Tu Quoque, or, Let Us Exercise More Reason Than The Freepers

[distantearlywarning]

There's a particularly irrational style of debating that I have come to associate with a right-wing mentality. I know many of you will recognize it. It goes something like this:

Liberal A: "Bush is bad. He's a bad, bad man. He invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Moreover, he let the whole nation down during Katrina."

Freeper B: "But, but, but...Clinton got a blowjob!"
OR
"But, but, but...Teddy Kennedy!"
OR
"But, but, but....Michael Moore!"

And on and on and so forth.

Reasonable and informed DUers create sensible arguments filled with facts, and the stupid RWingers rebut every one with an example of some liberal who has behaved in some awful way also. Those of you who have ever been on the receiving end of this style of debate probably remember how irritated you were by it, and how stupid you thought it was. After all, when you think about it, bringing up Clinton's indiscretions is not a reasonable or logical response to an accusation made against Bush. Unless and until Bush gets caught with his pants down in the Oval Office, Clinton's BJ isn't even a relevant subject to any discussion involving Bush's badness. Further, Clinton's actions in the past, no matter how vile, can't justify any actions taken by a totally unrelated person in the future, even if they are the same kind of action. If Clinton is bad, and Bush is bad, all anyone can reasonably conclude is that U.S. presidents lately seem to be a bunch of assholes and perhaps we should elect someone with better character next time.

Now, it turns out that this style of debate has a name: Tu Quoque ("you too"). To quote from http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#The%20list%20of%20logical%20fallacies , "This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"

In the case of political debate of the type I mentioned, freepers who engage in this fallacy are applying the argument to their favorite and least favorite politician instead of themselves and their opponent. But it amounts to the same thing.

Some of you may be asking yourselves, "Why is DistantEarlyWarning bringing this up right now?" (Others probably know exactly where this is going...)

Well, I've noticed a disturbing thing on DU in recent months. My beloved DUers, who I generally rely on to be rational, logical, reasoned sorts, have started engaging in a little Tu Quoque of their own, and that disturbs me. The DU version goes like this:

DUer A: "Ahmadinejad's government flogs homosexuals. That makes him a bad person in my eyes."
OR
"Chavez is an asshole. He took over privately owned TV stations to put his own propaganda up."

DUer B: "But, but, but...Bush did X, Y, Z last week!"

And I'm sure anyone who reads General Discussion on a regular basis is familiar with this kind of endless flame war dynamic that's been happening here lately.

Now, while I've enjoyed making fun of and feeling pity for freeper types who truly believe that 100K dead civilians in Iraq is ok because Clinton got a blow job, I'm less than thrilled that DUers are now engaging in this kind of debate. In fact, it makes me a little sad and discouraged. And it makes me not want to hang out here so much any more. No, this is not a flouncy "goodbye cruel DU" vanity post. And believe it or not, it's not a post about Ahmadinejad or Chavez either (so you can forget about that knee-jerk panty-twisting flame-filled post you were about to scorch me with). It's simply a statement about patterns of thinking that aren't so productive. I hate seeing this place thinking and posting like the idiots over at Free Republic all the time lately. I think we're all were smarter than that and our posts should reflect that. None of us should have to resort to the "But Clinton got a blow-job!" defense to support our beliefs and statements.

So if you think that so-and-so is being unfairly set upon by your fellow liberal internet denizens, then refute their vicious lies by providing evidence that said leader DIDN'T in fact do what they are accusing him of. Or point out the 4000 fabulous other things he's done in his time in office to offset the 1 villainous act he perpetrated (and to be fair, I have seen a little of this also). But don't just take the lazy way out by setting up and knocking down an easier target (Bush, America, the Christian Right, etc.).

Alright. That's all I have to say right now. Flame away, my brothers and sisters....

B-)

[Demit]

1. If you think DU is bad, you should see the comments at Will Bunch's site. Toxic.

I think a lot of the postings here at DU are people just wanting to toss off one-liners. For thoughtful debate, and supporting information, I really think you have to go to other sites.

But it has been interesting recently how a few events in the news have revealed some people's inner conservative. LOL! Since we are reputedly a proud liberal site people have been getting very testy as they struggle to understand & justify the opinions they have that aren't pure unadulterated liberal. It's making them strike out, and call names.