"I'm actually a very reserved and polite gent but when I hear [Robert Spencer]'s voice or see his face I feel like shutting him up permanently"

john spielman,

Everything about this asshole threatening Robert screams out that he/she IS indeed a muslim:

Robert, along with other brave people like Geert Wilders, have been exposing islam for the smarmy world cancer that islam truly is.

Ever see this film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIKCgRlwQUA&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.aol.com%2Faol%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dfitna%2Byoutube%26s_it%3Dclient97_searchbox

Know anything about the Gates of Vienna?

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Do you know that the anti-western ideology disguised as a religion (islam) is trying to subjugate, enslave, convert by the sword, or kill ALL INFIDELS ON EARTH?

Your own post leads to the likelyhood that this "person" is muslim:

The New Testament contains absolutely no passages that allow violence against anyone! Those who did commit such acts was disobeying Christ Jesus. The Quran /hadiths are full of passages that encourage its adherents to commit such acts.

So, "... commits such acts..." = muslim, according to you.

You maybe right. It struck me that if this was a Muslim he would be more unrestrained suggesting beheading, crucifying, etc than just strangling. This vile person sounds more like a leftist antiChrist sympathizer like one of Stalins NKVD than the uneducated barbarian Mohammedans.

For example, I always find the following argument amusing (and annoying): "why not discuss all the violence and war passages in the bible." In other words, they admit it that Quran is indeed full of violence and war passages.

When I encounter that elbow spasm, I sometimes try the tack of responding:

"I'm glad you agree that the Koran is full of violence."

Then, if all goes well, one might be able to wedge in through the door they left open a crack with their equivalencism. But they have plenty of other obfuscation-bombs to scramble before the night is through...

He/she is right that he/she likes to debate. That said Islamists and jihadists they debate with AK 47 and Grenade. That is what a debate look like like.
M

I wish it was this simple. what we are dealing is the words of that pedophile is set in stone.
M

Virgil wrote:

Let us accept for the moment that the Bible is indeed full of violent passages and that the popes started the crusades, what does any of that have to do with Islam and violence? I am sorry, but that is a a shallow diversion, not a counter argument.
....................

Quite so, Virgil. This logical fallacy is known as Tu Quoque, and it is indeed nothing but a shallow diversion, as you so aptly put it.

Here's a general definition of this meretriciousness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Pious Muslims use this tactic on a regular basis. Former Jihad Watch contributor Hugh Fitzgerald has been especially sharp on delineating this form of bullsh*t.

"Have the balls to admit that you aspire to kill the kuffar, you worthless Muslim POS."

So right, PGuud!

traeh,

Good point. At least, I agree that, when dealing with Islam propagandists, it's not enough for us to point out a tu quoque fallacy and leave it at that, as if we are participating in a formal debate with fair rules and a fair-minded debate referee (who can penalize the Muslim apologist for employing tu quoque).

I don't agree that tu quoque is obscure, though. The term may be obscure to the lay public, but I suspect most people are familiar with the tactic (the "you too!" fallacy), which is used as early as childhood in the schoolyard.

Responding with the you too! counter-accusation is not always a fallacy. It is a fallacy if the one who uses it tries to substitute it for an argument relevant to the issue. But it is not a fallacy if the substance of the issue at hand is hypocrisy. In addition, it is not a fallacy if the issue at hand concerns questioning why one party is being singled out as guilty of something while others may be guilty of the same, similar, or even worse conduct.

Of course, regarding the latter scenario, the Islam critic's job then is to show why we are singling out Islam, why it is worse than the others, different from the others, more concerning; why the others might not be as bad as is claimed by the Islam polemicist, and so on.

Responding that Bible is not as bad as the Quran (and Hadith and Sira) is simply not very convincing to anyone who is not a pious Jew or a Christian and who is familiar with those religions' respective texts. (I would venture that most adherents of those religions have not even read enough of their respective texts such that they could make a fair comparison of which is worse. In that case, if one wants to address the texts, one could cite Tina Magaard's work for example, showing that Islam's texts inspire/instruct more violence).

To convince a wider audience, it is necessary to take a practical approach and point out that we are concerned about what people actually believe and do today, and what they are likely to do in the foreseeable future. This brings the focus back to reality and to the present, where we (Islamic critics) can easily show that Islam's followers overall are far worse today than those of any other religion, and that therefore focusing on Islam, criticizing it and opposing it, is justified and necessary if we want to preserve fundamental freedoms and equality.

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

The above threat directed against Robert is interesting because, once again, we see a Muslim (or probably a Muslim) on the one hand threatening possibly murderous violence--thus exemplifying the Islam critic's point about Islam inspiring murderous rage--coupled with an insistence by the same Muslim that Islam is peaceful and that the Islam critic's charges are "lies" and so forth.

Of course, when someone is issuing a death threat, the least of our concerns should be various logical fallacies. Yet, the fact that the maker of the threats also engages in such logical fallacies and common Islamic propaganda tactics is not likely mere coincidence but rather both stem from the same underlying derangement (i.e., Islam and/or anti-Western leftism).

Kinana says:

"To convince a wider audience, it is necessary to take a practical approach and point out that we are concerned about what people actually believe and do today, and what they are likely to do in the foreseeable future."

Douglas Murray presented a good example in response to a Muslim debater.

DM: Mohammed said "Slay the infidels wherever you find them"

MD: But Martin Luther said "Slay the peasants wherever you find them"

DM: If we find Lutherans slaying peasants today we should say it was wrong then, it is wrong today.

Kinana, you said,

I don't agree that tu quoque is obscure, though. The term may be obscure to the lay public, but I suspect most people are familiar with the tactic (the "you too!" fallacy), which is used as early as childhood in the schoolyard.

Perhaps tu quoque is not obscure in that sense, but when the Islam-critic tells the Islam-apologist to "stop using tu quoque arguments!" that demand seems to me rather obscure in its purpose and meaning, and probably confused.

You said,

But [tu quoque] is not a fallacy if the substance of the issue at hand is hypocrisy. In addition, it is not a fallacy if the issue at hand concerns questioning why one party is being singled out as guilty of something while others may be guilty of the same, similar, or even worse conduct.

Exactly. That's essential here. After all, Islam-critics' criticisms of Islam almost always, either implicitly or explicitly, single out Islam as guilty by comparison with other religions. Since that recognition is almost always at least implicit in Islam-criticism around here, at least among those I've heard complain against tu quoque arguments, it seems to me usually an error for the Islam-critic here to complain against tu quoque arguments. Yet we not so infrequently find Islam-critics here complaining to Islam-apologists who use such arguments. So it seems to follow that Islam-critics misunderstand the meaning or application or tactic of tu-quoque. And that seems to demonstrate my claim that tu-quoque is somewhat obscure.

You said,

To convince a wider audience, it is necessary to take a practical approach and point out that we are concerned about what people actually believe and do today, and what they are likely to do in the foreseeable future.

Agreed, texts by themselves are certainly insufficient to demonstrate what needs to be shown.

"...and the Moderator will a) point out deficiencies in these regards, and b) will FORCE the rules on the one failing to comply, on pain of forfeiting the debate."

The (b) function of the Moderator also should include NOT PERMITTING the Apologist to obfuscate, and stopping him each time he indulges in a logical fallacy. I think it's better for the Moderator to do this, than to leave it as a chore for the Critic, for then the Critic ends up ENABLING the obfuscatory tactics of the Apologist, not to mention it is also a waste of the Critic's time to be cleaning up and unraveling the cul-de-sacs, dead ends, straw men and red herrings of the Apologist.

Traeh wrote:

My two cents on tu quoque. I always thought that cries of "tu quoque!" were an overrated response on our side. Basically, the cry "tu quoque!" amounts to this:

Islam-critic: "Islam is violent."

Islam-apologist: "You are a hypocrite. Christianity is violent too."

Islam-critic: "So what. Even if I am a hypocrite and Christianity is violent, that does not invalidate my statement that Islam is violent. You haven't answered that. Ha!"

I don't find the Islam-critic's final response there particularly helpful in containing Islam or in raising the alarm about the uniquely totalitarian character of Islam...
..........................

Traeh, I have enormous regard for your comments here. I consider myself fairly well versed in the texts of Islam, but have learned a great deal from your erudite postings, particularly on the Hadith.

But—with respect—I believe you are mischaracterizing the argument here. The idea that Anti-Jihadists cite Tu Quoque as some sort of arid intellectual game is in most cases, I believe, incorrect.

The idea that commentators like Hugh Fitzgerald are simply showing off and using their erudition to score points off his opponents, crowing "ah ha!" in a fatuous manner and then going on to confuse the argument further with big words and run-on sentences, cheapens and undercuts their able dissection of false arguments that are used all too often by Jihadists.

It is not as though Anti-Jihadists were simply pouncing on some obscure point and using it as an ad hominem attack—like sneering at a speaker presenting an otherwise important argument who misuses the term "I could care less"—and uses it to shame the speaker for his lack of erudition, while not addressing the (perfectly valid) body of his argument.

Instead, the use of Tu Quoque is a part of a much larger tactic used by pious Muslims—that of "moral equivalence". And not just moral equivalence, but, as above, *false* moral equivalence.

More:

The Islam-critic's complaint about tu-quoque highlights an obscure logical technicality, but yields or at least ignores the most important issue: the Islam-apologist's claim that Islam's violence is just like that in other religions.
..........................

This is not just used with reference to religion specifically.

Pious Muslims will refer to slavery in the West from hundreds of years ago that we campaigned to end, and compare it unfavorably with calls to reinstate slavery in the Muslim world *today*; they will refer to women still working for equality in the workplace in the West, and compare that unfavorably to women being unable to drive or leave home without a Mehram in parts of Dar-al-Islam; they will compare water-boarding or non-lethal abuses in Abu Graib that we both condemned and prosecuted unfavorably with the most appalling torture, mutilation, and savage forms of murder regularly practiced in Dar-al-Islam.

And they do this because we let them.

And why? Because Westerners are self-critical, which is overall a positive trait. It allows us to improve ourselves and our societies.

But in recent decades, this has been perverted, and Westerners are now prone to self-flagellate, considering themselves intrinsically guilty of "racism" and "colonialism", and much inferior to *any* brutal non-Western culture—Islam most of all.

Jihadists are all too happy to exploit this weakness of ours.

Note some of the points used by the vile issuer of the death threat, above:

He spends his entire sad career writing books full of Islamophobic BS, why not discuss all the violence and war passages in the bible, because I assure you there are tons of them. Look at the wars that were started by David and Moses, look at the brutal crusades started by the popes.
..........................

He doesn't just imply that Judaism and Christianity are "as bad" as Islam—he specifically characterizes Robert Spencer's criticisms of Islam as *false*—"Islamophobic BS"—while positing Judaism and Christianity as violent.

The fact that the crusades were a Christian *reaction* to Muslim savagery is something he never mentions. And why would he? Even many Western historians falsely treat the crusades as unprovoked violence on the part of Christian Europe.

And, of course, the implication that Islam is non-violent is simply laughable.

But the above, while meretricious, is common. He actually began the theme with his opening passage:

Whenever I see Robert Spenser's face I feel like having my palms around his neck, its a good thing we never meet eye to eye because he would be licking my boots if we ever did. I'm actually a very reserved and polite gent but when I hear that guy's voice or see his face I feel like shutting him up permanently.
..........................

Consider what he is doing here.

He opens *with a death threat*—and not even of the generic 'I'd like to kill that guy' sort, but a "lovingly" detailed reverie of up-close-and-personal savagery, where he would like to degrade his victim before strangling him.

But in positing that he is "actually a very reserved and polite gent", he is putting the onus for his incredible brutality on Robert Spencer himself. In other words, he is such a civilized fellow, but the words of Anti-Jihadists are so "inciting" that they lead even "reserved and polite" Muslims to react with incredible savagery.

I bring this up because this is *hardly* an isolated case.

Bobby Ghosh, in his cover story for Time Magazine, "Agents of Outrage", following the riots over the "Innocence of Muslims" film trailer and the slaughter of our ambassador and diplomatic staff in Libya, wrote:

"The violence looked spontaneous; it was anything but. Instead it was the product of a sequence of provocations, some mysterious, some obvious. It seemed to start in the U.S., then became magnified in Egypt and was brought to a deadly and sorrowful climax in Libya — all on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. The cast of characters in this tragedy included a shadowy filmmaker, a sinister pastor in Florida, an Egyptian-American Islamophobe, an Egyptian TV host, politically powerful Islamist extremist groups and, just possibly, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya. The instigators and executors didn’t work in concert; they probably didn’t even know they were in cahoots. Indeed, some of them would sooner die than knowingly help the others’ causes. Nonetheless, the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the result of a collective effort, with grievous consequences...

http://world.time.com/2012/09/13/the-agents-of-outrage/

Look what Ghosh is doing here: he is not just conflating those who have dared to warn against the threat of Jihad with violent Jihadists themselves, he posits that these were the figures who incited the violence. He states, "it seemed to start in the U.S."—whereas no violence of any kind in this case started in the United States, just warnings about Islam being violent.

Moreover, he reserves his negative adjectives for them: Joseph Nakoula is "shadowy" and "an Islamophobe", whereas the figure who actually urged his fellow Muslims to riot and kill is neutrally described as "an Egyptian TV host". Similarly, pastor Terry Jones, who has never been violent nor ever espoused violence, is described as "sinister".

A reader who didn't pay much attention to the article's phrasing—and, sadly, they are legion—would likely come away form the article believing that it was Anti-Jihadists who were ultimately responsible for the savage murder of Ambassador Stevens and his staff.

In the same way and by the same thinking, Robert Spencer would be responsible *for his own murder*. I am not being obscure here—many have suggested that Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders—all people who have been threatened with death or killed by pious Muslims for daring to point out Islam's violence, have brought the violence on themselves.

And on this very basis, we are seeing freedom of speech threatened in the West—both by pious Muslims who want to see the imposition of "blasphemy laws" in the West, and by foolish dhimmis who for reasons of fear or "political correctness" likewise want to see all critics of Islam silenced.

In the end, this is not some obscurist bit of intellectual gamesmanship, but a deliberate tactic used against all critics of Islam. I believe it is *very* important to point it out when it is used against us—especially, as is *so* often the case, when it is used falsely.

LemonLime,

It's of course true that Islam has been in some ways protected from criticism, while Christianity has been hit witheringly for centuries. But I don't see how that makes logically fallacious the Muslim who replies "You too!" ("Tu quoque!") to my claim of Islam's violence. Here's why.

According to the definitions I've seen, the tu-quoque fallacy occurs when I accuse Islam of violence, and my interlocutor points to my religion (whatever it may be), accuses it of violence, and says I'm therefore being a hypocrite, and thinks that because I'm a hypocrite, my claim that Islam is violent is falsified. The tu quoque fallacy consists in supposing that an attack on my character ("you hypocrite!) invalidates my statement about Islam. In reality, my statement about Islam should be evaluated on its own merits, independently of my good or bad character. In other words, the tu quoque fallacy is a form of ad hominem and is logically fallacious for the very same reason ad hominem is fallacious.

I don't think Muslims who respond that other religions are violent too are engaging primarily in the tu quoque fallacy, i.e., ad hominem. On the contrary, Muslims rightly perceive me to be making an implicit or explicit comparison between Islam and other religions, and so Muslims then of course respond at that level, claiming that other religions also have violence, and that the comparison I am making does not show Islam in the uniquely bad light I'm trying to put on it.

The right response in that case is not to claim that they are engaging in a tu quoque fallacy; it's to point out how and why their comparison presents the compared items in a distorted way.

It's true there is a "deflection" motive (your #1a) in the Muslim "You too!" But I don't think that deflection is a form of the tu quoque fallacy, or not primarily. "You too," in the situations we are considering, is primarily a false comparison, a false equation. To complain of tu quoque fallacy there is to give the impression the Muslim has no logical reason at all to compare, when in fact the Islam-critic has initiated comparison in the first place. As for your #1b, you are of course right that the Islam-apologist makes the comparison with other religions falsely or badly, but the Islam-apologist's falsely drawn comparison is not a case of tu quoque fallacy. Tu quoque fallacy in the situations we are considering means that the Islam apologist implies or claims the Islam-critic is a hypocrite and implies also that the sheer fact of his being a hypocrite necessarily makes the Islam critic wrong in his claim about Islam. As I said, the tu quoque fallacy is a form of ad hominem fallacy.

Your premise of a moderator, of course, can only be realized in formal debates. In that setting your rules would be interesting to try. I think I've seen tu quoque or something like it kept out of debates by a simpler rule: a proposition to be affirmed or denied is set up in advance, for example: "Islam is a religion of peace: true or false." If the Muslim debater then starts talking about Christianity, the moderator points out that the debate for that day is not about Christianity.

But debate is usually an unplanned, spontaneous conversation, a free-for-all without rules or referee, and then one cannot count on your moderator, of course.

Hi gravenimage,

Thank you for your reply.

If I understand you, your view is that tu quoque is primarily a form of false moral equivalence. From the definitions I have seen, I have a different understanding of tu quoque: that it is a form of the ad hominem fallacy -- impugn my character, and on that basis claim to invalidate a statement I make. If the Muslim says, "Christianity is just as violent as Islam, therefore you, O Islam-critic, are a hypocrite, and your hypocrisy proves that your statement about Islam's violence is false," then that is tu quoque fallacy, a special case of ad hominem. Sound logic requires that statements be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of the good or bad character of the person who makes the statement.

My main objection to the complaint against Muslims alleged guilty of tu-quoque fallacy when they say that Christianity or other religions are as violent as Islam, is that the Islam-critic often thus seems to think that the Muslim in the discussion has no logical or reasonable justification for comparing Islam with other religions. So the Islam critic cries "Don't use tu quoque," and seems to think that tu quoque fallacy means basically just deflection or shifting the subject into a comparison. But even if tu quoque were merely deflection or shifting the subject, the Muslim's reply is not merely deflection or shifting the subject. The Islam-critic usually intends a comparison (implicit or explicit) of Islam with other cultures and religions. So I don't think it makes sense to say a Muslim should not also compare or that he is shifting the subject when he does compare. One should criticize the quality of his comparison, not the fact that he compares.

You, gravenimage, are saying that tu quoque fallacy is above all false equivalence. But I don't understand that as the correct definition of the tu quoque fallacy, and I don't think it is the definition (which is also mistaken) that most people have in mind when they accuse Muslims of the tu quoque fallacy. I think most Islam-critics who pay any attention to the tu quoque fallacy think it means that if the Islam-critic makes a critical statement about Islam, the Muslim deflects by replying with a critical statement about Christianity. But I don't think the tu quoque fallacy consists in mere deflection. The key element, to my knowledge, is the ad hominem fallacy I described.

gravenimage, I was going to say that the Time reporter was indulging in a variation on Tu Quoque -- which I coined as "Ego Quoque" -- but then I realized he had a kind of last name we are seeing too much of in various places more and more in recent years, in the mainstream media (not to mention other parts of our society) as reporters, op-ed writers, etc. I.e., likely a Muslim name. Since a "Muslim-American" (or a "Western Muslim" in general) does not really feel they belong to America nor to our Western culture, Bobby Ghosh is an Other, and so the term Tu Quoque applies to him when he deploys it. Were the Time reporter an actual true American, it wouldn't make sense to call what he's doing "Tu Quoque", since as a true American (as true as a PC MC can get...), he's part of the "You" community at which he's pointing a finger.

Thus, as I wrote in my essay about Tu Quoque:

Since, however, the non-Muslim is not a Muslim, but rather belongs to the same civilizational or cultural community as his fellow non-Muslims, I call his similar ploy the Ego Quoque fallacy: It is, in effect, saying “Well, we also do the bad things we are accusing them of doing” or “Well, we're no better than they are.”

This is, on the surface, a rather self-sacrificing posture, potentially noble and laudable and open-minded, but in the context of PC MC it lurches into the territory of the incoherent, the inane, the perverse, the hypocritical, the treasonous and the suicidal—particularly when the object of the criticism (Islam) is an outrageously anti-liberal system which is nourishing innumerable fanatics around the globe who want to destroy us if they cannot subjugate us to their evil totalitarianism.

Thus, in our politically correct times, we commonly encounter the normal perversity of a non-Muslim Westerner coming righteously to the defense of Islam and Muslims whenever they are criticized, by employing the Ego Quoque Fallacy -- usually manifested in various questions meant to be self-evidently rhetorical: What about the Crusades? What about the Spanish Inquisition? What about the witch-burnings? What about Christian wars of religion? What about slavery? What about Western Colonialism? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about Vietnam? What about the “genocide” of the American Indians? What about violence in the Bible? What about abortion clinic bombings? What about the IRA? What about the KKK? Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/05/logical-fallacy-of-tu-quoque-and-ego.html

P.S.: Some reader once suggested I alter the coinage to "Nos Quoque" ("We too") but, while he had a grammatical point, I argued in defense of my coinage:

Just as there is the singular plural of the "Royal We", so too there could be said to be the singular plurality of the "Collectivist I".

Plus, I like to retain the "Ego" in the formulation, as a gently subliminal and ironic reminder of the egotism involved in the PC MC psyche.

I don't see why the Tu Quoque can't be both. The Islam Apologist seems clearly to be impugning Judaeo-Christianity/Western culture when he indulges in the various charges that indicate that it's just as bad as, or worse, than Islam. But that doesn't mean he's not also impugning the character of the Critic, and implying he's a hypocrite.

Both maneuvers, of course, have no legs to stand on, but to the irrational person, they seem to be effective parries.

Incidentally, the charge of hypocrisy seems to be a special form of ad hominem -- I'd say it's the form that most resembles a valid point. I.e., impugning the character of your interlocutor with charges that are irrelevant to the subject of the debate is one thing, but pointedly accusing the interlocutor of the same fault as the interlocutor is accusing his opponent seems, to the stupid person not thinking it through, to be a good ploy. That's partly because considered on a purely moral/ethical level, the charge of hypocrisy does have cogency. The stupid person feels that cogency carry over into the context of the debate.

It's frustrating to have to spend so much time fending off the various ploys of obfuscation when debating someone, as those can come to dominate the debate (particularly with Muslims, who are all obfuscation & mirrors and no substance), and the Original Point of the debate can get obscured. I often see debates with Muslims (including Spencer debates) where the debate shifts and becomes about the various obfuscations. This would be fine, if there weren't so many obfuscations -- but their sheer number, and inter-locking complexity with one another (tending to cause the Critic to be forever unable to complete a thought, because he keeps having to spend time with new smoke-bombs, as the Muslim deploys what I have called a "fireworks display" of distractions).

Yes. Unless Muslims are telling us that they want to subjugate or kill the unbelievers, there is no reason to ever trust them. The "I'm a kind and decent person, actually; but if you insult 'The [false] Prophet' and/or Islam, and/or my beliefs, I will kill you" meme doesn't work.

All Muslims are evil; because all Muslims are obligated to bring the masses under the rule of Islam.

Take care, Champ. :)

PGuud

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

"All Muslims are evil; because all Muslims are obligated to bring the masses under the rule of Islam."

Indeed, PGuud! ...I wholly agree! And being a muslim means that they're in allah's army and that they identify with muhammad--one of the most evil men that ever lived. Take care, my friend :)

Traeh wrote:

So I don't think it makes sense to say a Muslim should not also compare or that he is shifting the subject when he does compare. One should criticize the quality of his comparison, not the fact that he compares.
..............................

Dear Traeh, I would *never* say that anyone should not be allowed to use comparisons in an argument. Indeed, there is a good reason why the "compare and contrast" model is used so frequently in logic and debate.

But I believe it is *very rare* to find a pious Muslim in these cases citing an honest, logical comparison between Islam and any other faith or culture. It is virtually implicit that the comparison intended *is* false, and is intended to deflect criticism of Islam, and to imply that other faiths and cultures are not merely as bad as Islam but worse: that they are bad, while Islam is not.

This is usually done by suggestion and innuendo, and often counts on the ignorance of the listener, as well.

More:

You, gravenimage, are saying that tu quoque fallacy is above all false equivalence. But I don't understand that as the correct definition of the tu quoque fallacy...
..............................

You are correct in the strict definition of Tu Quoque, Traeh—and I said as much. What I suggested is that strict Tu Quoque is one technique frequently used by Muslim apologists, most often directly leading into claims of false moral equivalence *and worse*, where Islam is exonerated and Infidels falsely condemned.

Ultimately, I believe these techniques, while technically discrete, are most often used in concert by Muslim apologists, and are in fact used virtually interchangeably.

LemonLime wrote:

Since, however, the non-Muslim is not a Muslim, but rather belongs to the same civilizational or cultural community as his fellow non-Muslims, I call his similar ploy the Ego Quoque fallacy: It is, in effect, saying “Well, we also do the bad things we are accusing them of doing” or “Well, we're no better than they are.”

This is, on the surface, a rather self-sacrificing posture, potentially noble and laudable and open-minded, but in the context of PC MC it lurches into the territory of the incoherent, the inane, the perverse, the hypocritical, the treasonous and the suicidal...
.......................

Good points re your coining of "Ego Quoque", LemonLime—another form of unearned guilt and general groveling that is so common in the West today.

As I've noted, self criticism, either on the personal or societal level, can be very healthy, but has often descended to the level of prostrating oneself before barbarians at this point. And Muslims, like all other savages, respond to such a spectacle by putting their boot firmly on the groveler's neck...

More:

gravenimage, I was going to say that the Time reporter was indulging in a variation on Tu Quoque -- which I coined as "Ego Quoque" -- but then I realized he had a kind of last name we are seeing too much of in various places more and more in recent years, in the mainstream media (not to mention other parts of our society) as reporters, op-ed writers, etc. I.e., likely a Muslim name. Since a "Muslim-American" (or a "Western Muslim" in general) does not really feel they belong to America nor to our Western culture, Bobby Ghosh is an Other, and so the term Tu Quoque applies to him when he deploys it...
.......................

Quite right—and that is why I cited his article as an example.

In fact, "Bobby" Ghosh is pretty notorious—he is TIME Magazine's World Editor, and he has used his position as a consistent platform of Da'wa and whitewashing Islam while slamming America, the West, and the rest of Dar-al-Harb—just the sort of thing we were discussing here.

Here's his ugly cover story dealing with the Ground Zero Mosque from 2010:

"Is America Islamophobic?"
What the anti-mosque uproar tells us about how the U.S. regards Muslims
...

When non-Muslims in the story express their concerns about the violence of Islam, he slyly sidesteps addressing any of their concerns, but merely says that Muslims who hear such questions are "hurt" and "shaken"—thereby implying, without ever actually having said so—that such concerns are not only absurd, but reflect badly on those who dare to ask such questions. In other words, without ever quite saying so, he implies that those who question Islam are ignorant, bigoted, and—probably—'racist'.

Later, in fact, he quotes Muslims explicitly saying "Islamophobia has become the accepted form of racism in America". Never mind—as we have so often pointed out—that Islam is an ideology, *not* a race

Of course, he then goes on to smear Pamela Geller for her speaking out against Jihad and the Ground Zero Mosque, as well.

You can read the whole Taqiyya-filled thing here:

http://www.learntoquestion.com/resources/database/archives/003457.html

Thanks gravenimage,

So "Bobby" Ghosh is TIME's complement to Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, eh. Every major news venue must have their resident Muslim on staff by now (even FOX news, I bet), making key decisions on content and the subtler, slier stylistic additions -- and subtractions -- that affect content.

LemonLime wrote:

So "Bobby" Ghosh is TIME's complement to Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, eh. Every major news venue must have their resident Muslim on staff by now (even FOX news, I bet), making key decisions on content and the subtler, slier stylistic additions -- and subtractions -- that affect content.
...........................

Actually, *Fareed Zakaria* is now TIME Magazine's Fareed Zakaria, as well. He became Editor-in-Chief of TIME in 2010.

Media people are always playing "musical chairs" when it comes to moving from house to house.

But your point is well taken. More and more these days with any story dealing with Islam or Muslims, you can expect to find Muslim surnames creeping into the bylines.

These are often paired with Western names, which often leads to the Western journalists writing the articles, and the Muslim "journalists" making sure they toe the Muslim line.

Of course, the publications themselves likely believe they are being "more authentic", somehow, bringing in so many Muslim "journalists", who often lack the credentials of their Infidel colleagues.

This last, incidentally, is not my being pejorative—I've read numerous stories by Muslim "journalists" where they actually brag about their lack of experience, as though the mere fact of their being Muslim gives them enormous "cred". Indeed, it is clear that this is how they are regarded by the news outlets.

After all, even in today's fevered climate of political correctness, it is not mandated that every story about, say, African Americans or Hispanics be written by someone of the same group—but this is fast becoming the norm with stories about Islam, with all the predictable results of such craven moves.

graven,

Thanks for your commentary: interesting and useful, as usual.