Recently, on reddit, there was a question about my favorite logical fallacy… well, not really my favorite, I like them all, but this is a good one. The question was about the “Tu Quoque” Fallacy, while I was answering the poster, I realized that identifying “Tu Quoque” can be a little tricky, so here’s a snippet which will help you remember.
Tu Quoque, or the “Yah? Well… you used to” fallacy, attacks a former or current position which has a social stigma associated with it (regardless of the veracity of said position), instead of addressing the argument made. Some examples:
- Alfa: “There is no physical evidence that supports the belief that psychics are anything more than hoaxsters and con artists.”
- Betta: “Well, you used to believe in ghosts, since there’s no evidence for them either, you must be wrong about this.”
Here, Betta doesn’t address the argument, but rather invokes the fact that Alfa at some point held a belief that had no evidenciary basis. Regardless of the (implied) fact that he no longer believes it. Here’s another example
- Gam-Ma: “Honey, I know you think that Astrology is science, but it just isn’t. There’s no evidence.”
- Kap-Pa: “Well, you think that 9/11 wasn’t a government plot either, shows how much you know.”
Here (in this poor, greek married couple’s dialog), we see that Kap-Pa again doesn’t address the argument, but instead accuses Gam-Ma of not believing in something else that bears a stigma in his (implied) conspiracy theorist circle. We see this kind of fallacy alot with creationists cdesign proponentists. As in this dialog, they (the proponentists) tend to pair this fallacy with an ad hominem, which is why it is often difficult to determine whether or not something is a Tu Quoque fallacy.
Speaking of Ad Hominems, you can remember the Ad Hominem fallacy by remembering that it attacks the character or repute of the arguer, rather than the argument. Here’s an example:
- Epsy Lon: “Creationism has no scientific basis in reality, whether you call it ID, Creationism, or the Flying Spaghetti Construction Theory, it’s all simply baseless, disproven conjecture.”
- Omee Cron: “Well, you’re just some stupid evilutionist! You can’t tell me my faith is wrong! You baby-eating atheist!”
Here, Omee Cron (somewhat enthusiatically) attack’s Epsy’s character with a statement that may (or may not) carry a stigma socially. Notice how, while being an atheist or evolutionist is not “wrong” in the sense of ethics (well, assuming we don’t mean fundamentalists ‘ethics’) it still carries enough of a stigma to be an effective Ad Hominem.
I hope this helps you all to remember the difference between these two fallacies. They often form (as I mentioned) a 1-2 punch of irrationality. First a Tu Quoque, then a quick Ad Hominem. Sometimes they are further combined with a Strawman too provide an easier target. Kent Hovind uses this Strawman-Tu Quoque-Ad Hominem attack all the time, watch a few of his videos (preferrably the ones debunked by ExtantDodo on Youtube) to see this.