Reply #27: That's a lame diversion of focus, in service to an unworthy cause

[Psephos]

Every country has a big list of "low points," as you call them. Are you suggesting every time someone in another country does bad to someone else, we haul out the national sin lists, and then withdraw from comment and pretend it's ok to strangle your sister? Let's just stop punishing all crime and begin tolerating all transgressions. Heh.

This kind of fallacious argument is so common it has a name: ad hominem. In short, an ad hominem attack is leveled against a person (or country, if you choose), rather than against the issue itself. In this case, you did not address the issue of honor killings, but instead, attacked the right of anyone in the US to point out it is wrong. Every citizen of every country on Earth could be similarly disqualified.

For a nonpolitical example of the ad hominem fallacy, one might say, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why the books are worthless.)

A common form of the ad hominem fallacy is an attack on sincerity, which I think is what you were after here. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" The "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, sometimes called "tu quoque" is related. Basically, tu quoque is justifying what you do by pointing out that someone else does it, too. I see that all the time here when people justify mean or shitty things done by Democrats "because Repukes do it." Yeah, that's a great reason all right...let the Repukes determine OUR behavior.

So, bottom line, you justified what those assholes did to their sister by saying (collectively) everyone else does it, too - especially in the US.

Sorry, that doesn't fly. They don't tolerate ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies in high school debate class, and I don't think we should tolerate them in national political discourse either.

No disrespect intended.

Peace.