Question

...

Redirecting the accusation

I'd like to know the logical fallacy of redirecting my accusation towards myself. I accused a person of XYZ (which is evidential) but he accused me of the same thing XYZ back as a scapegoat, and of course the argument isn't going anywhere.

 

Thank you.

asked on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 03:51:44 AM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Listen to the Dr. Bo Show!

Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!

Visit Podcast Page

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
7

Assume X is a morally wrong act.

You accused someone of doing X.

They reply, "you did X too."

If you actually did X, then this depends on where they are going with the statement. If they try to justify their behaviour by appealing to your own behaviour, it'd be ad hominem (tu quoque). However, it could also be a valid criticism of a double standard.

If you didn't do X, this is a red herring. They are trying to distract from their wrongdoing by falsely claiming you did the same.
answered on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 04:34:18 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

Thank you for the reply. In my case, the accusation redirected at me was a deliberate disruptive behavior.

I accused him of X, but for the sake of replying back and to keep my mouth shut, they disruptively accusing me of the same the that even though I didn't commit X.

They lost the argument. But they're redirecting the accusation onto me to satisfy their ego, they can't accept that objectively I won the argument. That was their psyche.

 

The dialog goes like:

Me: You are acting in Ad Hominem here. This is disruptive. You didn't substantiate your argument.

Them: No, you are acting Ad Hominem. You are disruptive. You are the who didn't provide any argument or facts.

I hope you get the point.

 

Thank you.

posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 07:00:55 AM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To KeenLearner]

From the additional context, I can infer that this person isn't interested in a rational discussion - something which goes beyond just fallacies (but their reply is a red herring).

It's probably better for your sanity to not engage :)

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 10:55:41 AM