While this is a logical fallacy as a practical matter it's not always wrong. For example if someone advises you to purchase stock in a company while they are simultaneously selling their own shares it should raise a red flag unless they can give you a compelling reason they aren't following their own advice. 'Actions speak louder than words' and 'putting your money where your mouth is' are not logical axioms but they are reliable indicators of a persons sincerity and conviction.
"Oh my god Timmy.... did you steal that?" "Umm yeah... but Josh stole A LOT more than me!" "Oh... ok, that somehow magically makes your act of theft justified, even though you both committed a crime.."
But isn’t the monkey guy arguing from the position that it wasn’t cruel in either case? As in, he’s offering the fact that humans used to do the same thing as evidence to support the notion that it isn’t cruel to do so. So it’s actually technically an appeal to popularity
So let's say the Monkey was trying to argue that it wasn't cruel "because they did it too". I'd still call it a Tu Quoque fallacy, since he's trying to say his act is not cruel because they did it too. Just because someone else did the exact same thing, does not automatically make it right to do so. An appeal to popularity is a fallacy where one asserts something is good, because a lot of people support it. That would be like saying The Song of Ice and Fire is good because a lot of people bought the books - instead of providing actual arguments to why it is good. I think the closest fallacy that gets to this one would be Appeal to Tradition fallacy.. that would be like saying "People used to enslave others for centuries and it was a common practice, therefore there's nothing wrong with it" - just because something was widely practiced and accepted for a long time does not automatically make it right. So if this was a discussion between two humans, where criticism at caging animals was raised, and they said they did it for centuries so there's nothing wrong with it - would be indeed fallacious.
@@IvanSensei88 You are of course correct. I guess most tu quoque fallacies are simultaneously other fallacies, notably whataboutisms, if the person is tacitly accepting the argument. But the appeal to tradition is basically the same as appeal to popularity, I.e if you just replace the words “the song of ice and fire” with “caging animals” and “bought the books” with “were happy to do it” in your example.
@@GammonBrexitNews Agreed, some fallacies do have quite a close resemblance to each other. But yes - for me, just being able to spot fallacious argument is good enough. So if I messed up for example and used Whataboutism, and you called it Appeal to popularity - I wouldn't actually mind, as long as the counterargument itself is valid.
Is this "whatabout-ism"? "Hey! Storming the capitol was one of the most unpatriotic events in U.S. history." "Well, you didn't say that about Portland!" Hm. Inequivalent comparison. False equivalency, that is. But i do get it. Thanks.
that could be a dirty tactic, but comparing the BLM/Antifa riots to January 6th is fair. and, actually, the left has been the ones doing it first - at least on this exact topic. if you recall correctly, the summer of BLM/Antifa riots happened first. just with the George Floyd Riots alone, that's 1-2 BILLION dollars in property damage, and 19 people "un-lifed" (trying to not get my comment deleted). democrats also told them to do this. to march in the streets and to not be peaceful. it was on CNN, MSNBC, etc. they ignored it and called it "mostly peaceful protests", even when they lit entire city blocks on fire. then, when jan 6th happened, democrats were like, "yeah, what-about january 6th?" you mean the one where they "un-lifed" no one and didn't burn anything down? yeah, it was terrible, but compared to the BLM/Antifa riots - it was nothing. comparing a mountain to a mole hill. "oh no, the guy sat in nancy pelosi's desk and put his feet up! he was literally trying to overthrow the government. no, i actually believe this, because this is what my TV said is true!" but if you're used to your leftist hivemind bubble, you might have the whataboutism backwards, because they were trying their hardest to ignore the BLM/Antifa riots, to comedic effect. but as far as this being a fallacy or not - it's relevant to a political debate. how could you possibly defend the BLM/Antifa riots and be upset about january 6th? it wouldn't be rational. not to say, of course, you should do the reverse. i think most reasonable people would denounce january 6th ALONG with the BLM/Antifa riots. even if one resulted in no "unlifings" and the other had 19.
Well it's a fallacious way to address the argument or criticism. Imagine a scenario where you and I killed some people. Then you criticize me and say I'm a bad person because I killed someone. And I respond with "Yeah, but you also killed people, actually I only killed one person, but you killed TWO". It's a fallacious response. Instead of directly addressing your criticism and argument for which you consider me as a bad person, I instead chose to change the topic towards YOU and tried to appeal to hypocrisy, hoping that you will retract your criticism because I pointed it out. Just because someone else may have killed more people than me, does not magically excuse my own act of killing. And pointing out hypocrisy is not a valid refutation to an argument or an objection or criticism etc. What I SHOULD have done in that hypothetical scenario, is either CONCEDE to your criticism and say You're right, that does make me a bad person (and then I could fire back the same criticism at you, to test your own consistency), OR address it and maybe try to justify it. For instance I could say "Yes, I did kill that person.. but I did it because he was about to detonate himself and take out a bunch of children with him/etc" to somehow justify this act and prove I didn't do it with bad intentions.
this is a much better video than the simpsons clip on _Tu Quoue_ but i still disagree with your usage, for different reasons. the morality of putting animals in zoos is up for debate. there's no objective morality on this. you could go as far as to say all morality is subjective - which is what i believe to be true. whether or not it's morally righteous is dependent on the individual. also, the period and culture. is it objectively good or bad to put animals in the zoo? to eat them? these are all subjective opinions, not an absolute, provable fact - because they are moral questions. some animal rights activists go as far as to say you shouldn't own pets. they equate it with slavery. it also doesn't work because Dr. Banjo is correct. humans put their kind in cages first. how could Amy judge? she might not be responsible for caging animals, personally, but she also has never been seen caring about the topic. on earth, even in the future and alien contact, they still have zoos and put animals in cages. ruclips.net/video/NxOf3PZo0Ts/видео.html ^here's the futurama crew visiting a zoo in new new york. they also visited Sea World in an episode, including Amy. they can't argue with the primates about the laws and rights on their own planet. they can argue it, morally - which is exactly what she does by calling it "cruel". how can Amy say Dr. Banjo can't put humans in a zoo, when she's guilty of visiting zoos herself? she even enjoyed it as entertainment. ask the whale biologist. clearly she is being inconsistent. and since it's about morality, and not an objective fact, the topic is subject to change. would you feel bad about stealing from someone? probably, yeah. okay, but what if they stole from you first? what about hitting someone who hit you? no, of course not - because they broke the social contract first.
In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.
While this is a logical fallacy as a practical matter it's not always wrong. For example if someone advises you to purchase stock in a company while they are simultaneously selling their own shares it should raise a red flag unless they can give you a compelling reason they aren't following their own advice. 'Actions speak louder than words' and 'putting your money where your mouth is' are not logical axioms but they are reliable indicators of a persons sincerity and conviction.
??? They totally are logical what is your reasoning
@@VEE0034 Suppose a smoker tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your health. Is that argument wrong because they continue to smoke?
"Oh my god Timmy.... did you steal that?"
"Umm yeah... but Josh stole A LOT more than me!"
"Oh... ok, that somehow magically makes your act of theft justified, even though you both committed a crime.."
I'm with Zoidberg on this one.
what episode is this?
Fry and Leela's Big Fling - S7E17
But isn’t the monkey guy arguing from the position that it wasn’t cruel in either case? As in, he’s offering the fact that humans used to do the same thing as evidence to support the notion that it isn’t cruel to do so. So it’s actually technically an appeal to popularity
So let's say the Monkey was trying to argue that it wasn't cruel "because they did it too". I'd still call it a Tu Quoque fallacy, since he's trying to say his act is not cruel because they did it too. Just because someone else did the exact same thing, does not automatically make it right to do so.
An appeal to popularity is a fallacy where one asserts something is good, because a lot of people support it. That would be like saying The Song of Ice and Fire is good because a lot of people bought the books - instead of providing actual arguments to why it is good.
I think the closest fallacy that gets to this one would be Appeal to Tradition fallacy.. that would be like saying "People used to enslave others for centuries and it was a common practice, therefore there's nothing wrong with it" - just because something was widely practiced and accepted for a long time does not automatically make it right.
So if this was a discussion between two humans, where criticism at caging animals was raised, and they said they did it for centuries so there's nothing wrong with it - would be indeed fallacious.
@@IvanSensei88 You are of course correct. I guess most tu quoque fallacies are simultaneously other fallacies, notably whataboutisms, if the person is tacitly accepting the argument. But the appeal to tradition is basically the same as appeal to popularity, I.e if you just replace the words “the song of ice and fire” with “caging animals” and “bought the books” with “were happy to do it” in your example.
@@GammonBrexitNews Agreed, some fallacies do have quite a close resemblance to each other.
But yes - for me, just being able to spot fallacious argument is good enough. So if I messed up for example and used Whataboutism, and you called it Appeal to popularity - I wouldn't actually mind, as long as the counterargument itself is valid.
Is this "whatabout-ism"?
"Hey! Storming the capitol was one of the most unpatriotic events in U.S. history."
"Well, you didn't say that about Portland!"
Hm. Inequivalent comparison. False equivalency, that is. But i do get it. Thanks.
that could be a dirty tactic, but comparing the BLM/Antifa riots to January 6th is fair. and, actually, the left has been the ones doing it first - at least on this exact topic. if you recall correctly, the summer of BLM/Antifa riots happened first. just with the George Floyd Riots alone, that's 1-2 BILLION dollars in property damage, and 19 people "un-lifed" (trying to not get my comment deleted).
democrats also told them to do this. to march in the streets and to not be peaceful. it was on CNN, MSNBC, etc. they ignored it and called it "mostly peaceful protests", even when they lit entire city blocks on fire.
then, when jan 6th happened, democrats were like, "yeah, what-about january 6th?"
you mean the one where they "un-lifed" no one and didn't burn anything down? yeah, it was terrible, but compared to the BLM/Antifa riots - it was nothing. comparing a mountain to a mole hill. "oh no, the guy sat in nancy pelosi's desk and put his feet up! he was literally trying to overthrow the government. no, i actually believe this, because this is what my TV said is true!"
but if you're used to your leftist hivemind bubble, you might have the whataboutism backwards, because they were trying their hardest to ignore the BLM/Antifa riots, to comedic effect.
but as far as this being a fallacy or not - it's relevant to a political debate. how could you possibly defend the BLM/Antifa riots and be upset about january 6th? it wouldn't be rational. not to say, of course, you should do the reverse. i think most reasonable people would denounce january 6th ALONG with the BLM/Antifa riots. even if one resulted in no "unlifings" and the other had 19.
How is this a logical fallacy if it's just a logical counterattack?
Well it's a fallacious way to address the argument or criticism. Imagine a scenario where you and I killed some people. Then you criticize me and say I'm a bad person because I killed someone. And I respond with "Yeah, but you also killed people, actually I only killed one person, but you killed TWO".
It's a fallacious response. Instead of directly addressing your criticism and argument for which you consider me as a bad person, I instead chose to change the topic towards YOU and tried to appeal to hypocrisy, hoping that you will retract your criticism because I pointed it out.
Just because someone else may have killed more people than me, does not magically excuse my own act of killing. And pointing out hypocrisy is not a valid refutation to an argument or an objection or criticism etc.
What I SHOULD have done in that hypothetical scenario, is either CONCEDE to your criticism and say You're right, that does make me a bad person (and then I could fire back the same criticism at you, to test your own consistency), OR address it and maybe try to justify it. For instance I could say "Yes, I did kill that person.. but I did it because he was about to detonate himself and take out a bunch of children with him/etc" to somehow justify this act and prove I didn't do it with bad intentions.
I don't know but out of all the logical fallacies this has the weakest claim .
this is a much better video than the simpsons clip on _Tu Quoue_ but i still disagree with your usage, for different reasons. the morality of putting animals in zoos is up for debate. there's no objective morality on this. you could go as far as to say all morality is subjective - which is what i believe to be true. whether or not it's morally righteous is dependent on the individual. also, the period and culture. is it objectively good or bad to put animals in the zoo? to eat them? these are all subjective opinions, not an absolute, provable fact - because they are moral questions. some animal rights activists go as far as to say you shouldn't own pets. they equate it with slavery.
it also doesn't work because Dr. Banjo is correct. humans put their kind in cages first. how could Amy judge? she might not be responsible for caging animals, personally, but she also has never been seen caring about the topic. on earth, even in the future and alien contact, they still have zoos and put animals in cages.
ruclips.net/video/NxOf3PZo0Ts/видео.html
^here's the futurama crew visiting a zoo in new new york. they also visited Sea World in an episode, including Amy. they can't argue with the primates about the laws and rights on their own planet. they can argue it, morally - which is exactly what she does by calling it "cruel". how can Amy say Dr. Banjo can't put humans in a zoo, when she's guilty of visiting zoos herself? she even enjoyed it as entertainment. ask the whale biologist. clearly she is being inconsistent.
and since it's about morality, and not an objective fact, the topic is subject to change. would you feel bad about stealing from someone? probably, yeah. okay, but what if they stole from you first? what about hitting someone who hit you? no, of course not - because they broke the social contract first.
Monke
Very insightful