So, for example if someone argues in a threat about Trump wrongdoing that Trump ought to be excused because Hillary or Obama or some other democrat did something bit similar too (probably not by saying exactly so, but clearly meaning so), then by the same logic there is nothing wrong with what Hillary did either and she must be excused because "some con does something similar too".
True, good point; I guess the relevant point is that a nihilist who does not really think there is anything wrong with lying/cheating/bribery/whatever has no believability to condemn such. If both A and B do X, but A doing is morally ok because B does it too, then logically it is morally ok for B too to do X because A does it also. Also, another a bit similar thinking, to which this may in practice result is "better a liar and crook of my own party than a honest one from the other party"-thinking. It may feel convenient at short term but when a party operates by that logic a long time, in the end there is little anything else but liars and crooks.Alternatively, their argument could be that since Obama did the same Trump's critics must first condemn Obama (or preferably show where they or other prominent anti-Trump folk condemned Obama at the time) before their criticism of Trump for the same action can be taken seriously. If that criticism of Trump were nothing more than hypocritical partisan opportunism, it might not merit any further response regardless of how the responder herself really feels about it.
thanks; and very true, I sure do not claim there is no crooked or hypocritical politicians in my country. A two party system may make these things more visible though; things get more complicated if the claim is that "the other dozen or so parties do it too" instead of "the other party does it too".Always interesting to get an outside view. Although I suppose "both siderism" debates happen world wide. At least where speaking your mind isn't against the law.
The flaw in that logic is part of the same issue- the suggestion that two separate issues/occurrences really are one in the same. Example, Trump criticized Obama for ever golfing while president, claiming he would be too busy as president to golf. Then he goes out and golfs 4 times more often in 4 years than Obama did in 8. So did I have to criticize Obama at that time for ever golfing before criticizing Trump for making 275 trips to his golf courses? I don't think so.Alternatively, their argument could be that since Obama did the same Trump's critics must first condemn Obama (or preferably show where they or other prominent anti-Trump folk condemned Obama at the time) before their criticism of Trump for the same action can be taken seriously. If that criticism of Trump were nothing more than hypocritical partisan opportunism, it might not merit any further response regardless of how the responder herself really feels about it.
Maybe it’s like a never ending game of tug-o-warlet's do the math...
what are the odds that both sides are equally good/bad on all issues?
what? the odds are 50/50 that both parties are equal on all issues???The odds will always be 50/50.
Perhaps 50/50 isn’t a good explanation.what? the odds are 50/50 that both parties are equal on all issues???
Thank you for the reply. My point is exactly to support the party that is more clean/better than the other. That both parties sometimes do something wrong and neither is perfect ought to be self evident. If as in previous post said Trump spent much more time golfing than working as president compared to Obama, that is one good reason to support dems. And true, that one party focuses more than other in policies to improve the lives of ordinary people is most certainly a very good reason to support that party.I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the Democratic party has a fair number of issues and could do much better. But often for me, it's generally the difference between making an honest effort and failing versus what the Republicans offer, which is almost always either ignoring the real world problems of the majority of Americans or making bad faith arguments about them.
Let me throw out a few examples.
Al Franken got kicked to the curb in the span of a few weeks after images and accusations of inappropriate behavior surfaced. We are seeing something similar happen now with Andrew Cuomo. What is the Republican equivalent of that? Roy Moore was accused by multiple women of preying on them as young girls. There were reports he was banned from a local mall because of his repeated attempts to pick up girls there. Despite that, the leaders of the party rallied around him in a Senate race. Hell, Trump himself was accused of sexual assault/harassment and bragged about forcing himself on women, but Republicans wrote it off as "locker room talk". To me, these aren't examples of both sides behaving equally. There is clearly one side that takes these things more seriously and makes the effort to rectify a problem.
How about actual policies to improve the lives of Americans? Healthcare? Tax reform? Covid? Are we going to pretend that both sides treated the pandemic with equal amounts of the seriousness it warranted? That both have made equal attempts to provide affordable, quality healthcare for people? That both sides show equal understanding of the plight facing lower income households? Hell, not a single Republican could be counted on to vote for a relief bill during the middle of the worst pandemic in a century.
So yes, it does get frustrating when people hand out the tired old "both sides" arguments.
"Both sides" is just about always used dishonestly, and just about always gets deployed to defend the sins of a far worse sinner. They function by focusing only on category of sin while ignoring severity.
Joe punches a man in the jaw.
Bob shoots a man in the jaw.
Both-sider who wants to defend Bob says "both sides are violent!"
It's just that stupid and just that dishonest. It also happens here every day.
The flaw in that logic is part of the same issue- the suggestion that two separate issues/occurrences really are one in the same. Example, Trump criticized Obama for ever golfing while president, claiming he would be too busy as president to golf. Then he goes out and golfs 4 times more often in 4 years than Obama did in 8. So did I have to criticize Obama at that time for ever golfing before criticizing Trump for making 275 trips to his golf courses? I don't think so.
I'm not sure it's almost always used in defense of the worse sinner. For example when a Trump supporter notices a lie from Biden and starts trumpeting "Look at that, Biden is a liar, you can't trust him!" how are people going to react? Inevitably by pointing out that Trump was a liar and they didn't care about that, so their hypocritical partisan opportunism against Biden scarcely merits further response. Obviously whether the relative severity of the offenses is emphasized or downplayed will depend on which side is perceived as doing worse, but the basic argument is the same.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?