrectness makes me smile.

Edit: For example, if I condemned Person A for always snatching purses, someone else condemning Person B for doing the same thing is whataboutism and irrelevant to whether or not Person A did something wrong.

In your own example, Person A running stop signs is still wrong for running stop signs.

I'll be honest with you, did you expect a fruitful conversation with someone stupid enough to believe in the white genocide meme?

 

[Lacius]

I'll be honest with you, did you expect a fruitful conversation with someone stupid enough to believe in the white genocide meme?

Of course not.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Of course not.

LMAO
Love the energy.

 

[NoobletCheese]

Whataboutism is when you respond to an accusation by making a counteraccusation.

That's far too broad a definition. For example if you accused me of some wrongdoing, I could make a counteraccusation that your logic is flawed for any number of reasons which aren't fallacious.

In your own example, Person B running stop signs is still wrong for running stop signs.

Yeah that's what I said:

A whataboutism fallacy would be if Person B said "you run stop signs too, therefore it's ok to run stop signs".

 

[AleronIves]

For example, if I condemned Person A for always snatching purses, someone else condemning Person B for doing the same thing is whataboutism and irrelevant to whether or not Person A did something wrong.

That's not quite whataboutism. In order for it to be whataboutism, the second accusation must be unrelated to the first:

Person A: Trump took classified documents from the White House! That was bad!
Person B: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?! That was also bad!

Improper handling of classified documents has nothing to do with potential malfeasance in the Biden family, so it's whataboutism. Compare this to:

Person A: Hillary's private e-mail was bad!
Person B: What about Colin Powell? He used private e-mail, too!

It's not really whataboutism, since both people are accused of the same kind of supposed wrongdoing, so the question is actually relevant to the original accusation, rather than a deflection tactic intended to change the subject.

 

[tabzer]

Lacius: You shouldn't run stop signs.
Person B: You run stop signs all the time
Lacius: That's whataboutism. I'm am saying that you shouldn't run stop signs.

Am I reading the little tyrant correctly?

 

[NoobletCheese]

A person who runs stops signs forfeits their ability to tell others not to run stop signs, because to do so would make them a hypocrite, and being a hypocrite is not a justifiable position.

I think you would have to specify that the person running stop signs doesn't actually believe it's ok to run stop signs. But if that were true, they probably wouldn't be running stop signs in the first place, so it's an unlikely assumption that they are running stop signs while believing it's a bad thing.

On the other hand you could have an alcoholic who tells others not to drink, because in this case the alcoholic is addicted and doesn't actually think it's good to drink alcohol.

Again, the form of whataboutism fallacy is: "you're a hypocrite, therefore some other unrelated proposition is true".

eg. "you're a hypocrite with regards to running stop signs, therefore it's okay to run stop signs".

or "you're a hypocrite with regards to drinking alcohol, therefore it's ok to drink alcohol".

Whether some person is a hypocrite or not, has no bearing on whether it's okay to run stop signs or drink alcohol. There is no logical connective and that's why it's a fallacy.

 

[LainaGabranth]

The abortion thread is now about "stop signs" because some weirdo got called out for doing whataboutism. This is why the right can't win debates.

 

[SyphenFreht]

A person who runs stops signs forfeits their ability to tell others not to run stop signs, because to do so would make them a hypocrite, and being a hypocrite is not a justifiable position.

I think you would have to specify that the person running stop signs doesn't actually believe it's ok to run stop signs. But if that were true, they probably wouldn't be running stop signs in the first place, so it's an unlikely assumption that they are running stop signs while believing it's a bad thing.

On the other hand you could have an alcoholic who tells others not to drink, because in this case the alcoholic is addicted and doesn't actually think it's good to drink alcohol.

Again, the form of whataboutism fallacy is: "you're a hypocrite, therefore some other unrelated proposition is true".

eg. "you're a hypocrite with regards to running stop signs, therefore it's okay to run stop signs".

or "you're a hypocrite with regards to drinking alcohol, therefore it's ok to drink alcohol".

Whether some person is a hypocrite or not, has no bearing on whether it's okay to run stop signs or drink alcohol. There is no logical connective and that's why it's a fallacy.

You guys are confusing things.

Whataboutism is misdirection, at it's core. You can make whataboutism statements with hypocrisy, but whataboutism is not defined by such.

 

[AleronIves]

Whataboutism is misdirection

Yes, @NoobletCheese's examples are not whataboutism. His examples are just accusations of hypocrisy: "You do bad thing X, so you can't criticise me for doing bad thing X!"

Whataboutism takes the form: "You say I did bad thing X, but you did bad thing Y! What about that?!" Whataboutism involves the introduction of a new accusation unrelated to the original accusation, in order to deflect attention from the original accusation.

 

[NoobletCheese]

Whataboutism takes the form: "You say I did bad thing X, but you did bad thing Y! What about that?!"

The bit in red is said hypocrisy. The bit in orange is the proposition which doesn't logically follow from the fact that a person happens to be a hypocrite.

 

[XDel]

In response to Wimp Lo's comment that Jesus was a communist or what ever...

First I begin by quoting a story from Matthew 20:1-16, a story not about equity, but of grace and a reminder not to fall to jealousy and greed; to be happy for another's good fortune.

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Secondly doesn't the 10 commandments say not only not to covet, but to also not steel, and also not to sleep with married people. These are three references to property.

Lastly, Eden wasn't a communism, if it has been the Adam and Eve would have been automatons and would have been incapable of falling from grace and thus ever being banished from paradise. Good will, unconditional love, charity, etc. Are options of our free will rather than an enforced law. Though of course if one does not live in accord with these natural laws or Edicts of Eden if you will, one will suffer from it. I.E. it does not pay to live a selfish and narcissistic life, it is preferable to be selfless, humble, and thoughtful of others. This was in part the Truth that Jesus came to restore before giving himself up to suffering, humiliation, and eventually death so as to over come it. Though of course you don't believe that, so I am unsure why you use the Bible to argue when you clearly don't respect or care for what the Bible says.