Tu quoque: the logical fallacy Joseph Muscat has used as a defensive device for the 20 years I’ve had experience of him
Tu quoque: the logical fallacy which the prime minister uses to fend off criticism. But it remains flawed logic all the same.
Ever since I’ve known him, from back in the days when he was a Super One reporter, Joseph Muscat has deployed – probably without even knowing what it is – a common logical fallacy as a defensive device.
This logical fallacy is called ‘tu quoque’, which is Latin for ‘you too’. It translates into idiomatic Maltese as ‘ghax ma tmurx tara x’ghamilt/x’taghmel int’.
There are several logical fallacies, all of which I remember being obliged to dissect during philosophy classes at sixth form college, and then again during archaeology tutorials at university (archaeology operates on much the same lines and principles as forensic investigation, for which logic is necessary).
A reader reminded me of this today when, prompted by the prime minister’s entirely illogical reference to Austin Gatt when Muscat was pressed on Enemalta and China, he sent in a chart used to help students understand the common logical fallacies. I quote from that chart:
Tu quoque
Avoiding having to engage with criticism, by turning it back on the accuser, thereby answering criticism with criticism.
Tu quoque translates literally as ‘you too’, and is a logical fallacy commonly employed as an effective red herring by the accused as a way of taking the heat off himself. He then feels he does not have to defend himself because he has shifted the focus back onto the accuser.
An example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of the claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a logical fallacy earlier in the conversation.
The prime minister does this all the time. He used it constantly during the electoral campaign, when questioned by reporters and in debates with Lawrence Gonzi. It worked for him on the spot because most people are thrown when faced with this kind of frustrating refusal to deploy logic. Worse, it is a logical fallacy which the user actually puts forward as logic. In reality, it is not the logic which defeats the interlocutor, but the lack of logic which frustrates and maddens.
Now that he is prime minister, he cannot keep on deploying ‘tu quoque’. It has begun already to make him look childish and evasive even among those who, seeing him use this logical fallacy in the campaign, actually admired him for it. Now, they want answers, like everyone else does.
Also, it’s about time reporters learned about the logical fallacy ‘tu quoque’ and obtained some insight into what the PM is doing. Once they know that he is using a logical fallacy – literally, flawed logic – to defeat their questions, they should know enough to play him at their own game.
The Running Commentary Golden Apple Award goes to the first interviewer/reporter to shoot back at him with the words ‘tu quoque’ when he tries this yet again. When faced with this kind of person, you have to be well aware of what they are doing and how they are doing it. If their aim is to divert criticism of themselves by shifting the focus to somebody else, you just have to bring the subject back by repeating the question.
17 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Make it a golden coconut award. It’ll give Corto Farrugia an even chance.
http://dribbble.com/shots/58483-The-Golden-Coconut-Award
Are you expecting that the interviewer in a village Labour Party club should point out to THE Prime Minister and PL leader that he is using a logical fallacy?
If the reporter does that s/he will end up quartered in the village square, the reporter would have preferred being manhandled by half a dozen Paceville bouncers.
[Daphne – Well then, s/he’s in the wrong job. Twenty years ago, The Times of Malta (which back in those more literate days used the definite article) did not have women reporters because they were not considered fit to be sent into difficult environments. Now we know that gender has little or nothing to do with it. ]
Thank God for tu quoque and teleprompters.
How on earth do you expect him to talk and answer questions.
He is a downright moron.
Peace in our time.
The PM’s tu quoque attitude is a sign of his total absence of accountability towards the public.
Today’s Times of Malta editorial about the Minister Twanny Bronka had an important concluding line:
“If there is any accountability left in the Labour Government, he should resign, or be dismissed, with immediate effect.”
So far, the Minister has neither resigned, nor been dismissed.
Using the logic and the measurement basis used by Times of Malta, this means that there is no accountability left in the Labour Government. Well, actually there never was any. From day one, when they installed their friends and allies in key government positions after a “positive” campaign on the theme of “Taghna Lkoll.”
Now I expect Times of Malta to keep its pressure on the Minister, and on the person who must see that the Minister goes or is dismissed, holding the Labour Government to account.
That concluding line is quite extraordinary.
The Times butchered Lawrence Gonzi prior to the election while fawning over Joseph Muscat.
Six months down the line, they’re starting to sound like they have already lost faith in Muscat.
It’s a good editorial but can someone teach Times of Malta that ‘pick him up’ is correct and ‘pick up him’ is incorrect? There is some atrocious grammar in that article.
Isn’t tu quoque the most cowardly form of argument?
It certainly gives us a lot of insight into the infantile and malevolent mind we’ve voted into power. What he’s effectively doing with every ‘tu quoque’ argument he slings at his interlocutors is flushing all notions of accountability and transparency – which, mind you, were electoral promises – down the toilet.
Strawman arguments.
Whenever Joseph Muscat uses this argument-stopper, I think of him saying “Big deal, he does it too! Are you holding me to a higher standard than him or you? Who do you think I am, the Prime minister?”
It is also pertinent to point out that whenever he uses this reply, he is automatically admitting to whatever he was accused of.
It is not only Joseph Muscat who is using this form of argument. Is he giving instructions to all his deputies to do the same?
Today I watched a repeat of Iswed fuq l-Abjad and Toni Abela was constantly using et tu quoque. It makes you mad up to a point that you switch channels.
I don’t think that is the desired effect that does him credit because you simply stop listening to what he says.
The ‘tu quoque’ argument is catching, fast. It is ubiquitous among comments submitted by Labour lackeys to timesofmalta’s comments-board.
In simpler language that even the most simple followers of the MLP/LP camp would understand:
i) Two wrongs do not make a right
ii) Because an abuse had allegedly been committed before by someone else that does not justify that Joseph Muscat & Co repeat what they acknowledge to have been an abuse.
It is also a sign of gross insecurity.
Can’t answer a question if he has no answer, so he either answers with another question or deviates from the subject.
If the law courts judge according to this way of thinking, no one would be in prison and criminals would be lose to do as they please in anarchy.
e.g.
‘I should not be imprisoned for murder, since other people killed too.’
I’m sure the only thing that will prevent reporters/ interviewers from rushing in to use the term is the pronunciation.
You’d better simplify: “Too kwo kwe.”
@Tabatha White
And risk that the LP hoi polloi and most of their leaders would think that you are speaking Chinese, not Latin?