Simpsons Logical Fallacies: You Also/Tu Quoque

Показать описание

Open captions change to closed captions during second half of video. Use of copyrighted content is protected by fair use which says that copyrighted content can be used so long as commentary is given. Definitions of logical fallacies come from Practical Argument by Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell.

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

It's not so much "you're wrong so Lisa is OK", but "we accept / tolerate your wrongs so we should give Lisa the same leeway"... followed by rewarding her courage for then doing what's right and coming clean.

komodosp

Even if the example isn't perfect, it still helps me understand. Thanks for these videos!

shapexon

That thumbnail is pretty frightening when you don't have the context of it being a rubber mask.

petergriscom

I know there's a few commenters denying the accuracy here, but anyone who's listening to your explanation PLUS if this is shown as an introduction to the concept, it works very, very well. (Also, as teachers, while it irks us to be contradicted, the student doing the "contradicting" is demonstrating analysis of the application of the concept, thus demonstrating even FURTHER critical thinking by evaluating the entire video's accuracy!)

theMRWASKO

this feels more like equivocation since he is using the same word sound wise but in a different definition, changing the meaning of cheating academically to cheating on your spouse.

boymachine

It's a matter of choice of norms, not the search for truth. Norms are chosen quite arbitrarily, as you can choose to tolerate or condemn a specific behavior. The "You also" argument just reminds us to use our chosen norms consistently, applying them to everyone who falls under their definition (including yourself if that's the case) or not applying them to anyone at all. This is what justice is made of.

andrew_ortega

What blasphemy is this? The entire school played a card in a sting over the little girl. The writers of the Simpsons are some twisted pups

goodfortune

Not a good example of a tu quoque fallacy. The speaker never said that because other people have cheated before she didn't cheat. He merely said that, yes she did indeed cheat but the fact that she admitted it was a reason to give her the grant.

stormvandenberg

The audience was also in on the whole thing and didn't care either way. They couldn't have pulled this stunt if they didn't know Lisa cheated in advance of her confession.

Narutonarutonaruto

¡Oi, I think I have an example too! (spanish/english):

ES:
Que lo diga el Diablo no lo hace malo
Que lo diga Dios no lo hace divino.

EN:
If the Devil says it, it doesn't mean it's evil
If God says it, it doesn't mean it's good.

(¡Open to discussion whether or not it's bad/good translation!)

jsh

Who are you to say my child shouldn't smoke cigarettes when I see you smoke a pack a day!

DruidsCalling

Wow. I’ll never trust a Simpsons argument again.

lostcauselancer

Tu Quoque parades around as “you can’t judge” these days... as if there is no guilt for anyone because we are all guilty of something.

thirstypilgrim

i think this is wrong, . at least the example you chose to use. if i get a math question wrong, it'd be fair for me to say, "yeah, well who hasn't gotten a math question wrong?", but it'd be incorrect to add, "...therefore, my answer is not wrong and should not reflect my grade." they're two different ideas. to mock someone for getting a math question wrong would be pretty silly. but if you did it in a professional environment - say you're all building a space rocket - then your bad math is a huge problem and inexcusable. and, regardless of the others, the math solution is either correct or incorrect.

back to the simpsons clip - the (fake-)comptroller would not be wrong for saying not to judge, if you've also cheated. he didn't even deny that she cheated, he rewarded her for her *courage* in saying the truth, despite her having cheated. nobody said she didn't cheat.

brother: mom, she was running in the kitchen!
sister: yeah, but you also! [✔️]
mom: well, i don't want you two running indoors, but you can't judge her for running if you were also running.

suspect: yeah, i might have drove drunk, but who hasn't? [❌]
cop 1: i haven't
cop 2: i have, and i might be a hypocrite if i were to judge you for this on a personal level, but regardless... the law is the law, and you're under arrest. your argument is irrelevant to the situation and won't get you off the hook.

sometimes "you also" is valid and sometimes it's not. the context matters, and depending on the context, it's a logical fallacy or it's not.

*THIS IS FROM WIKIPEDIA:*
*_Person A claims that statement X is true._*
*_Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X._*
*_Therefore, X is false._*

the (fake-)comptroller didn't claim it wasn't true that lisa cheated. he told them they're hypocrites and rewarded her for her courage, separately. he's also the only person who decides if the school gets the check or not. well, besides the real one, of course. the feelings of the crowd are irrelevant.

kingdavid