Talk:Tu quoque

What in God's name it this article talking about? -- 18:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * Funny you should mention that. I was just looking at this article the other day. It's not explained clearly in the article, but tu quique is a logical fallacy (a sub heading of ad hominem) where you say someone is wrong because they are doing the same thing as you. I.e. "who are you to tell me to quit smoking? You smoke three packs a day!" This is alluded to in the article, but a big pile of snark landed on it. Lurker 19:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * Oh. Well, I almost deleted it.  -- 19:48, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * It looked like you were about to, that's why I jumped in :) Lurker 20:06, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * Er, thanks, then.? -- 20:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * Society thanks me, I'm sure. Lurker 20:33, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * Really? You still bother with them?  -- 22:36, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 * I'm feeling rather altruistic today. Lurker 22:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)

The homophobe example
Is the example of the homophobe with the same-sex lover really an example of tu quoque being a valid counterargument or is it simply not an actual instance of tu quoque? In that instance, the homophobe has made a claim about the ability of people attracted to people of the same sex to suppress that attraction. The homophobe is an instance of that class of person and his inability to suppress those feelings is a genuine counterexample to his claim. That the speaker himself is a counterexample comes from his membership in the group the claim is about. The fact that he is also the speaker merely drives it home more forcefully. --Jonee (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority of the examples seem to be either confused, confusing, or improperly explained.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And the article itself apparently doesn't describe exactly what is meant by tu quoque: --ZooGuard (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The homophobe example is in fact a Tu Quoque fallacy, so I have removed it. It is not a valid counterargument. A homosexual who claims it is possible to suppress homosexuality isn't necessarily wrong simply because they don't do so - even if it was possible for homosexuals to suppress their urges, it wouldn't mean that he can't just choose not to. He is a hypocrite, and he is wrong, but he is not wrong BECAUSE he is a hypocrite, he just happens to be both. (Speedyblupi:Guest)&mdash; Unsigned, by: 87.74.40.147 / talk 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Attribution
Some content from EvoWiki. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque 21:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)