Is there a name for this fallacy?

[Uncayimmy]

It seems clear to me that Cavemonster is protesting against the notion that two wrongs can "even out", assuming that they are done to opposite parties.

In the OP he says it requires three elements.

* A tu quoque,
* As if that's not enough, it doesn't address past behavior, but predicted behavior, becoming a.. what, premeptive tu quoque?
* The behavioral prediction itself is widely off the mark and without evidence.

He quite clearly states that is a tu quoque, not a matter of two wrongs don't make a right. The Wiki short definition is pretty good. It reads, "the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position." His example is not a tu quoque.

Is it then a two wrongs don't make a right? That argument has some merit if we assume it to mean, "occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out." It sounds like he is asking what you call a two wrongs don't make a right when the second wrong has yet to occur and is not even likely to occur. In order to make that argument, you have to throw out tu quoque as an element and insert two wrongs don't make a right by assuming this is what is shown in the example.

I am challenging whether the example even demonstrates that. There are other interpretations of this example of an alleged "logical fallacy" that are not logical fallacies, so it's not unequivocal. He could have started from the Wiki example:

Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that.
Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony!

New Version:
Speaker B: But President Elect Roberts will lie in his Congressional testimony when he gets the chance.

If you want to give that a name, call it "a present wrong and a future wrong don't make a right."

When it comes to the example in question, it wasn't set up very well. We don't know what Speaker A said other than, "I was pretty incensed that the punishment was doled out to only the boys." There are several interpretations of what might have been said to elicit the response in question, and we cannot call it a logical fallacy until we know for sure what it is. Since no tu quoque was involved yet CM said it was a critical element, it's only natural to question what was actually on the table.

This really isn't helping the conversation at all.

You have no evidence of that.

 

[Sophronius]

Hmm, I see what you mean. However, I see no sense in giving a seperate name to what is effectively a sequence of 2 errors in logic.

As far as I can see it is just a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy with an unsuported premise.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hmm, I see what you mean. However, I see no sense in giving a seperate name to what is effectively a sequence of 2 errors in logic.

As far as I can see it is just a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy with an unsuported premise.

While I'm a lover of language, I don't think it needs another name either.

In case you haven't noticed (LOL), my pet peeve is the assignment of logical fallacies where none in fact exist. People do it with two wrongs don't make a right. I did a quick search and saw what looked like it could be a TWDMR that was called tu quoqe (by CM, no less) when in my opinion it was neither. Granted, I didn't read the whole thread, but here's the gist of it.

People were arguing about immigration and diversity. The argument seemed to be that the USA should welcome all or at least most comers because this was the right thing to do. Or stated another way, it is wrong to have a policy that keeps people out. Somebody argued that many other countries would find this ridiculous and have restrictive policies regarding immigration.

Is that two wrongs don't make a right? Not to me. They way I interpreted the argument was that not everyone agrees that open immigration is a good policy. Some people believe that restrictive immigration is the right policy. In order to call it a TWDMR you have to believe that restrictive immigration is wrong in both cases and that the presence of two wrongs is a justification for the policy. I did not get the impression at all that the person was arguing that it would be okay for the USA to adopt a policy similar to country X simply because country X does the same "bad" thing.

What I got from it is that many people believe the restrictive immigration is a sound and moral policy. It's not a universal belief like believing that stabbing cripples and taking their wheelchairs is a bad thing. There's a difference between "they're both wrong and that makes it okay" and "other people have different opinions of right or wrong, so don't go taking the moral high ground as a justification."

The response to that, of course, can be, "Well, in the USA we have a widespread moral belief in open immigration, so it matters naught how other countries view it." That's a legitimate response, but it would need to be supported. Think about the rights of women in the USA versus Iran.

What seemed to be happening is that one side believed the other to be holding a position it was morally right to have open immigration while the other side was saying that it wasn't a universal moral position. Since the first party couldn't see that, they immediately jumped to a logical fallacy claim and the thread got bogged down.

This happens far too often.

 

[Sophronius]

People were arguing about immigration and diversity. The argument seemed to be that the USA should welcome all or at least most comers because this was the right thing to do. Or stated another way, it is wrong to have a policy that keeps people out. Somebody argued that many other countries would find this ridiculous and have restrictive policies regarding immigration.

Is that two wrongs don't make a right? Not to me. They way I interpreted the argument was that not everyone agrees that open immigration is a good policy. Some people believe that restrictive immigration is the right policy. In order to call it a TWDMR you have to believe that restrictive immigration is wrong in both cases and that the presence of two wrongs is a justification for the policy. I did not get the impression at all that the person was arguing that it would be okay for the USA to adopt a policy similar to country X simply because country X does the same "bad" thing.

I agree with you. However, it sounds like it could be an argumentum ad populum. "Many other countries would find this ridiculous and have restrictive policies regarding immigration, therefore it is good to have restrictive policies regarding immigration". Of course, I don't have the thread at hand so I can't tell how it was intended to be read.

What I got from it is that many people believe the restrictive immigration is a sound and moral policy. It's not a universal belief like believing that stabbing cripples and taking their wheelchairs is a bad thing. There's a difference between "they're both wrong and that makes it okay" and "other people have different opinions of right or wrong, so don't go taking the moral high ground as a justification."

Right. If that's how it was intended, then that's entirely fair.

The response to that, of course, can be, "Well, in the USA we have a widespread moral belief in open immigration, so it matters naught how other countries view it." That's a legitimate response, but it would need to be supported. Think about the rights of women in the USA versus Iran.

Actually, I'm not sure if that's a legitimate response at all. In any discussion about what should be the case, morally speaking, I don't think that pointing out what's commonly believed currently is valid. Surely the argument "well, there is a widespread moral belief in this country that women/gays shouldn't have equal rights" shouldn't hold any weight at all?

Rather, I would respond with something along the lines of "It doesn't matter how people feel on the issue. We should just weigh the advantages and the disadvantages, with an advantage being that the potential immigrants would appreciate it."

Of course, I'm just nitpicking here.

What seemed to be happening is that one side believed the other to be holding a position it was morally right to have open immigration while the other side was saying that it wasn't a universal moral position. Since the first party couldn't see that, they immediately jumped to a logical fallacy claim and the thread got bogged down.

This happens far too often.

I agree that some people will cry out "fallacy!" too readily and/or erroneously, which doesn't help the discussion any. But I don't think that's been the case in this thread at all. Cavemonster's request as to whether there is a name for the error in logic he described in the original post seems perfectly fair to me.