China Calls US On Racism & Hypocrisy

2»

Comments

  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    whar wrote: »
    If you have access to the original report then you are in a better position than I, however the cited article states " in Beijing's annual rebuttal to Washington's criticism of its rights record."

    My understanding of that word would meet the threshold of "X is false."

    No, a rebuttal is just a response. And that term was the person writing the argument not the people writing the report.
    RodrigueZz wrote: »
    RodrigueZz wrote: »
    Tu Quoque fallacy at its finest

    No it's not. Well not really. To be a Tu Quoque fallacy, China would have to be implying that the U.S. was wrong in its assertion because it was a hypocrite.

    They aren't really saying that the U.S. is wrong. They are just saying that the U.S. doesn't have the right to judge anyone.

    I love logic, but I hate when people just throw out these logical fallacies as if that's the end all be all. No the U.S. being hypocritical doesn't mean that China doesn't have terrible human's rights problems. The converse is also true though. The U.S. being right about China's terrible human's rights problems doesn't mean that the U.S. is not being hypocritical.

    It is a clear tu quo que fallacy. America's transgressions do not invalidate China's. China tried to play the hypocrisy defense which is fallacious as it does not refute the validity of the claim, it simply tries to discredit the claim maker.
    In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent’s argument shouldn’t be listened to. Here’s an example: imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn’t smoke, and they’ve given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, “I won’t accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!” The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.
    http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/

    Show me in the article where it states that the Chinese report said anything in the U.S. report was false, until you find that, the fallacy doesn't apply.

    If one prostitute A calls prostitute B a hoe, and prostitute B says "So what, you're one too."

    That's not a Tu Quoque fallacy. That's just a case of one party calling out the other's hypocrisy. It's the same exact scenario here. Nowhere did the Chinese report make the argument that their country wasn't guilty of Humans' Rights violations. Nowhere did they imply that the US violations invalidate the points made in the US report. Without some statement to that effect you can't claim that fallacy.

  • dalyricalbandit
    dalyricalbandit Members, Moderators Posts: 67,918 Regulator
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    jono wrote: »
    The US would have as well if they had formal leadership. OWS was brutalized in every city it appeared from NYC to Oakland.
    eh, you're forgetting about those cities where they had, say, three people, and the authorities just couldn't be bothered

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    The US would have as well if they had formal leadership. OWS was brutalized in every city it appeared from NYC to Oakland.
    eh, you're forgetting about those cities where they had, say, three people, and the authorities just couldn't be bothered

    Occupy Wall Street was picking up steam and then the crooked cities across the country cracked down on them, banning tent cities. They are still doing this in tent cities across America, even though the homeless rate in this country is going up. The places that didn't have big OWS presence would have had major traction if freedom of assembly wasn't so violated upon
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    The places that didn't have big OWS presence would have had major traction if freedom of assembly wasn't so violated upon
    eh, i think you're overlooking how inconsequential it was in same places. it's not always about some violation of freedom of assembly; sometimes it IS just three dudes that want to be part of it.

    but more seriously i would actually say it was ebbing in the places where they were run out of time. interest and attention cooled off and then bam, cops can throw people out with much less attention being paid
  • mc317
    mc317 Members Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dear compadres we must crush the castro regime only will taking one in the ? and ass have its full meaning.
  • whar
    whar Members Posts: 347 ✭✭✭
    rebut - to refute or disprove, esp by offering a contrary contention or argument

    If the article presented is taken as true then the fallacy applies. In fact your example of the hoes is an example of this fallacy.

    Hoe 1 - You are a hoe
    Hoe 2 - So what (you're argument is meaningless) you're a hoe too (because you are a hypocrite.)

    This arrangement would not trigger the fallacy

    Hoe 1- You are a hoe
    Hoe 2 - Yes.(Your statement is correct) You are one too. (But you are a hypocrite.)
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    whar wrote: »
    rebut - to refute or disprove, esp by offering a contrary contention or argument

    If the article presented is taken as true then the fallacy applies. In fact your example of the hoes is an example of this fallacy.

    Hoe 1 - You are a hoe
    Hoe 2 - So what (you're argument is meaningless) you're a hoe too (because you are a hypocrite.)

    This arrangement would not trigger the fallacy

    Hoe 1- You are a hoe
    Hoe 2 - Yes.(Your statement is correct) You are one too. (But you are a hypocrite.)

    Since when does "So what?" = "Your argument is meaningless." Maybe people I know use that term differently, but most people use it to mean "Ok, who cares?" or something to that effect. In other words:

    Hoe 1 - You are a hoe.
    Hoe 2 - Ok, who cares? You are one too.

    That is not the fallacy.

    And again, the person that wrote the article called it a rebuttal, not the people who wrote the report. So giving the dictionary definition of that word is meaningless as it relates to this discussion.
  • whar
    whar Members Posts: 347 ✭✭✭
    To be honest your hoe comments are not a fallacy since an argument is not being made. However if structured as an argument it is clearly a fallacy.

    Hoe 1 - You should stop being a prostitute due to the destructiveness of that lifestyle.
    Hoe 2 - Ok who cares? You are one too.

    If you want to split fallacy hairs and say this is an ad hominem rather than the narrower tu quoque that is fine but it remains a fallacy. (I think it remains a tu quoque.)

    As the article is written, which we have no reason to believe is false, then the response presented by China is a fallacious response. The fallacy is a tu quoque. Trying to state that the term 'rebuttal' is from writer of the article rather than China is immaterial. All we have to go on is the article submitted. Writer is obviously reviewed China response and wrote this article. If you want to add evidence showing the article submitted is wrong then by all means do so, however taken at its face value the article shows China engaged in a tu quoque.
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    whar wrote: »
    To be honest your hoe comments are not a fallacy since an argument is not being made. However if structured as an argument it is clearly a fallacy.

    Hoe 1 - You should stop being a prostitute due to the destructiveness of that lifestyle.
    Hoe 2 - Ok who cares? You are one too.

    If you want to split fallacy hairs and say this is an ad hominem rather than the narrower tu quoque that is fine but it remains a fallacy. (I think it remains a tu quoque.)

    As the article is written, which we have no reason to believe is false, then the response presented by China is a fallacious response. The fallacy is a tu quoque. Trying to state that the term 'rebuttal' is from writer of the article rather than China is immaterial. All we have to go on is the article submitted. Writer is obviously reviewed China response and wrote this article. If you want to add evidence showing the article submitted is wrong then by all means do so, however taken at its face value the article shows China engaged in a tu quoque.

    lol @ you changing ? so that it fits your idea of an argument. I phrased my analogy the way I did because it mirrors the topic. If you look at it and don't feel like that constitutes an argument then guess what, your assertion that it is a fallacious argument is even more flawed.

    USA - You have a terrible Human Rights record. For these reasons...
    China - Ok who cares? You have a terrible Human Rights record too. For these reasons...

    That is the summary of what happened with these two reports, and that's what ya'll are calling a tu quoque fallacy. I'm merely pointing out that it's not that fallacy unless, somewhere in China's report, the statement is made that China's human rights travesties are ok or don't exist because the US has bad human rights history too. And no, that's not splitting hairs. Because a statement like that, is what makes a tu quoque fallacy a tu quoque fallacy. If you don't have that statement, then it's just one party calling the other party a hypocrite, which seems to be the whole point of China's report to begin with.

    And how can you say that me noting the article is what calls it a 'rebuttal' is immaterial. That's the word that author chose to use. The word "response" may have been more accurate and carried fewer implications. Hell, it's possible that the author specifically used the word "rebuttal" because he wanted to pass off the idea that China was excusing it's bad actions by noting those of the US. So it's silly to base your opinion of China's intentions on the word choice of a secondhand interpretation of their report. And I don't have to bring evidence of anything. You are parsing the definition of a single word to try and draw a much bigger conclusion that isn't really supported by the greater article at all. If the intent of China's report was to excuse it's actions by pointing the finger back at the US, don't you think the article would have noted that? But it didn't, it specifically pointed out what I've been saying all along, that the purpose of the report was to basically call the US a hypocrite and tell it to mind its own business.
  • DOC H0LL!DAY
    DOC H0LL!DAY Members Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I love Asian porn