“To those who prefer to use reason, awareness of the existence of such a logical fallacy is a value in itself.”-cvj

Very well.

Fallacy connotes something so negative. – Justice League

A fallacy points to a defect in logic. If your aim is to reach a conclusion supported by logic, then a fallacy is always negative. On the other hand, logic is not the be all and end all so perhaps you’re right that fallacies are not always a bad thing.

…labelling an argument as Tu Quoque without facing it is not much of a help in the argument. – Justice League

To those who prefer to use reason, awareness of the existence of such a logical fallacy is a value in itself. Of course, we have to recognize that Tu Quoque is both harder to spot and easier to misapply than other more obvious fallacies (like ad hominem attacks).

“Yup, which is why Tu Quoque is oftentimes an effective tactic especially if one is not aware that such a fallacy exists.”-cvj

Fallacy connotes something so negative.

We have noted above in the example of Trillanes’ case that what appears to be Tu Quoque at first glance might not be so negative in connotation as long as certain factors really apply which in this case you have stated as precedence.

Anyway, since what appears to be a Tu Quoque has to be faced in order to determine if it is actually a Tu Quoque; labelling an argument as Tu Quoque without facing it is not much of a help in the argument.

I guess we have reached the end of this discussion.

Then the question or issue initially brought up with what seems to be a Tu Quoque argument has to be faced before it is actually determined to be a Tu Quoque. – Justice League

Yup, which is why Tu Quoque is oftentimes an effective tactic especially if one is not aware that such a fallacy exists.

(I think Trillanes’ camp are arguing on the basis of precedent which i think is normal and accepted practice within the justice system. Of course, “it has to be shown” that the precedent really applies (which i think it does in this case) or else it would really be Tu Quoque.)-cvj

Precedent can be used to determine consistency or inconsistency.

Then the question or issue initially brought up with what seems to be a Tu Quoque argument has to be faced before it is actually determined to be a Tu Quoque.

If Sen. Trillanes’ lawyers point out that the DOJ or the government allows detainee Misuari to do this and that but won’t allow Sen. Trillanes to do something similar; would that be Tu Quoque? – Justice League

I think Trillanes’ camp are arguing on the basis of precedent which i think is normal and accepted practice within the justice system. Of course, it has to be shown that the precedent really applies (which i think it does in this case) or else it would really be Tu Quoque.

(I think Pimentel’s assumption that Trillanes lawyers are not privy to the facts of the case is invalid because the case and the way it has been decided is (or should at least be) a matter of public record.

Even Baggini stated “Nonetheless, the tu quoque move does at least force us to confront the apparent inconsistency.”

So Baggini eventually admits the “tu quoque” argument can’t be simply disregarded just because it is “tu quoque”.

As i said above, on this point we agree. To the thinking person, even a logical fallacy has its uses.

Trillanes can’t attend sessions
By Rhodina Villanueva (Philstar)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007

“…
On the other hand, the camp of Trillanes accused state prosecutors of practicing “double standards,” since former governor Nur Misuari of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, who is facing charges of rebellion, was allowed to go to Sulu and Saudi Arabia.

“Comparing to the case of former ARMM governor Nur Misuari who is under house arrest in New Manila, the latter was allowed to go to Mindanao and campaign during the May 14 elections,” read the brief of Trillanes.

“The double standards being practiced by the DOJ prosecutors in the handling of the motions or requests of the accused similarly charged with non-bailable offense is so clear and apparent that their opposition in this case do not command or carry any credibility at all.”

However, (Judge Oscar)Pimentel said: “The invocation of Misuari’s case is all in vain since none of the state prosecutors are privy to that case, and that Trillanes has no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding that case.”… ”

Judge Pimentel was apparently compelled to dispel the seeming inconsistency of the DOJ stand in the 2 cases. I however think he is assuming that the DOJ secretary doesn’t know the lines of reasoning undertaken by his own people in the 2 high profile cases.

I don’t think Judge Pimentel is handling the Misuari case so whatever inconsistency (if there be any) there can be properly placed to head of the DOJ.

Even Baggini stated “Nonetheless, the tu quoque move does at least force us to confront the apparent inconsistency.”

So Baggini eventually admits the “tu quoque” argument can’t be simply disregarded just because it is “tu quoque”.

So is there any other line of argument that has such “force” as “tu quoque”?

If Sen. Trillanes’ lawyers point out that the DOJ or the government allows detainee Misuari to do this and that but won’t allow Sen. Trillanes to do something similar; would that be Tu Quoque?

Well we’ll most likely have different lines of reasoning into finding out the validity of the Onnagata stand.

Someone else might want to prove it but foremost is to clarify the issues involved. But I am quite interested in how you’d handle it.

Laws are much easier to amend. Granted that the Constitutional provisions are wrong, counterproductive or out of date, we still have to contend with those provisions that as you stated must be observed. Whatever proposals we come up with in this case, we have to consider the Constitution unless we are just engaging in very light conversation. (Well I guess unless we are planning to revolt also.)

I remember a scene from Apollo 13. Gary Sinese was planning what the Astronauts can do in their spaceship. One staff member gave him a flashlight or something. Gary Sinese asked “Do they have this onboard?” When the answer was negative, he said “Then don’t give this to me.”

With regards to Martin’s own vision; Martin has grown convinced that “When people ask me about what I can do, it’s not really to discover what I can but to reveal what I can’t.” So it is immaterial to Martin whether he is the occupant of this or that or as himself. Quite lucky of him then in this case. Seems every similar reasoning to him will now be tu quoque.

BTW, I stated that I never considered our old discussion as tu quoque on your part.

With regards to the Bible; like I implied, the moral law was drastically being revised by Christ. The same cannot be said about the law on “cheating”.

But good that you brought up UPN’s ideas. It was only on review that I got to read his other issues which by that time; the issue was too old.

Regarding our previous discussion on the physicians, merely citing the presence of constitutional provisions does not address the issue because it could be that those provisions are wrong, counterproductive or out of date. That’s why i asked you (in earnest, not rhetorically) for your own alternatives on how to address the shortage of physicians without resorting to importing them from abroad. In brainstorming for solutions, the presence or absence of a provision in the Constitution (or any law) is totally beside the point (except perhaps as a constraint that must be observed).

Sir Martin’s own vision is beside the point because he is not the occupant of Malacanang and what we are criticising is the current occupants lack of vision. On the other hand, you and i were not pretending to be anything other than ourselves when we were exchanging ideas on how best to address the labor shortage in medical professionals. So the requisite condition for Tu Quoque (that you believe i’m guilty of) i.e. “showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it” – does not apply.

As i remember, you (and UPn Student) proposed to tap the unemployed physicians who are supposed to be abundant in the cities for redeployment into the provinces. I accepted that because i think that is a genuine alternative worth exploring if it turns out that the skillsets and numbers match, and the physicians are willing to make the move.

Regarding the bible episode, the adultress broke the law and Moses specified the punishment. The case is supposed to be open and shut. Jesus’ line of reasoning is similar in form to those who want to let off Gloria Arroyo’s cheating because ‘everybody cheats anyway’. The distinction lies in the context and its underlying moral implications. And if you refer back to what i wrote above, i believe you’ll see that we’re actually saying the same thing. I remember Priscilla Almeda saying those exact same lines (‘He who has no sin…’) during the Senate Hearing back in 2001 and it just did not have the same effect.