Synagogue Shooting in Poway

[rogue06]

That's a nice demonstration of the fallacy. Whether or not a person thinks the second politician ought to be impeached or not has no bearing on whether or not the first politician should be impeached. It's an extension of the ad hominem fallacy in that the charge of hypocrisy, either the first or the second (because there are two charges of hypocrisy here), is irrelevant to the first claim.

Non-fallacious sequence:

Speaker 1: Politician 1 should be impeached for x, y, and z.
Speaker 2: You have not legally proven the case for x, y, and z; therefore, politician 1 should not be impeached.

It isn't necessarily saying that nobody should be impeached but rather noting how selective that the critics outrage is. How they had no trouble with even worse behavior so long as the person was on "our side," but all of a sudden gets really concerned only when it involves someone from the "other side." It's the blatant hypocrisy and sanctimonious double standard that they express that is being criticized.

[guacamole]

It isn't necessarily saying that nobody should be impeached but rather noting how selective that the critics outrage is. How they had no trouble with even worse behavior so long as the person was on "our side," but all of a sudden gets really concerned only when it involves someone from the "other side." It's the blatant hypocrisy and sanctimonious double standard that they express that is being criticized.

[Cow Poke]

in a perfect world

[guacamole]

in a perfect world

In a nation governed by laws and not political alliances.

[Cow Poke]

In a nation governed by laws and not political alliances.

Yes, a perfect world, in which we do not currently live.

[rogue06]

You somehow managed to overlook the first clause in my first sentence

It isn't necessarily saying that nobody should be impeached

Since that is not being addressed it is not a fallacy but rather an observation.

[oxmixmudd]

Jefferson knew that slavery was wrong in his time, but yet kept his slaves. I spoke of Lee's and Jackson's military ability and Christian faith, and honor those. There is no logical reason to tear down their statues, any more than to tear down Jefferson's.

I disagree.

But to explain further is pointless.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I disagree.

But to explain further is pointless.

Jim

I'm sure this is pointless, too, but they're part of our history, and the physical symbols present a teaching opportunity. Historical Revisionism is something we used to claim the Soviets did.

[rogue06]

I disagree.

But to explain further is pointless.

Jim

Tearing down statues is very Talibanish. They too rejected arguments concerning cultural heritage.

00000000000000ab000-01bb.jpg
Buddhas of Bamyan

[guacamole]

You somehow managed to overlook the first clause in my first sentence

It isn't necessarily saying that nobody should be impeached

Since that is not being addressed it is not a fallacy but rather an observation.

[guacamole]

Yes, a perfect world, in which we do not currently live.

[Cow Poke]

So we just retreat into tribalism then?

I get it! You're being silly!

And I never said otherwise. Observing what is should not be confused with approval.

[rogue06]

The exact opposite. Both sides should be held accountable for the same actions. It's just that one side willingly ignores what they've done and suddenly acts concerned only when the other side does it that they are acting in a hypocritical manner.

[guacamole]

The exact opposite. Both sides should be held accountable for the same actions.

I think we're discussing different sides of the same coin. Both sides should argue for all wrong doers being accountable to the law. Both sides might not. Any side that refuses to push for legal accountability based on what the otherside does is hypocritical if they claim a foundation in the law.

It's just that one side willingly ignores what they've done and suddenly acts concerned only when the other side does it that they are acting in a hypocritical manner.

I think both. The republicans were very concerned about impeachment, propriety, special investigations into presidential behavior and what not during Clinton's presidency. They're not now. That by definition is what you are describing. Likewise, the democrats were very forgiving of presidential misconduct and the AG acting like the president's personal lawyer as recently as Obama. They're not now.

[guacamole]

I get it! You're being silly!



And I never said otherwise. Observing what is should not be confused with approval.

What exactly are you trying to add then?