Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ser Scot A Ellison

Whataboutism as a Rhetorical Tool

Recommended Posts

On 5/8/2019 at 3:28 AM, The Marquis de Leech said:

That said, if we allow whataboutery, it's only a matter of time before we allow the slippery slope fallacy too.

It took me far too long to see the joke in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 12:21 AM, Zorral said:

EXCEPT, when it comes to questions such as US driving its military forces into Venezuela -- for one example only -- what aboutism is really asking , is the fundamental, essential question:

Show us an example where the US driving its military (and other) forces into another country ever made anything better for the average person of that country.

Rather than, usually, making them worse off, hmmmm?  Especially when the US retreats taking its marbles home with them, and leaving all their supporters ... well you know how they are left, especially translators, facilitators etc. yes.?

The US has frequently made things worse, but it's often made things better too.  Germany, Korea, Japan, Grenada, Bosnia, Kossovo are examples of the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 3:23 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is “whataboutism” or the “Fallacy of Relative Privation” ever a valid way to attack another’s argument or is it automatically fallacious?  

I know I’ve trotted it out from time to time.  I see it used by many from all sorts of points of view.  Should using “whataboutism” be marked an automatic “L” in any debate?

It's legitimate when somebody is condemning you for exactly the same things that they or their friends do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xactly the same things that they or their friends do.

that's tu quoque, no?
 

Show us an example where the US driving its military (and other) forces into another country ever made anything better for the average person of that country.

the difficulty here is less the result--a focus on which amounts to argumentum ad consequentiam--than the principle that justifies what is otherwise a violation of the UN charter.  on what jus ad bellum principle might the US hang its hat for grenada, SFRJ, iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria, and all the rest? whether mobutu is better than lumumba is not the question; the question is what fucking right does the US have to assassinate one and uplift the other? what right against nkrumah? against sukarno? arbenz? mossadegh? trujillo? papandreou? goulart? sihanouk? allende? manley? torrijos? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 10:15 AM, sologdin said:

xactly the same things that they or their friends do.

that's tu quoque, no?
 

Show us an example where the US driving its military (and other) forces into another country ever made anything better for the average person of that country.

the difficulty here is less the result--a focus on which amounts to argumentum ad consequentiam--than the principle that justifies what is otherwise a violation of the UN charter.  on what jus ad bellum principle might the US hang its hat for grenada, SFRJ, iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria, and all the rest? whether mobutu is better than lumumba is not the question; the question is what fucking right does the US have to assassinate one and uplift the other? what right against nkrumah? against sukarno? arbenz? mossadegh? trujillo? papandreou? goulart? sihanouk? allende? manley? torrijos? 

"Good Guy Badge".  Same thing that mall cops and people who complain about illegal outdoor smoking wear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...