Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
44. You are missing the essential point:
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:50 PM
Mar 2019
Why Whataboutism is a Fallacy


Whataboutism suggests that two wrongs make a right.

If we accept whataboutism arguments, then nothing can be deemed wrong, as long as we can think of examples of things that are worse.



https://simplicable.com/new/whataboutism
But whatabout the Chinese government? n/t trotsky Mar 2019 #1
This is your third attempt in the past several months to try and make yourself immune to the charge. trotsky Mar 2019 #2
You demonstrate what I am saying. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #4
Don't forget... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #12
LMFAO trotsky Mar 2019 #21
... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #31
And then you go ahead and use whataboutism anyhow. MineralMan Mar 2019 #3
Make your point using the definition. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #5
You mean the definition that you altered? trotsky Mar 2019 #6
A false claim. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #7
No, you have added the word "intent." trotsky Mar 2019 #19
You are still lincorrect. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #23
You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #26
Also conveniently ignored all the examples which matched his behavior Major Nikon Mar 2019 #32
They didn't intend for the bridge to break, so everything is fine. marylandblue Mar 2019 #37
At least g-man is the one person here who understands Major Nikon Mar 2019 #48
Not reading the link? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #39
No, it's not. trotsky Mar 2019 #50
Rebuttal guillaumeb Mar 2019 #57
Quoting the same out-of-context block isn't a rebuttal, g. trotsky Mar 2019 #61
Ignoring the obvious is not refuting the facts. eom guillaumeb Mar 2019 #68
What did I ignore? trotsky Apr 2019 #71
Interesting accusation, and easily refuted. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #8
Where is the word "intent"? trotsky Mar 2019 #20
What does "in order to distract" mean? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #24
You altered it to carve out an exception just for yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #27
Convenient how that works, eh? Major Nikon Mar 2019 #49
What about when Catholics accuse Protestants of blasphemy? marylandblue Mar 2019 #38
Exactly. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #40
Theists do that all the time. marylandblue Mar 2019 #41
Where is the word "intent"? trotsky Mar 2019 #51
Yeah, whatabout that intent and repetition? Major Nikon Mar 2019 #54
Isn't it nice he just outright admits his agenda? trotsky Mar 2019 #60
At least there's loads of entertainment value Major Nikon Mar 2019 #63
There's some entertainment value Mariana Mar 2019 #66
Queue the GIF!... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #9
So you too misunderstand the term? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #11
Not in the least... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #14
So what do you say about the definition, and the link? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #15
It explains your mode of discourse perfectly... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #16
Your response explains the need for my post. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #18
Your OP should be preserved and pinned as a Public Service Announcement... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #22
Yes it should, but that would require that you and others guillaumeb Mar 2019 #25
What is your intent, when you use this mode of fallacy? NeoGreen Mar 2019 #28
Perhaps this will help. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #42
Done. marylandblue Mar 2019 #36
Fantastic sentence on that page: trotsky Mar 2019 #52
When one definition doesn't work for you, there's always others you can try to twist in your favor Major Nikon Mar 2019 #65
Literally... NeoGreen Mar 2019 #17
You are missing the essential point: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #44
So what did you *intend* to do in this thread by bringing up China? trotsky Mar 2019 #29
He already explained that. He is showing that intolerance is universal. marylandblue Mar 2019 #35
I'm not bound by your definition, Monsieur B. MineralMan Mar 2019 #10
So you will make up your own definition? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #13
Why not? You get to. trotsky Mar 2019 #30
tu quoque in evidence. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #58
I'm asking why you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself. trotsky Mar 2019 #62
No, I will synthesize a definition, based on multiple sources MineralMan Mar 2019 #53
Whataboutism guillaumeb Mar 2019 #59
Yes, but why keep posting that so often? MineralMan Mar 2019 #64
Because a few here apparently do not understand that. eom guillaumeb Mar 2019 #69
... Major Nikon Mar 2019 #33
Logical fallacies are never dependent on the ability to mind read. marylandblue Mar 2019 #34
This might help: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #43
This might help. marylandblue Mar 2019 #45
Diversion. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #46
"We can infer intent even if it is not explicitly stated" marylandblue Mar 2019 #47
There's no need to infer what has been explicitly stated Major Nikon Mar 2019 #55
Misunderstanding 101 guillaumeb Mar 2019 #56
Yes, and you expressed your intent as proven by the referenced post of yours. trotsky Mar 2019 #67
I understand that you truly believe that. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #70
I believe that because it's your own words. trotsky Apr 2019 #72
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Whataboutism in the discu...»Reply #44