@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:No, the tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to turn an argument back on someone by attacking that someone for the same moral failure as those whom they have condemned.
If the person who was making the accusations was guilty of the crime themselves, that would certainly count. But the supposed fallacy covers broader circumstances, such as scenarios where the accuser is happy to forgive the same crime in a third party.
Setanta wrote:I didn't do that, so your sneer about the tu quoque fallacy was false,
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander is a suggestion that people who commit similar misdeeds should be condemned equally. People who commit the supposed tu quoque fallacy are also saying that people who commit similar misdeeds should be condemned equally.
Setanta wrote:because I had condemned all people who grope others.
People who commit the alleged tu quoque fallacy are likewise arguing that all should be treated equally.
Setanta wrote:Snood pointed that out and you attacked him for that.
Snood falsely accused me of his own intellectual shortcomings. All I did was put him in his proper place.
Setanta wrote:In the context of my original remark, about which you sneered, there was no appeal to hypocrisy.
There was a suggestion that hypocrisy is wrong and all should be treated equally. That is all that anyone who commits the supposed tu quoque fallacy ever suggests.
Setanta wrote:This is just one example of the failure of your rhetoric.
My rhetoric is holding up just fine.
Setanta wrote:Your next remark in your chopping of my post is irrelevant, because you are not dealing with facts, "inconvenient" or otherwise.
No, it is a fact that the supposed tu quoque fallacy involves arguing that hypocrisy is wrong and people should be treated equally.
Setanta wrote:Your explanation of the tu quoque fallacy is incorrect.
No, I described it accurately.
Setanta wrote:You did not "win" anything--
You had no facts to counter mine and were reduced to untrue ad hominems. Seems like a clear debate victory to me.
Setanta wrote:I condemned those who grope others, I did not mention anything about severity of condemnation. So now you're making sh*t up to support your feeble attempt at rhetoric.
Nope. I'm not making anything up either. The phrase sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander implies equal treatment for equal wrongdoing.
Setanta wrote:At no time did I employ argumentum ad hominem. I simply pointed out that your opinions are not facts.
Wrong. You made untrue claims about my rhetorical skills.
Note also that pretending that facts are opinions doesn't make those facts untrue.