whilst i resisted the temptation to call you ignorant,
I don't really mind being called ignorant as long as it is true and the person calling me ignorant provides the knowledge I am missing. Now, I am going to call you ignorant.
Here’s my claim:
You are committing the "Tu quoque" fallacy, not me. Now, let that sink in for a minute.
The "Tu quoque" fallacy actually protects the hypocrite from having his argument invalidated based on that hypocrisy. So, not only do you commit the very fallacy you accuse of me of, you also commit blatant red herring fallacy (which of course I'll graciously point out to you).
So, let's begin...
The knowledge you are missing is to whom the fallacy of "Tu quoque" applies. It applies to you.
Let's take a look at what this fallacy is about:
It is a form of asserting or implying that argument Q is incorrect because proponent of Argument Q also commits Q.
Proponent makes argument Q.
Proponent is also guilty of committing Q.
Therefore, Q is dismissed.
Let’s discuss the variables as they apply to our discussion:
You have expressed that I speak for "Polish people" in a later reply. I assume you also saw things this way when you made your initial accusation. Therefore, proponent of argument Q is “Polish People”. Argument Q will be the argument against immigration of non-whites into Poland. For things to make sense we will have to condense that into an argument against immigration in general.
The breakdown:
Polish People make argument Q
Polish People commit Q
Therefore, Q is dismissed.
Now let’s take a look at your accusations again:
get on the blower and tell your million compats in england to come home... then we can talk about people coming to your country...
AND
epicurus, a pole, does not want emigrants coming to his homeland, but how can this be acceptable if poles themselves are avid immigrants...
You are dismissing the argument. And you are doing this based on what? The hypocrisy of the proponent of the argument.
Now let’s take a look at the definition of "Tu quoque" again:
It is a form of asserting or implying that argument Q is incorrect because proponent of Argument Q also commits Q.
I believe this is where you get on you knees and bow before a superior intellect. I’m just kidding, I’m humble. Really, I am. :)
Besides being confused about the "Tu quoque" fallacy, here’s where you went wrong:
Two of your sub-premises are based on assumptions:
First, I have never claimed I speak for polish people. I never said Polish people do not want blacks in Poland. I said I do not want blacks in Poland. In addition I have claimed that many Poles do not share my views. Your accusation is based on an assumed premise.
Second, I have never made claims as to my position on emigration out of Poland. You assumed I supported it.
Red Herring:
get on the blower and tell your million compats in england to come home... then we can talk about people coming to your country...
This is a red herring.
# Topic A is under discussion.
# Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic .
# Topic A is abandoned.
Immigration into Poland is Topic A. Immigration to England is Topic B. You want me to abandon Topic A. Strictly speaking, the immigration into Poland by blacks is not relevant to immigration of Poles into England.
epicurus: "based on the arguments i have presented, there is a strong case for not allowing emigration in to poland."
You have me mixed up with someone else. I did not say this.
pot kettle black... people glasshouses stones... tu quoque... you too mate... you also...
I did enjoy this, gave me a good laugh and an opportunity to sharpen my understanding of the "Tu quoque" fallacy. Cheerio!