"Appeal to hypocrity" logical fallacy

Why is this so common yet hardly ever called out on Sup Forums?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>bad arguments
>called out on Sup Forums

it may be a logical fallacy but it's an effective rhetorical device.

Fuck off nigger

>Informal
There's a reason it's an "informal" fallacy and not a proper logical fallacy, because it's fucking true and was made up by liberals as an excuse for their constant hypocrisy

Because its an informal fallacy, and thus not a real one. And because the real world doesn't stop functioning the second a fallacy is made in an argument, no one really cares outside text based conversations.

It's a logical fallacy, but it's logical to use it in the same way it usually makes sense to to say 1 + 1 = 2 without truly proving it.

>you have to follow rules that I don't have to follow

It's only a fallacy if you try to use it to prove claim x is false. It's an effective rhetorical device to call out hypocrisy by the person making that claim, and to call into question whether they truly believe it, or if they only believe it in some circumstances

Debate is a game
Rhetoric and sophistry are the metagame

because Sup Forums is an anonymous social medium.

its rather difficult to build a tu quoque argument against someone you have no knowledge of

This logical fallacy thing has gone too far. That's just a solid logical argument.

Getting into the whole "turtles all the way down" thing with arguments seems inevitable.
Seems nowadays that divided sides would argue down to the nanoangstrom of an argument and even then further still try to push the envelope.

because the people you would call it out on thing lohic is bourgeioisie

Ad hominem is also an informal fallacy, yet people somewhat care about those on Sup Forums.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
Op is a faggot agin, quelle surprise

>logical fallacies are okay
>t. low IQ

>There's a reason it's an "informal" fallacy and not a proper logical fallacy
It's called an informal fallacy only because it addresses the validity of the argument rather than its structure, you idiot. It is a "proper fallacy." Stupid idiot retard leaf.

They're not okay, but some are almost impossible to pick apart in a debate. You can't give the audience a lecture on why your hypocrisy doesn't effect either your premise or conclusion.

I call it out all the time.

A lot of the times its not an appeal to hypocrity if their argument involves them arguing that they do or dont do something.

It's not a common one to call out because typically people who make an argument about moral behavior but don't follow that behavior themselves ARE ARGUING DISHONESTLY AND SHOULD ACTUALLY REALLY BE DISREGARDED.

Strictly logically, yes it's a fallacy. But as soon as you get even the most tiny bit pragmatic, if someone talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk fuck them.

Because some logical fallacies are bullshit, like the slippery slope.

Nicely said. That'd be good on a poster, maybe an image macro over congress.

>and thus not a real one
See and just fucking kill yourself.
Did you really think you could contest any fallacy simply by citing the fallacy fallacy, you fucking idiot? A fallacy fallacy has only been committed if someone concludes that the conclusion of an argument is wrong just because it's invalid. It has nothing to do with "citing a fallacy being a fallacy," you stupid fucking mouth-breather.

Ugh, I meant see

its shit & anyone that uses it is a retard whos personally attacking you & ignoring everything else

>Rhetoric and sophistry are the metagame
Oh shut up you fucking idiot. If you need to use rhetoric whatsoever, it's because you don't have an argument.

Like this triggered faggot?

a hypocrite is bad because it shows a contradiction/inconsistency between stated beliefs and behaviours.

a hypocrite is basically a parasite/freerider trying to get others to abide by norms they won't abide by themselves

yeah theres one now, neat

Because in politics it's okay just calling them out on one of their bullshit positions, not a fallacy if you are using it for this not to win only one of the arguments.

the person that wins doesnt always have an argument

>a hypocrite is bad because it shows a contradiction/inconsistency between stated beliefs and behaviors.
totally irrelevant
>OMG YOU CANT SAY MURDER IS BAD BECAUSE YOU KILLED SOMEONE
shut your cuck hole my man

But that doesn't invalidate their arguments.

If you say people shouldn't do drugs because it's unhealthy while also high on heroin, it does not mean that drugs are not unhealthy and that people should not avoid them. It's a bad reflection on your character, but nothing more. In an ideal debate, you do not care about the character of your opponent, only the arguments they are putting forth.

it's pol, if you wanted intellectual arguments
go to some professional conference

>HOLY SHIT THE WORLD IS BLACK AND WHITE
Wtf i love Hillary now

>pointing out someones hypocrisy is a fallacy
lel

Pointing out their hypocrisy isn't a fallacy, but trying to use their hypocrisy to invalidate their argument is.