Common Core promoting Islam!!!!

[CaDan]

And Al Sharpton? Jessie Jackson? I am sure you condemn them with the same level of vitriol.

Again with the tu quoque.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Again with the tu quoque.

Hardly. If Starnes is, as was alleged by another poster, a "professional grievance merchant" then Sharpton and Jackson are as guilty, if not more so of being the same thing.

 

[Bedford]

Hardly. If Starnes is, as was alleged by another poster, a "professional grievance merchant" then Sharpton and Jackson are as guilty, if not more so of being the same thing.

Here, you may need this definition more than you know.

Tu quoque

(/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#cite_note-bluedorn-2

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hardly. If Starnes is, as was alleged by another poster, a "professional grievance merchant" then Sharpton and Jackson are as guilty, if not more so of being the same thing.

And that makes them all equally despicable.

The difference, of course, is that nobody's trying to excuse Jackson's or Sharpton's despicable acts.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Here, you may need this definition more than you know.

Tu quoque

(/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#cite_note-bluedorn-2

I know what tu-quoque means - and you might too if you read your link and maybe compared that with what's going on in the posts in question.

Sharpton and Jackson weren't introduced as an attempt to discredit on the basis of hypocrisy and thus somehow win an argument. It was in fact not even an assertion at all, but a question (questions =/= assertions).

Granted I suppose, answering the question one way *would* demonstrate hypocrisy and thus discredit the position of the one answering it, but answering it differently could easily do just the opposite. Either way, it isn't a tu-quoque at all - it just sorta conveniently looks like it - which "convenience" is a bit ironic because those calling it a tu-quoque won't, for some reason, just answer the question, preferring instead (again, I suppose) to hide behind the tu-quoque assertion.

 

[EdwinWillers]

And that makes them all equally despicable.

The difference, of course, is that nobody's trying to excuse Jackson's or Sharpton's despicable acts.

Kudos for being the one person willing to answer the question (as you did several posts above)... and the one person giving the honest response to the tu-quoque nonsense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Kudos for being the one person willing to answer the question (as you did several posts above)...

The best way to deal with a tu quoque attempt is to acknowledge it and call the person out on it.... as I did on Sistrin.... and now you.

and the one person giving the honest response to the tu-quoque nonsense.

One of us had to -- I knew it was pointless to wait.

If you're not engaging in tu quoque, as you'd like us to believe, then why keep the conversation on Sharpton and Jackson instead of Starnes?

You're not a fan of theirs, are you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know what tu-quoque means - and you might too if you read your link and maybe compared that with what's going on in the posts in question.

Sharpton and Jackson weren't introduced as an attempt to discredit on the basis of hypocrisy and thus somehow win an argument. It was in fact not even an assertion at all, but a question (questions =/= assertions).

Actually, it was a distraction -- that's rather the point of tu quoque.

 

[Bedford]

I know what tu-quoque means - and you might too if you read your link and maybe compared that with what's going on in the posts in question.

I still question if you do.

Sharpton and Jackson weren't introduced as an attempt to discredit on the basis of hypocrisy and thus somehow win an argument. It was in fact not even an assertion at all, but a question (questions =/= assertions).

Only to you. The rest of us understand why Sharpton and Jackson were introduced. They are not a part of this discussion until sistrin tossed it out.

Granted I suppose, answering the question one way *would* demonstrate hypocrisy and thus discredit the position of the one answering it, but answering it differently could easily do just the opposite. Either way, it isn't a tu-quoque at all - it just sorta conveniently looks like it - which "convenience" is a bit ironic because those calling it a tu-quoque won't, for some reason, just answer the question, preferring instead (again, I suppose) to hide behind the tu-quoque assertion.

What? Sharpton and Jackson being introduced by sistrin was also tu-quoque.

Look at the OP

It is about Starnes, not Jackson or Sharpton.

My comment stands.

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

Here we are discussing Jackson and Sharpton.

Tu Quoque

 

[EdwinWillers]

I still question if you do.

Only to you. The rest of us understand why Sharpton and Jackson were introduced. They are not a part of this discussion until sistrin tossed it out.

What? Sharpton and Jackson being introduced by sistrin was also tu-quoque.

Look at the OP

It is about Starnes, not Jackson or Sharpton.

My comment stands.

Here we are discussing Jackson and Sharpton.

Tu Quoque

No, what we are actually discussing is Common Core promoting Islam.

What's good for the goose...

 

[Sistrin]

Again with the tu quoque.

Again showing up to post a phrase you actually believe no one but you understands.

 

[Bedford]

Again showing up to post a phrase you actually believe no one but you understands.

Ad hominem

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again showing up to post a phrase you actually believe no one but you understands.

So you asked about Sharpton and Jackson because you're a fan and would rather talk about them than Starnes, is that it?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Actually, it was a distraction -- that's rather the point of tu quoque.

Todd Starnes as a topic is actually the distraction here.

...and fwiw, that isn't a tu-quoque, it's a red herring.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, what we are actually discussing is Common Core promoting Islam.

What's good for the goose...

... is tu quoque.

 

[Bedford]

What's good for the goose...

is good for tu quoque.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Todd Starnes as a topic is actually the distraction here.

...and fwiw, that isn't a tu-quoque, it's a red herring.

Too true... It's easy to get their tactics mixed up at times... especially when they use them all at once.

 

[EdwinWillers]

... is tu quoque.

is good for tu quoque.

...and only the gander can use it.

 

[Sistrin]

No, what we are actually discussing is Common Core promoting Islam.

What's good for the goose...

This is the point. It wasn't us who began the deflection of the issue by attacking the source.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is the point. It wasn't us who began the deflection of the issue by attacking the source.

So the source completely reliable and has no history of manufacturing outrage in the past, correct?