خوشبختانه چند مثال خوب در ویکی رشنال هست که امیدوارم یکم اون ها رو جدی تر از استدلال های سایرین بخونید:))
Tu quoque - RationalWiki
یعنی سرزنش اخلاقی همچنان سرجاست ولی همونطور که گفتم اگر خود گوینده "بدکار" باشه ما پی به دوروییش میبریم،نه اینکه حق سرزنش اخلاقی رو ازش بگیریم!Politician 1: Is it true that you were at a brothel last night?
Politician 2: You should know better than I do, I was with you last night!
The fact that Politician 1 was also present at the brothel in no way absolves any of the moral blame for Politician 2 (unless P1 dragged P2 there against P2's will). If P2 is lying, he is making a pathetic attempt to switch blame. If P2 is telling the truth, P1 is being a massive hypocrite who should also go down with P2-- but he's a politician, so no surprises there.
این بخش بولد شده هم که اساسا مصداق حرف کسرا بود.This fallacy is very frequently paired with the guilt by association fallacy, so that the person engaging in the fallacy need not even show that the other person's actions are inconsistent with their position; rather, it is merely shown that the actions of some other person somehow associated with that person did something inconsistent with that person's position. For instance, if someone criticizes Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.
یعنی اینکه اعمال بد یک سری ادم به نوعی در ارتباط با دیدگاه شخصی هست که هدف حملست.
پاسخ با گفتآورد