|
|
|
|
|
|
by stcredzero
2566 days ago
|
|
|
If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority That part of their argument can simply be ignored. Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. I never said he was. I was specifically responding to the notion of "whataboutism" itself. That notion itself is philosophically bankrupt. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on who has advanced them. simply an ad hominem tu quoque Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger. |
|
|
I see how it ignores the message but disagree that it's nonsensical.
I agree with you in that whataboutism calls into questions the intentions of the messenger: You are accusing them of trying to derail the discussion instead of addressing their point at face value.
However, I think your analysis is practically bankrupt and overly idealistic since it fails to address how saying 'what about this' can be an effective tool to wave attention away, or try to discredit another argument or 'message' as you call them.
This is like saying every request made in a DDOS attack should be taken at face value. We should never question the broader intentions of the request