FabSwingers.com forum: Obama did that, Tony Blair did that...

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

This counter argument of Obama did it too and labour did it too.

It's stupidity.

1. Either you agree it's a bad thing even if May, Trump, Obama or Blair did it. Because it's not about left and right. It's about right or wrong.

2. You thing two wrongs make a right. So if they killed people it makes it fine for trump/may to do it.

Do you agree of these counter arguments are stupid. Because they admit it's wrong in both cases... Thus losing the argument.

If not, then do explain. By the way I am left and right and liberal and a bit authoritarian. I don't oblige to the standard political compass.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This counter argument of Obama did it too and labour did it too.

It's stupidity.

1. Either you agree it's a bad thing even if May, Trump, Obama or Blair did it. Because it's not about left and right. It's about right or wrong.

2. You thing two wrongs make a right. So if they killed people it makes it fine for trump/may to do it.

Do you agree of these counter arguments are stupid. Because they admit it's wrong in both cases... Thus losing the argument.

If not, then do explain. By the way I am left and right and liberal and a bit authoritarian. I don't oblige to the standard political compass. "

Think not thing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What did they do? Anything in particular you are alluding to?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things."

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When? "

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not. It's the fact the argument people use is deflecting the responsibility of people's actions.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not. It's the fact the argument people use is deflecting the responsibility of people's actions."

Well if your arguement is based on a lie, it's not a very good one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ahh, whataboutary. A classic attempt to move a debate. While often taken as a tacit admission of defeat, I think it’s more often just an unawareness that it’s a poor defence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not.

Now we're getting into "Trump" territory

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not. It's the fact the argument people use is deflecting the responsibility of people's actions.

Well if your arguement is based on a lie, it's not a very good one. "

That is true. But if it's based on truth, does it change the result of the counter argument?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not.

Now we're getting into "Trump" territory"

Crap... Have to be wary of my double negatives too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not. It's the fact the argument people use is deflecting the responsibility of people's actions.

Well if your arguement is based on a lie, it's not a very good one.

That is true. But if it's based on truth, does it change the result of the counter argument?

Some times it does sometimes it doesn't, it depends if it's a false equivalence or not, and also on circumstances.

Roosevelt declared war on Germany, it was widely considered the right thing to do, if Bush or Obama or Trump declared war on Germany today, I don't think people would think the same.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It's a general argument presented by people. Example, bombing in Syria, badly handled deportation of immigrants, the Windrush scandal etc.

But it's not the facts that is the issue, it's the ignoring what is right or wrong. My child would say "but he hit me first!". But we're talking about heads of governments who do the wrong things.

Blair bombed Syria? When?

Haha very pedantic of you. It's not the point whether it's true or not. It's the fact the argument people use is deflecting the responsibility of people's actions.

Well if your arguement is based on a lie, it's not a very good one.

That is true. But if it's based on truth, does it change the result of the counter argument?

Some times it does sometimes it doesn't, it depends if it's a false equivalence or not, and also on circumstances.

Roosevelt declared war on Germany, it was widely considered the right thing to do, if Bush or Obama or Trump declared war on Germany today, I don't think people would think the same."

That I agree with. Now I'm digressing...

Doesn't that then question morality. For example, the same actions does not equate to your morals. Or in a different way, when would committing a crime be morally right?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

I agree, in general, with the OP on this.

Someone else exercising poor judgement does not excuse your own.

Most people have a sense if what they are doing is good or nice. In my experience people work the hardest to justify their actions or point to others when they know that they are in the wrong.

You have nothing to prove when your conscience is clear.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

The justification for deliberate planned dishonesty of another was propelled into dishonesty by circumstances or drifted into it through unforeseen circumstances or by happenstance strikes me as being the epitome of corruption.

But we all know that politics attracts the corrupt and is the most corrupting of endeavours.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread