Closed Thread
I think the followup is the responsibility of Y though. If they say, "Okay I see what you mean about A justifying B and C, but now why isn't it a double standard for C?" Then we can make progress in the debate, but that rarely happens. If the purpose is just to show the flawed logic of Y then it succeeds. If the purpose is to show that A isn't enough to support B since it also supports C then it also succeeds. Since we were using Yoda as an example I think he's very good at avoiding double standards and exposing logical fallacies this way. He's also usually willing to follow up, especially if he gets an intelligent response. Sadly he usually gets a diversionary tactic or straw man as a response. It's a lot of work to have these debates. I'd say it would be necessary to include the follow up if it was a research paper or an academic journal, but I think for an internet forum including the follow up can wait until Y at least acknowledges the point X is making.
Edit: If Y presents their position and X comes along and exposes it's logical fallacies, then Y can assess their logical fallacies and strengthen their position. X's position, why he holds it, and whether he's committing logical fallacies himself is it's own separate issue.
Edit: If Y presents their position and X comes along and exposes it's logical fallacies, then Y can assess their logical fallacies and strengthen their position. X's position, why he holds it, and whether he's committing logical fallacies himself is it's own separate issue.
I'm surprised to hear this approach, as it seems like it'd fall under "Clean Up Your Room", as Peterson followers like to say. Put another way, if someone is arguing with a hypocrite, they should first make sure their opponent isn't doing the same thing.
In the Yoda example, he actually believed that he HAD provided the additional context (that A was just bad; neither useful for B nor C) Either I didn't properly read or he didn't properly communicate it (likely a mix of both), but the intent was there.
I think Y certainly could follow up with keying in on X's hypocrisy, but just as a matter of practicality for my example, most of the time X is a random person, and Y is a public figure. So X is usually not actually entering a discussion, but rather trying to display what they think is their superior reflective capability.
