Patterico's Pontifications

3/6/2007

A Not Entirely Fictional Conversation Between a Leftist and a Conservative

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 pm



Leftist: You conservatives do it, but we leftists don’t.

Conservative: Nonsense. You leftists do it too. Here’s proof.

Leftist: Ah, the “tu quoque” fallacy. Why must you conservatives always play the “you do it too” game?

31 Responses to “A Not Entirely Fictional Conversation Between a Leftist and a Conservative”

  1. True! This is just one of the reasons I stopped watching Hannity & Colmes. Both of them–Colmes in particular–routinely rely on the “you do it too” defense instead of debating consistently, logically and factually.

    I still have to read it on the internets, but somehow it’s not quite so offensive there.

    Great list you have Patrick! Quite an enjoyable read (for those who have a brain and know how to use it.)

    ManlyDad (d62cf6)

  2. When someone makes the “you do it and we don’t” implication or assertion, the “you do it too” becomes a valid counter point.

    jpm100 (851d24)

  3. Are you are referring to the tu quoque discussion I had with Pablo a few minutes ago? He pulled the tu quoque card first though. I’ve kind of gotten used to it around here although I used to fuss about it.

    Like I say though, you can’t write a put-down like that and not expect a rebuttal. It just won’t stand because sugar-coating notwithstanding, a screed’s a screed.

    Psyberian (de47c4)

  4. It’s well past time to restore dueling to our culture to unequivically settle these matters.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  5. Are you are referring to the tu quoque discussion I had with Pablo a few minutes ago? He pulled the tu quoque card first though.

    Yeah, but you did it too!

    Seriously, that discussion was but one example. I do a post responding to a completely idiotic assertion which boils down to: lefties (outside of anonymous blog comments and e-mails) don’t engage in a certain sort of behavior. So I prove they do. And then I’m accused of doing the tu quoque thing.

    By that logic, I can implausibly declare myself innocent of all sorts of misdeeds that I regularly commit, while accusing others of committing these same misdeeds — all without fear of being rebutted. Because if someone tries — hey, it’s the tu quoque fallacy.

    It’s enough to make me want to pull my hair out, just contemplating the fact that these people’s votes count as much as mine . . .

    Patterico (04465c)

  6. But why even play the game. It’s like arguing with telemarketers. Just drop it. Makes you sound like a moron to even get into it. Don’t you have something less penny-ante?

    [Go call Greenwald a moron. At least I’m honest. — P]

    TCO (6caa0b)

  7. Many Republicans, especially white men, enjoy Ann Coulter because she says things that would have gotten them tarred and fired for the past thirty years.

    History reminds us that had Republicans exterminated all democrats after 1865, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1939 Federal Anti-Lynching Act, and Brown vs. Board of Education would have been completely unnecessary.

    It is unfortunate that America is “too civilized” to engage on a REAL battlefield today. Republicans are supposed to satisfy themselves by pointing fingers at democrats who respond with the “you do it too” argument. In this 150-year-old war, democrats defend themselves by creating silly rules like hate-speech and political correctness, and wax hysterical when Republicans SAY something questionably insensitive about one of their philosophical faggots (e.g., spineless wimpering limp-wristed anti-American free-loading anti-social hypocrites).

    Yes, Republicans are far from perfect. But while Republicans vilify, condemn, and force the removal of Republicans like Duke Cunningham, Richard Nixon, Bill Janklow, and Mark Foley, people like Alcee Hastings, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and William Jefferson are still celebrated and reelected. So much for the “party of corruption” or the “you do it too” defense.

    Democrats feign outrage over the Coulter comment not because they care about civil rights, slave-progeny, or gay people, but to buy the innocence they so desperately seek from their real history. Republicans evolved BECAUSE of how Democrats treated others.

    If we only look at democrat education; first outlawing black education, then segregating blacks from white schools and, today, flunking half of all blacks currently enrolled in LAUSD, an undeniable pattern emerges. Show me a failing public school system in America and I’ll show you a democrat infestation.

    Republicans went to war in 1861 against Democrats because of their behavior and NOT because Democrats “did too.” Our casus belli still exists – and not because Republicans “do it too.”

    I won’t get excited about Ann’s comments until Democrats end the blatant anti-Semitic venom that freely flows from our Democrat-controlled universities. Islamic students have adopted much of the KKK-era speech about Israel, Jews, and Republicans, and their democrat administrators sit like Jim Crow jurors deciding a lynching case. Talk about hypocrisy…

    Clark Baker (337440)

  8. Both sides have shills/shrills. Best to sort that chaff and get down to the wheat. No nutritional value to the chaff. Acknowledging it – whether it blows in from the east or the west – only gives it notice it does not deserve.

    Tracy (63e43e)

  9. Here’s the thing: Pat isn’t excusing anyone’s behavior by showing Greenwald to be a hypocrite in one instance and dishonest in another. That, of course, would be the much ballyhooed tu quoque fallacy (it’s okay for X because Y does it, too!!!!!!!). Pat did something quite different. He actually rebuts a specific statement by Greenwald by showing that hateful and vitriolic speech is found on both “sides.” But once again, not as an excuse…he’s definitely not excusing Coulter.

    Can you see the difference? He’s beating everybody up…..how can you disagree with that?

    Jay (ec6ad0)

  10. Patterico,

    Seriously, that discussion was but one example. I do a post responding to a completely idiotic assertion which boils down to: lefties (outside of anonymous blog comments and e-mails) don’t engage in a certain sort of behavior. So I prove they do. And then I’m accused of doing the tu quoque thing.

    Exactly!

    I didn’t engage in tu quoque with you, Psyberian, I simply pointed out that your admission of the use of tu quoque (and the justification you were attempting to provide with it) completely missed the point of Patterico’s post. As you still don’t comprehend what you read there, you’re making Patterico’s “Reading Comprehension Problems” point as wel.

    I also left a couple of direct, simple yes or no questions that you first attempted to ignore, and then ran away from with your tail between your legs. Why is that? Have you been into the psilocybin, Psyberian?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  11. Notice TCO’s variation of the argument: Patterico responding to Greenwald, he argues, is a waste of time. In many cases, this sort of statement is followed with the writer pointing out that there are bigger problems in the world that Patterico should be addressing.

    The obvious flaw is that if Patterico is wasting his energies on the subject, then so is the commenter, and so is Greenwald, since this sort of stuff would have to be “penny-anty” for him as well.

    Just exceedingly lame. They start an argument, loose and then say how shallow we are for arguing with them. Lame, Lame, Lame.

    T-web (ac713a)

  12. Patterico: “Go call Greenwald a moron.”

    Response: NO! I’m not trapped in your back and forth penny-ante silliness. It’s a waste of time and effort for someone who is capable of better (either of us). You don’t get the point! Step outside that box that you have created in your brain for a second.

    TCO (4dd7d6)

  13. Calling Greenwald a moron would not be an insult or even a slur. You can’t insult someone by calling them what they are. People call me an alcoholic, but it’s not an insult because it’s TRUE.

    otcconan (2bddc8)

  14. I can understand why you went into your rant about Glenn Patterico. But I think you’re overplayed your hand since everybody overstates their case at some point or another and that’s all he’s really guilty of.

    Pablo, I don’t feel obligated to answer any of your questions. You don’t intimidate me, so just drop it. By the way, I didn’t claim that you “engaged in” tu quoque with me, I said that we discussed it – there’s a difference there.

    Psyberian (de47c4)

  15. TCO,

    You say I sound like a moron for using facts to rebut something Greenwald said — yet you refuse to tell Greenwald he sounds like a moron, when he discusses the same topic, but (unlike me) is dishonest about it.

    You sound like a Greenwald sycophant. I don’t guess you are — you just love to spend your time reading my blog and coming on here to tell me that my efforts are trivial in your eyes.

    Patterico (04465c)

  16. By the way, “I love how” these leftists come on here and tell me that they’re tired of the discussion — but also, that I’m wrong.

    If you think I’m wrong, I’m going to keep compiling these lists and whacking your side over the head with them until your state of denial resembles that of a flat-earther.

    Patterico (04465c)

  17. Pat:

    In my evil heart, I do enjoy some aspect of doing what you say I do to you. But I also enjoy when you do good and useful and interesting and intellectually stimulating things. So, remember…some of the best surgeons enjoy the cutting…they do good also. *Shake your manly hand.*

    TCO (e28bb0)

  18. You must appreciate, then, that I enjoy cutting up Greenwald.

    Patterico (04465c)

  19. No.

    TCO (e28bb0)

  20. I didn’t think so.

    That’s OK. I don’t really care. Because the point is, I do enjoy it. And that’s really all I care about.

    Patterico (04465c)

  21. TCO,

    I’m not an in-your-face kind of person and I don’t like it when people trade insults for fun. However, it’s completely different when you have a good point to make and you happen to enjoy making it, and that’s how I read Patterico’s posts on Greenwald. In fact, we should all support vigorous debate like this – even if it doesn’t seem like debate since Patterico is winning so handily.

    DRJ (0c4ef8)

  22. Pat: Agreed.

    TCO (e28bb0)

  23. Pablo, I don’t feel obligated to answer any of your questions. You don’t intimidate me, so just drop it.

    Shorter Psyberian: “La la la la la la la! I can’t hear you!”

    By the way, I didn’t claim that you “engaged in” tu quoque with me, I said that we discussed it – there’s a difference there.

    Really? Is that what you meant when you said:

    Are you are referring to the tu quoque discussion I had with Pablo a few minutes ago? He pulled the tu quoque card first though.

    You, my friend, are a liar and a coward. Carry on anyway.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  24. Pablo, to discuss tu quoque is not the same as engaging in it. To engage in it, one of us would have to say you did it too directed at each other. We never did that. We merely argued about whether the posts and comments were you too fallacies. My argument that both sides (Patterico and commenters on the left) were both guilty of tu quoque is not a tu quoqe fallacy in itself. See how that works?

    Whats your deal, anyway? You dont consider that I might have just made a mistake in my comment you automatically call me a liar even when you were the one who was wrong. Youre such a contemptible jerk.

    [No need to name-call. I have lectured Pablo as well. C’mon, guys. We can do better than this. Incidentally, Psy, I think you missed the point of the post. — P]

    Psyberian (de47c4)

  25. Psyberian, the first comment I responded to found you justifying tu quoque as a valid counter to Patterico’s point. And then I see you relating, in another thread, that “[Pablo] pulled the tu quoque card first.” What does that mean in whatever language you’re speaking, Psyberian? That’s the phrase I’m taking issue with. Because it can’t mean that Pablo said “They do it too” as I did not.

    And those questions you (:::stomping feet:::) don’t have to answer? What’s so hard about these, you contemptible weasel?

    The oft repeated point of the post was to contradict Greenwalds assertion that the left doesnt do it.

    That being the case, Patterico hit the bullseye, didnt he? The left does do it, dont they?

    If you hadn’t pulled that “You’re not the boss of me” crap over a couple of very simple, very easily answered questions, I wouldn’t have poked you in the eye for being a disingenuous coward.

    If you can’t stand the heat, don’t stoke the fire, dumbass.

    [Now, now. Leave the name-calling to the lefty sites. — P]

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  26. My argument that both sides (Patterico and commenters on the left) were both guilty of tu quoque…

    BTW, you really need to scroll up and read the post again. Too funny!

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  27. Patterico, I didnt miss what you contend is the reason for the post. My point of view is this: However you couch a smear of the left, it still comes off as a smear on the left. You can say that you werent trying to say you too, but the psychological effect when reading the post is you too nevertheless.

    By the way, maybe you should thank Glenn for giving you the excuse to post that rant without him, you wouldnt have had a cover for your tirade.

    [Shorter Psy: Greenwald is entitled to misstate facts without rebuttal. — P]

    Psyberian (de47c4)

  28. You delete the quotes in my comment when you add your comments to mine Pat.

    You only needed one example to prove Glenn wrong.

    [Sorry. What quotes got deleted?

    Tell Glenn and his Army of Sycophants I needed only one such quote. They keep saying I proved his point because my list had this defect or that one.

    The fact is that one quote makes him technically wrong. 20 make him astonishingly wrong. I like that better. — P]

    [Put another way: Shorter Psy: Patterico is entitled to refute Greenwald . . . just not effectively. — P]

    Psyberian (de47c4)

  29. So if he only needed one…

    More would be better…

    Right?

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  30. Libertarian: Would y’all just shut and go have sex. 😉

    Rostrum (39fc86)

  31. [Shorter Psy: Greenwald is entitled to misstate facts without rebuttal. — P]

    …because factual rebuttal is smearing!

    [Now, now. Leave the name-calling to the lefty sites. — P]

    I just call ’em like I see ’em, Coach. 😉

    Pablo (08e1e8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1332 secs.