Editing Ad hominem (section)

=== ''Tu quoque'' ===
{{Main|Tu quoque{{!}}''Tu quoque''}}
{{lang|la|Ad hominem tu quoque}} (literally 'you also') is a response to an {{lang|la|ad hominem}} argument that itself goes {{lang|la|ad hominem}}.{{sfnm|1a1=Wrisley|1y=2019|1p=88|2a1=Walton|2y=2015|2pp=431–435|3a1=Lavery|3a2=Hughes|3y=2008|3p=132}}

{{lang|la|Tu quoque}} {{IPA|en|[tuː koʊ.kweɪ]}} appears as:

* A makes a claim ''a''.
* B attacks the character of A by claiming they hold negative property ''x''.
* A defends themself by attacking B, saying they also hold the same property ''x''.{{sfn|Wrisley|2019|p=89}}

An example given by professor George Wrisley to illustrate the above is:

<blockquote>A businessman and a politician are giving a lecture at a university about how good his company is and how nicely the system works. A student asks him "Is it true that you and your company are selling weapons to third world rulers who use those arms against their own people?" and the  businessman replies "Is it true that your university gets funding by the same company that you are claiming is selling guns to those countries? You are not a white dove either". The student's {{lang|la|ad hominem}} accusation is not fallacious, as it is relevant to the narrative the businessman is trying to project. On the other hand, the businessman's attack on the student (that is, the student being inconsistent) is irrelevant to the opening narrative. So the businessman's {{lang|la|tu quoque}} response is fallacious.{{sfn|Wrisley|2019|pp=89–91}}</blockquote>

Canadian philosopher [[Christopher Tindale]] approaches somewhat different the {{lang|la|tu quoque}} fallacy. According to Tindale, a {{lang|la|tu quoque}} fallacy appears when a response to an argument is made on the history of the arguer. This argument is also invalid because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true, then source A may be a [[hypocrite]] or even changed their mind, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. A common example, given by Tindale, is when a doctor advises a patient to lose weight, but the patient argues that there is no need for him to go on a diet because the doctor is also overweight.{{sfn|Tindale|2007|pp=94–96}}