Ah yes. Whataboutism. Suppose a robber acts in defense of a person about to be robbed. That may or may not make them a hypocrite, but it certainly doesn’t make them wrong.
Or would you say it would somehow be more right for the robber to stand back and allow the robbery “because they’re in no position to point fingers”?
It’s you that is whatabouting. We could (Read:should) have defended them without robbing their land.
Further to that; it doesn’t excuse the fact that we have never returned the land to them. Bit of a process appreciated, but it would have made the incredibly difficult and moronic brexit process a bit easier.
This might surprise you, but that didn’t help clearing up anything. If you have an argument to make, make an argument. That way I can either agree with you or retort.
No, I don’t consider listing countries or regions an argument. Denmark, Belgium, French Polynesia. Now you might wonder where I’m going with that, but I’m not going to tell you. I’ll just expect you to read my mind. That’s communication, you see.
No worries, I wouldn’t dream of holding it against you; if anything, you have my respect for owning up to making a simple mistake, which happens to everybody sooner or later - me very much included. Kudos!
Ive commented elsewhere in the past that the Fediverse is a much more pleasant place, and I’d like to maintain that. Thank you for being pleasant back. Have a great weekend.
You too, buddy. Maybe some day we’ll have a chance to drink an excellent Irish stout (which is obviously ‘all of them’, though my personal preference is Murphy’s) together. That’d be lovely, and not just because of the stout.
If anything it would be more a ‘tu quoque’ fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.
It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn’t do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.
OOP smells like a pro-putin propaganda account. Someone else doing something bad doesn’t make your own acts of murder any more justifiable, especially when you’re murdering someone completely different than the wrongdoer.
Ah yes. Whataboutism. Suppose a robber acts in defense of a person about to be robbed. That may or may not make them a hypocrite, but it certainly doesn’t make them wrong.
Or would you say it would somehow be more right for the robber to stand back and allow the robbery “because they’re in no position to point fingers”?
It’s you that is whatabouting. We could (Read:should) have defended them without robbing their land.
Further to that; it doesn’t excuse the fact that we have never returned the land to them. Bit of a process appreciated, but it would have made the incredibly difficult and moronic brexit process a bit easier.
Name a nation that hasn’t expanded or died out.
It’s countries doing genocide that bothers me.
I’m sorry, but I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s robbing what land? Are we talking about Ukraine or Ireland?
Because I’m here talking about Ukraine and the UK.
Ukraine, Ireland, Palestine…
This might surprise you, but that didn’t help clearing up anything. If you have an argument to make, make an argument. That way I can either agree with you or retort.
No, I don’t consider listing countries or regions an argument. Denmark, Belgium, French Polynesia. Now you might wonder where I’m going with that, but I’m not going to tell you. I’ll just expect you to read my mind. That’s communication, you see.
I know. I was being a cock. I thought you’d mentioned Ireland, fuck knows how. My comments are null, void, and pointless.
No worries, I wouldn’t dream of holding it against you; if anything, you have my respect for owning up to making a simple mistake, which happens to everybody sooner or later - me very much included. Kudos!
Ive commented elsewhere in the past that the Fediverse is a much more pleasant place, and I’d like to maintain that. Thank you for being pleasant back. Have a great weekend.
You too, buddy. Maybe some day we’ll have a chance to drink an excellent Irish stout (which is obviously ‘all of them’, though my personal preference is Murphy’s) together. That’d be lovely, and not just because of the stout.
One might worry about the motivations behind a murderer who murders another murderer and what that might mean for the original victim.
If anything it would be more a ‘tu quoque’ fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.
It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn’t do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.
Sure, but to my mind the question is: How does robber #2 pointing out that robber #1 is himself a robber excuse the actions of robber #2?
OOP smells like a pro-putin propaganda account. Someone else doing something bad doesn’t make your own acts of murder any more justifiable, especially when you’re murdering someone completely different than the wrongdoer.