 |
| University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2004 |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201).
This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202).
As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).
This appears to be a form of ad hominem and Logically fallacious agrees:
Logically fallacious
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.
My example:
Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: What do you know? You live a 'fatastic', 'flabulous' life!
Non-fallacious
Proponent: You should consider abandoning your Hostess, Twinkies and Ding Dong, diet.
Opponent: Yes, I should consider minimizing Hostess to Saturday afternoon snack.
The opponent should examine the truthfulness or falseness of the proponent's premise, regardless of the proponent's actions.
(I have not eaten Hostess since I was a child in the 1980's)
