.

Pengumuman Penghapusan Tanpa Peringatan

Pengumuman Penghapusan Tanpa Peringatan

Postby Moderator 3 » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:02 pm

Forum lama kami menghadapi problem dengan webhost karena terlalu populernya FFi dan semakin besarnya ruang yang terpakai untuk menampung obrolan kami.

Oleh karena itu Tim Moderator akan semakin galak menghapus TANPA PERINGATAN jika netter disini OOT.

Contoh OOT atau Out of Topic :

Misalnya ada topik/pertanyaan tentang "Islam agama damai atau tidak".

Jawab OOT ad hominem (menyerang pribadi netter):
"Ah, khan elu domba/agama Kristen/ateis, khan elu cuma pura2 ateis
khan elu cuma kepingin menyerang dsb ...

Jawab OOT tu quoque (menuduh agama lain berbuat sama):
"Emangnya agama elu damai ... nih kejelekan agama elu ..."

Semua bentuk jawaban2 diatas akan dihapus beserta dengan :

- ceplas-ceplos cheerleader : mereka yang tidak menawarkan pemikiran, namun cuma sekedar bunyi, menunjukkan dukungan atau memaki2 netter lain dengan kata2, foto dsb.

-semua tanggapan atas sebuah topik yang hanya berupa click paste yang panjang tidak karuan. Kami memerlukan sumbangan pemikiran pribadi anda yang boleh didukung dengan link.

-semua avatar, motto atau atau2 kata2 kasar/menghina dan tidak menunjukkan hormat pada perbedaan pendapat.

-semua jawaban yang kami anggap membuang2 waktu kami atau netter lain.


Sekali lagi, kami akan menghapus tanpa peringatan. Yang tidak suka silahkan pindah ke website lain. Jangan buang2 waktu kami atau penuh2in situs ini.

FFI memberikan kesempatan kepada anda untuk menunjukkan bahwa Islam benar2 agama damai, Muhamad benar2 rasul Allah. Kalau anda tidak mampu, belajar dulu, baca Quran lagi dan baru gabung dengan kami.

Terima kasih.
Moderator 3
 
Posts: 572
Images: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:53 pm

CONTOH TU QUOQUE

Postby ali5196 » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:10 pm

Contoh2 oleh jagoan Tu Quoque, BIN LADEN

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

Tu Quoque
Translation: "You, also" or "You're another"
(Latin)
Type:Argumentum ad Hominem

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Example:

"Q: Now, the United States government says that you are still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters and that you're a sponsor of international terrorism.… Are these accusations true? …

"Osama Bin Laden: …At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army at the White House as a political leader, while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine. So, there is no base for what the US says and this saying does not affect us.…"

Source: "CNN March 1997 Interview with Osama bin Laden" (PDF)

Analysis

Exposition:
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

Source:
S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 204-206.

Resource:
Julian Baggini, "Tu Quoque", Bad Moves, 10/1/2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of the Example:
A perfect example of the fallacy of Tu Quoque. Notice that Bin Laden never addresses the question of whether he sponsors terrorism, instead simply turning the accusation back against the accuser. This is an irrelevancy designed to distract the audience from the question at issue, that is, it is a Red Herring. Even if all of Bin Laden's accusations are true, they have nothing to do with the question, and thus are irrelevant.

Reader Responses:
Lindsay Brown sent the following comments:

"I have a problem with the example [of tu quoque] you provide, and would like you to reconsider it. I realize it is a debatable issue, but it is also a sensitive one. Hopefully that consideration will weigh in, illogical though it may be. So here is my quick case:
"Bin Laden's response is not a good example of the tu quoque fallacy because he is speaking directly to the issue by first pointing out the petitio principii problem with the question that was posed to him. He is exposing the error of implicitly equating certain forms of 'military training camps' and 'fighters' with 'terrorism', and not others. One convenient and not fallacious way for him to do so is by pointing out the similarities between the activity of the criticizer (U.S.) and the activity about which he is being questioned. To label one 'terrorism' and not the other is, he is arguing, itself a fallacy. As such, the range of possible answers has already been begged by the way the question was asked. Bin Laden is saying: the question is fallacious as posed, and not answerable (it is a complex question). Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof. Neither of those is the case in your example."

Lindsay, the question asked by Arnett is not a complex question, rather it is a conjunctive question, that is, two questions in one. The question is: "Are these accusations true?", which refers back to the following two accusations in the preceding statement:

"You are still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters."
"You're a sponsor of international terrorism."
A conjunctive question is not necessarily a loaded (complex) one, and Arnett's question is not loaded in the way you suggest. A loaded question is one which traps you into conceding something no matter how you answer it, such as: "Have you stopped beating your husband?" For this reason, it is reasonable to reject such a question if one rejects the statement it is loaded with ("you have beaten your husband").

I see no basis for your claim that the question equates training camps with terrorism, even implicitly; these are two separate accusations, as Arnett's "these" indicates. As a matter of fact the training camps in question were undoubtedly camps training terrorists, but Arnett does not even say so.
Bin Laden could answer both questions without conceding anything. He could have denied both accusations, accepted one and denied the other, or accepted both. Instead, using the "politician's answer", he avoids answering the question and turns the criticism back against his accuser. This is a clear-cut tu quoque.

Source:
Nigel Warburton, Thinking from A to Z (Second Edition), "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Portia Jeffries asks the following question:

"Isn't 'Are you still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters?' the same as 'Are you still beating your wife?', which has been rephrased in the negative in your example. If so, isn't it a complex question?"
The question does presume that bin Laden had funded such camps in the past, but not every question with a presupposition is a loaded one. A loaded question is one with a false, controversial, or question-begging presupposition. As far as I know, that bin Laden had funded these camps is none of these; though if so, he missed a chance to set the record straight instead of dodging the question. Nonetheless, if the presupposition is either false, controversial, or question-begging, then the question is a loaded one. To quote Lewis Carroll: "[I]f it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

Source:
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 4.
ali5196
 
Posts: 17309
Images: 135
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Postby moh_mad007 » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:37 pm

gue setuju ame mod 3 , ayo muslim2 kita debat di forum ini harus gunakan OTAK n NURANI yg TERANG
User avatar
moh_mad007
 
Posts: 2407
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:18 am


Return to Pengumuman



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users