Talk:Tu quoque/Archive 1

Hypocrisy
The article starts with "Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] or the appeal to hypocrisy..." but the article doesn't further elaborate on the connection between this fallacy and the hypocrisy involved. I'm sure it's rather obvious, but perhaps it should be noted that this is the fallacy that says that you can't dismiss something hypocritical just because it's hypocritical. While the one in hypocrisy might be in a bad position, that has no bearing on the truth-value of the statement. DukeTwicep (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Really?
Are you trying to say that if a homeless person on the street offers me advice on what I should do to be successful in life, that I should just ignore the state of his current disposition and simply critique his statements as to whether they are true or not? Seriously?

and if a pedofile offers me advice on what I need to do to be an outstanding citizen, i should simply critique what he is saying as to its validy.. and totally ignore his history? Seriously? Seriously?... I'll say it one more time... Seriously?

The definition of this fallacy, along with many other fallacies on wikipedia need SERIOUS review. The other one is "appeal to emotions" - humans use emotions to make judgements on a daily basis.

NO U! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.104.191 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tell me you don't get it without telling me you don't get it. 184.91.48.154 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Survivorship Bias
If you're only considering the success stories, you'll fail to see the big picture. Knowing why some failed is just as valuable as knowing why others succeeded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias 0xFFF1 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, actually
Tu quoque is just a logical fallacy. It simply points out that a homeless person could, without logical contradiction, give good advice on being successful. But that's all. Nobody is trying to say that you shouldn't be selective about who you take advice from, since it's pretty obvious that successful people usually give better advice than unsuccessful people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranfry (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience, I find that's just the sort of thing someone would try to say, so this article should probably explain the scope of the fallacy. In fact, all the informal fallacy articles should have that. Too often they are used to protect one's credibility, or claim that one's credibility is irrelevant, when said credibility is the only thing sustaining an argument. AngusCA (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These comments explain why it is so easy for con artists to take advantage of people, simply by appearing to conform to a prejudiced view of what a 'credible' or 'successful' person is like. None of this has anything to do with logic. If a statement is logically true, it is logically true wherever it originates. it's pretty obvious that successful people usually give better advice than unsuccessful people--that's why they sell so many self-help books. credibility is the only thing sustaining an argument--the reason that wrong theories have been held to be true for a long time, simply because they were argued by the credible to the credulous. Btljs (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, maybe?
So, if a homeless person said to you "If you want to be successful in life, don't invest in Enron, like I did!" would you say "Hah! You are a homeless person! Your advice is clearly meaningless. I shall invest all my money in Enron!" I won't even go into the equivalent dialogue for a paedophile...

Straw man for the win. 43.244.33.36 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You/thou
I don't see why "tu" was translated as "thou." Yes it may sort of get across a distinction in Latin pronouns, but the fact remains that "thou" is not part of modern English. I've changed it. Minivet (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Brutus ref.
The 'historical reference' is not mentioned in the Marcus Brutus article. The "et tu, Brute" quotation is, however, mentioned. I may fix this myself, at some point. I doubt it will be any time soon, though. Maybe someone else might want to do something about this minor error. Zeno Izen 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem?
There is no relation between the concept of "tu quoque" as a legitimate argument in a court of law or elsewhere (e.g. in world politics), and what "ad hominem" means. The argument of "tu quoque" belongs indeed to the family of "ad hominem" arguments but this does not mean that "tu quoque" should mean exclusively "ad hominem"! The link which directs the wikipedia reader who's looking for "tu quoque" to the entry for "ad hominem" should be removed and a separate articleon "tu quoque" must be created. (I do not have the background nor the knowledge to do so myself. I started a stub.) --The Gnome 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * court rooms and politics have nothing to do with how logic works. You'd understand that already, if you understood how logic works. 184.91.48.154 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it should remain as a category of ad hominem. tu quoque is diverting attention away from the logical argument at hand by focusing attention on alleged missdeeds of the othery party whether true or not. As such it is also attacking the person. The separate page could be left as a help to finding it.DLH 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with The Gnome - the use of tu quoque arguments in international criminal jurisprudence is enough to justify a separate "tu quoque" entry. [International Lawyer]
 * I agree with The Gnome, as well.  Tu quoque is not necessarily ad hominem.  And it has a sufficiently notable context to warrant a separate article.  Hmm, it appears that all of this discussion is old, so probably moot.  Ah life.Jance 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're both appealing to extra-logical things as the basis for re-categorizing a logical concept. You'd see the flawed logic there, if you were capable of grasping logic outside the scope of courtrooms, politics, etc. That stuff is completely extraneous to philosophical logic. 184.91.48.154 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Politics
Seems like we could get the point across without relating it to politics. Articles citing criticisms on the grounds of this fallacy can certainly point here, but I don't see reason to point the other way. I don't know if I can justify removing it, because it's technically correct. I just think we'd get the point across more clearly (particularly with readers predisposed one way or another politically) if we avoided this kind of sideways jab. Ojcit 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur, this is what gives wiki the appearance of a left leaning political forum!! Unsigned comment by Mentatdewd


 * I don't think including both Democratic and Republican examples, particularly with regard to a hot issue like the War in Iraq, is the best call here. I think both examples should be replaced with a more neutrally-charged example of the tu quoque inconsistency. It gives the appearance of bending over backwards to be politically balanced. It's a distraction. Venicemenace 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should have examples of Carthaginians using the fallacy. Never liked those. kisses, scipio BonniePrinceCharlie 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuremburg
I deleted the paragraph about the Nuremburg trials because it was such a poor example. A tu quoque argument would have been if they argued that the judges of the court or their superiors committed similar offenses. The argument they actually made was that the claimed moral and logical underpinnings of the court were flawed because of selective prosecution. If the judges had all been from non-combatant countries, the argument that the court was ignoring the war crimes of Brits and Americans would still be valid.

Suppose the article said Rosa Parks made the tu quoque argument that you let whites sit here, therefore you should let blacks sit here. If tu quoque is a form of fallacy it should not be used to describe valid refutation of the other side's argument. — Randall Bart 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Suppose the article said Rosa Parks made the tu quoque argument that you let whites sit here, therefore you should let blacks sit here.


 * Just on it's face, that would be a fallacious argument (akin to "you let ticket-holders watch the movie, therefore you should let non-ticket-holders in as well"). You'd need to add a premise such as "black people and white people are entitled to the same rights and treatment by the government" (which I believe to be true, mind you) for the argument to go through. But at that point, it would not be a tu quoque argument, it would be an argument from ethics (viz.,--it is wrong to deny people their rights). 64.234.1.144 01:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, tu quoque was forbidden as a defense at Nuremburg. The argument used to defend Dönitz's Franconia Order was much more subtle. After demonstrating that the order didn't require attacking survivors after torpedoing a ship but only forbade giving assistance, the defense introduced a deposition of Admiral Nimitz in which he stated that although subs weren't forbidden to help survivors, the safety of the boat came first, meaning that for all practical purposes, it never happened. During the closing argument, counsel stated that as Nimitz was well-known to be an honorable man who would never allow anything he thought was against the laws of war, his policy must have been lawful, and if it wasn't against the laws of war when the US did it, it couldn't have been when Germany did. The judges accepted the fact that this wasn't tu quoque, agreed with his logic and acquitted Dönitz on the charge. I found this in a book on the trials, but don't have any on-line cites. Maybe I'll find one and add it to the article some day.JDZeff (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph about ICTY is even worse, and it is removed, especially since the Nuremberg does not stand!LoncarLoncici (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Example
The single left example says "John Smith told the police he was at home alone on Friday night, but later said he was with friends at a bar; we can't take what he says about the crime at face value since he lied about his alibi.". I find this a poor example, as many people will assume a lying criminal is likely to keep lying. What about (chosen from the Dutch wikipedia entry): Arakrys 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "You say smoking is bad for your health. But you used to smoke yourself!"
 * "You say doing A is better than doing B. But last week you favoured policy B!"


 * The point of the example is to show that the source claims both A and B (~A), which makes the source untrustworthy. This doesn't mean that either A or B are right or wrong (which would be the fallacious form of tu quoque), only that the source is inconsistent and thus untrustworthy (i.e., a secondary source is necessary).


 * To argue that "You say smoking is bad for your health. But you used to smoke yourself!" may fall under the first legitimate use of tu qouque: questioning the consistency or criteria of the critique, but it doesn't seem to fit under this second category (showing the unreliability of a source). To argue that "You say doing A is better than doing B. But last week you favoured policy B!" seems to be the same as the current example (viz.--demonstrating an inconsistent source of knowledge), albeit not as clear. My two cents. 64.234.1.144 06:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples would help in the article. --75.84.169.160 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In Layman's Terms
Would it be innacurate to state this as a "Takes one to know one" logical approach? Steneub 198.134.2.62 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can someone add the pronunciation to the opening sentence? It is given here among other sites. Richard001 (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can be Wiki Bold, and add it yourself. :) I added it now, but don't hesitate to edit where you think WP needs it. :) 69.59.82.91 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation given (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/) is wrong, imho. It should be /tuːˈkwoʊkwɛ/. See the link given above, it uses a strange transscription but is not far off. (Aos1966 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC))


 * is not a legal pronunciation. Some may try to approximate the Latin with, but is the normal anglicization (cf. sake and numerous other loanwords originally ending in unstressed [e]). — kwami (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain that? What do you mean with legal pronunciation? Sorry, I'm not a master of phonetic writing. However the given pronunciation is absolutely wrong. As far I as I understand it the "Kwi" ending is spoken like the "Lee" in "Bruce Lee". However "quoque" is not ending in an "ee" but in an ɛ, as giving here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English. Please correct the phonetics, as you see fit, but remove the wrong one! Hm, after rereading I see you wrote "anglicization". That puzzles me a bit ... so you insist to speak latin wrong as you speak greek wrong (thinking about movies and nams like Zeus, Achilles or Leonidas) just to make it easier for americans? In that case you could as well remove the phonetics ... (Aos1966 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
 * We're not talking about the Latin pronunciation here, which in any case would be [e], not [ɛ], but the English. In English, the phrase ends in the "Bruce Lee" vowel. It's not possible to end an English word in the "bet" vowel, apart from interjections like "meh". (Can you think of one?) — kwami (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There can't be an english pronunciation for a latin word, unless you want to incorporate it into the english language. If you want to incorporate it into the english language, you don't need to add a phonetic transcription, as the "english" pronunciation is obvious (to any english speaker). So my point remains: why don't you add the proper latin pronunciation? In case you find it necessary to have an artificial english one, perhaps it makes sense to have two? 188.99.226.218 (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Waitaminit...
Quoth the article: "You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."

The statement itself is logically fallacious, but is used as an example of tu quoque being able to be non-fallacious. I don't dispite that tu quoque can be used without fallacy, but I disagree that the sentence exemplifies this.

Reason the statement is logically fallacious: According to the statement: -I state that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances. -I support killing (humans, presumably) in self-defence. and from these two, the following optional conclusions are drawn: -I am being inconsistent -I believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified.

Well, first of all, the first conclusion CANNOT be drawn from those facts alone. See, those facts alone do NOT indicate that I condemn wrongdoing! Second, 'believing something is justified' and 'supporting it' are NOT identical. I may support unjustified things. I may support wrongdoing. I may be unabashedly evil and revel in it. What? Why not?

Perhaps I believe that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, and I support all wroingdoing, including taking human lives, under all circumstances, including self-defence. Further, I am in favour of doing unjustified things, because I'm evil and it makes things more fun. There's no inconsistency, and neither conclusion thus drawn would be correct. 65.87.20.98 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Okay, I'll bite. Regardless of whether you condone "evil" or not, the simple fact is that the stance poses a logical inconsistency, introduced by the following two propositions:


 * 1.) Killing is *always* wrong always.
 * 2.) Killing is *not wrong sometimes*.


 * Now, whether you agree that being "wrong" is a bad (or good) thing, it is a logical necessity (according to bivalent modal logic) that if a thing, "A", is wrong *always*, it is never not-wrong; viz., it is never the case that "A" is anything except "wrong". This means that (2.) is false. If (1.) is true, then (2.) is false. Regardless of whether being "wrong" is good or bad, the logic holds true. To state both (1.) and (2.) is inconsistent (viz., illogical). 69.59.82.91 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate You-too Version 2
The example which is supposed to use the speaker's inconsistency to "disprove" their point, in fact, does not commit the fallacy subsequently attributed to it. Version 2 (the version intended to be illegitimate) for legitimate you-too needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge008 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more related fallacies
Tu quoque doesn't quite capture the situation in which A accuses B of doing X, when A does X but B does not do X.

This situation is related to hypocrisy, projection, narcissism (apparently a common technique among narcissists), the pot calling the kettle black, and others, but not the same.

So who knows a name of a fallacy as I have described?

Stoppropaganda (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you doing any better
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but I have long loathed the argument "I don't see you doing any better!" But I am not sure if this counts as "Tu quoque" or not. Is there another logical fallacy that covers this? 43.244.33.36 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate uses
Both examples given as supposed "legitimate uses" of the tu quoque argument are false. Interestingly enough, neither was sourced. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain how this is "false"?


 * A makes criticism P.
 * A is also guilty of P.
 * Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.


 * How is it false to conclude from a person acting one way, and at the same time stating a belief contrary to that action, that the person is either not acting according to or not properly stating their actual values and beliefs? The only way that could be a false conclusion is if we reject bivalent modal logic, which then nullifies the whole article (since there are no such things as formal or verbal fallacies if we reject bivalent modal logic--those terms are only meaningful under that system).


 * Again, please explain how this is "false"?


 * A makes claim P.
 * A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
 * Therefore, A is an inconsistent source of information.
 * Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy.
 * Therefore, A is an untrustworthy source of information.


 * The fourth premise ("Inconsistent sources of information are untrustworthy") is deductively derived from the semantics of the root term ("trust"). "Trustworthiness" is a direct corollary of consistency of information. So an inconsistent source of information is inherently untrustworthy.


 * At the moment, all of my books are packed, so I can't give third-party citations, but I'm fairly certain such information (on formal and informal logic) can be readily found on the net. 64.234.10.32 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not allow original research. You need to provide third party sources. Secondly, neither of your examples are actual examples of a Tu-Quoque argument. Tu-Quoque arguments use an appeal to hypocrisy to discredit the argument, not the person making the argument. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To quoque is often an ad-hominem fallacy, directed at the person(blocked link), as well as a fallacy of presumption (e.g., two wrongs make a right). Some brief googling turned up several uses of the phrase along the lines that the article listed as legitimate uses:


 * "The reason that this qualifies as a tu quoque fallacy is because the argument concludes 'I don't have to accept your conclusion' from the premise 'you don't really accept your conclusion either.' This looks like an statement against the consistency of an argument for vegetarianism, but it is actually a statement against a person arguing for vegetarianism. Just because a person fails to be consistent does not mean that the position they are arguing for is not sound. Of course, that does not mean that it is illegitimate to point out such glaring inconsistencies. After all, if a person does not follow their own advice, it may be that they don't really believe it themselves - and if that is the case, you can ask why they want you to follow it. Or maybe they don't really understand what they are saying - and if they don't understand it, it is unlikely that they will be able to present an effective defense for it.(blocked link)"


 * Not a credible source. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And...


 * "To be a fallacy, a logical argument has to be attempted to be made. While some people might try to make an argument that “what I do is ok” because “you do it also,” that, obviously, would be fallacious and what this fallacy is about. Just because a critic does the thing they criticize someone else about does not make it right. If that is what people mean by saying “and you do it too,” then they really have not defended themselves, and they have not proven what they have done is fine. And they have indeed fallen for this fallacy. However, how often is that really the intent when people point out the log in the eye of the critic? Rarely do I see people say, “See, you do it too, therefore it’s alright.” What I see is something else – people point out “You do it too. Are you sure it really is the problem you claim it is?” That is, they are wanting the critic to examine what they have done and approved in the past, because, for themselves, they usually have found a way out for the criticism they are offering to others – and if so, then they should (in all honesty and openness) give the one they criticize the same benefit of the doubt they are giving to themselves. Indeed, many people point out “You do it too, but you also have not had problems about it until now,” to indicate that the question is whether or not it is a real or artificially created problem. That has to be examined, and to say “that’s a tu quoque” is to misread the reply. But there is also another reason one might say, “And you do it too.” It might not be a defense of oneself; instead, it could be opening up the fact that it is a real problem"


 * Not a credible source. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And...


 * "One convenient and not fallacious way [to use to quoque] is by pointing out the similarities between the activity of the criticizer ... and the activity about which he is being questioned. To label one [something] and not the other is ... itself a fallacy [of equivocation]. [...] Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof."


 * This is a credible source, but the information here is inconsistent with the information in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Need more? 64.234.10.32 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and here's a book reference as well:


 * "Tu quoque arguments are probably popular because they are deceptively similar to a type of argument that is sound. For example, when the issue is not whether the accusation is true, but whether someone has a right to make that accusation, it may be legitimate to use a tu quoque response. ... In such cases an underlying moral principle is being invoked.[William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills, p. 155]"


 * 64.234.10.32 (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unverifiable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Add section back per refs above. 64.234.10.32 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And some cites for "inconsistent" as a synonym for "untrustworthy": and in Jerome Rodale, Laurence Urdang, Nancy LaRoche, The Synonym Finder, p.1299, q.v. "unstrustworthy" ref. p.1294, q.v. "unreliable" (2.). 64.234.10.32 (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tu quoque just means acknowledging a hypocrite
doesn't it? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[..] Legitimate use section
A recently added section is that of Legitimate use, in which a web page is cited, with square brackets for omissions or ellipses in the original source. If necessary, can someone edit this section? BertSeghers (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this a copyright violation?
 * 2) Is [..]-text a good Wikipedia style, conform 1a etc?

[...]
I removed it, it is incomprehensible and says nothing. Until it is cleaned up to be grammatically and narratively well-formed it shouldn't have been there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious section
Firstly, the content of the "religious use" section was completely incomprehensible, likely due to being written by someone whose first language was not English. Any attempt to clean it up would only be an attempt at interpretation of what the original author meant.

More importantly, from what I can glean, it was a philosophical criticism of a Christian argument that is not summarized. For it to be included, the content would need to include: what tu quoque means in Christianity - for instance, a bible verse, stance of a denomination or organization, or argument by a notable author/commentator, how the fallacy of that verse/position/etc. is misunderstood, and what the consequences are. This article is for discussion of tu quoque - not for interpretation of related Christian concepts. At most, that "argument" should be included as a link to a page discussing the relevant issue in Christianity...whatever it is. There is not even any way to benchmark if the argument even belongs in Wikipedia, but speaking as a Christian apologist myself, it doesn't. Again, unless there is a specific denomination or organization, notable author/commentator, or bible verse involved, it isn't even encyclopedic in content but rather individual..."research"...

To clarify a little, it cited "in Christianity." There is a very broad, broad range of theology and philosophy in "Christianity." This is all the more argument for a specific source, and then, if it exists, probably its own page. It seems to amount to little more than a forum post otherwise. Pokeme444 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

→ Check out the talk section I added - concrete example? Matthew 7:1-5 might be good too: "judge not, lest ye be judged." - matt lohkamp 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

tu quoque in the bible?
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," Jesus retorts, when the Pharisees ask him what to do with a woman found guilty of adultery. (In the book of John, chapter 8)

Check out Jesus' syllogism:


 * Pharisees advocate punishing lawbreakers.
 * The Pharisees themselves are lawbreakers.
 * Therefore, lawbreakers should not be punished.

Could be a really good example for the article, given general familiarity with this particular story... thoughts?

- matt lohkamp 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be one if you can find a reference to scholars who interpret it in this way, and only as an example of the existence of such interpretation. In fact, this case is a historical example of the legal doctrine of clean hands. Ladnadruk (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Image is poor illustration of Tu quoque
While it's certainly an amusing picture, it doesn't really illustrate tu quoque. Neither the man nor the woman is accusing the other of being wrong because they're a hypocrite. It's the viewer that's supposed to be doing that. --Calibas (talk# 17:07, 30 September 2010 #UTC# It's not an example of tu quoque, it's an example of hypocrisy with "tu quoque" in the title. I think it confuses the point. Even if it can be said that it is technically tu quoque, it's definitely not an exemplary case. The cartoon should be removed or replaced. 69.61.157.64 #talk# 11:11, 2 July 2015 #UTC#
 * You are right in all but in the conclusion. Regardless who is doing an accusation, he, she, the Punch, the fictionalized reader of Punch, or the reader of the wikipedia article, the accusation does take place; that's the punch of this pic. Ladnadruk #talk# 04:35, 28 September 2011 #UTC#
 * I agree, so have removed it. It implies that we think the statement false because it is stated by a hypocrite, but that is not explained and also, you can't really be logical about an opinion - the hats could both be totally acceptable. Btljs (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Removed again. The image definitely confuses the issue. Let's find one that doesn't. MarshallKe (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Fallacious?, Ad-Hominem? I think not.
Can this really be called a fallacious debate tactic?

It's not an ad hominem at all; It says nothing of their overall character and attacks only whether they honestly believe the superiority of their position by pointing to whether their actions match their words.

There is a missing piece to the explanation on this page:

If someone is advancing a position as superior, and does not themself wish to exercise that point, then it shows they are being intellectually dishonest. It calls into question whether they truly believe in the superiority of their position -- it is an effective method of pushing concession. By pointing out a person advancing a position refuses to apply that position to himself, one is saying that the person is conceding the position through ACTIONS, which speak louder than words.

When one concedes the point, they have lost the debate.

CAVEATS/Limitations of this tactic:
 * This tactic cannot be applied when discussing any action which involves heavy limbic system input, but that is because of the False Equivalence being drawn between choice and instinctual drive or reaction, not the use of this tactic.


 * This tactic can only be applied to actions when the person speaking has the capacity to execute voluntarily but chooses not to.

A stock broker pitches you a "sure thing", but doesn't buy himself: are you buying? I thought not.

This entire article should be scrapped, and if it's officially sanctioned as a fallacy it should be challenged in academic circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.210.153 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 November 2013‎
 * We've multiple reliable sources demonstrating notability of the topic, so any attempts at deletion will almost certainly fail and speedily so. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Amazing how people completely fail to understand the difference between logic and decision making. A stock broker pitching a "sure thing" is impossible to define as logical or illogical (more likely illogical given the inherent unpredictability of the market) therefore your decision making is based on other criteria and may indeed include their own willingness to act in accordance with their own advice (put their money where their mouth is). Similarly with the homeless and paedophile examples above. Logic stands outside the channel of communication. It may help to take away the human element: in an alarm system, if a detector passes back a signal that it has detected an intruder but its audio warning fails, the control shouldn't ignore this signal based purely on the fact that the siren isn't going off. It's a logical fallacy to connect the failure of one system with unreliability in another in the absence of other information. Our predictions of the way that 'successful' or 'reliable' people will behave is other information in this sense and affects the decision making process but not the logical consistency. Btljs (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the phrase as a retort, not the name of a fallacy
I could swear I have seen the phrase "tu quoque" used in the past to call attention to how the alternatives to a position being criticized are themselves open to the same criticisms. Ala "But if we adopted your policy, what would we do about problem X?" "Tu quoque. Current policy doesn't solve problem X, nor do any other proposals, so that's no argument against my policy in particular." Is that kind of usage entirely incorrect, or is the use of the phrase to name this particular fallacy just a narrower sense of a phrase with other applications? --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of whataboutism
Whataboutism is a term coined in 2008 to describe what the USSR did. But, there was already an existing term which means the same thing-- tu quoque. Instead of having two articles meaning the same thing, why not merge them? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  03:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion is located here. Stickee (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Result was Merge rejected, at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dönitz evaded punishment using Tu quoque defense
Excerpt from the article Karl Dönitz:

''Among the war-crimes charges, Dönitz was accused of waging unrestricted submarine warfare for issuing War Order No. 154 in 1939, and another similar order after the Laconia incident in 1942, not to rescue survivors from ships attacked by submarine. By issuing these two orders, he was found guilty of causing Germany to be in breach of the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936.[27] However, as evidence of similar conduct by the Allies was presented at his trial, and with the help of his lawyer Otto Kranzbühler, his sentence was not assessed on the grounds of this breach of international law.[27]''

''His sentence on unrestricted submarine warfare was not assessed, because of similar actions by the Allies: in particular, the British Admiralty on 8 May 1940 had ordered all vessels in the Skagerrak sunk on sight; and Admiral Chester Nimitz, wartime commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated the U.S. Navy had waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from the day the U.S. entered the war. Thus, although Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against unarmed neutral shipping by ordering all ships in designated areas in international waters to be sunk without warning, no additional prison time was added to his sentence for this crime.[27]''

The final paragraph of the introductory section is therefore in need of amendment. Regardless of what JDZeff states in the Nuremburg section, it was in fact a Tu quoque defense and it was effective.Wikkileaker (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we need WP:RS on this conclusion, because here we have a bit tricky situation. He was found guilty after all, only the applicability of a particular law was questioned. We are on a shaky ground here, because if you take my word for it, then the whole precedent-based law is one big tu quoque conspiracy. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. WP:RS, and if it is there, Tu quoque as a mitigating factor in sentencing/penalty.  That others have done the same or similar acts and it was condoned (or not punished) is something that seems equitable.  It would for example, be something an arbitrator would probably permit in a wrongful termination case under a just cause provision.  Likewise, disparate treatment and penalty. So Why not?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not forget this article is about a particular fallacy. Please notice that the Barbie case was indeed a fallacy exactly as defined ("you (French state) committed the same crime therefore you cannot judge me"), and, more important, the sources described it as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a ref which describes Dönitz case as tu quoque: I guess we need a separate article "Tu quoque defense"; there are serious writings on the subject, such as  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of claiming that Donitz's actions were justified because the Americans had a similar policy, Donitz's defense argued that neither the German nor the American policy was itself illegal since the universality of these acts demonstrated that the laws of war had changed through practice so as to free them of their illegal character. - from Duhaime.Staszek Lem (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not whataboutery
Whataboutery is pointing to something which is not comparable enough to be an analogy.

Tu quoque requires that the thing pointed out is really analogous to the one being discussed.

Moreover, tu quoque is only unsound if it is presented as evidence that the argument is false. But almost always it's used to discredit not the argument itself, but the legitimacy of those invoking it, and there's nothing unsound about that. 37.189.154.218 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I would say that it is almost always used to try to discredit the argument by discrediting the legitimacy of the arguer. It's a form of ad hominem, as the article notes—and the whole point of ad hominem is to avoid discussing the topic. It is only sound as part of an effort to demonstrate that hypocrisy in the instance is unavoidable or at least impractical, or when the credibility of an individual interlocutor is central to the question. Otherwise, it's an irrelevant distraction. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)