Whataboutism makes no sense: it's illogical

[ImmortalFlame]

I remember as a kid I was told sex out of wedlock was a sin. I thought of a whataboutism being; my great- great-great grandfather was a slave thus was not allowed to get married. Does this mean my ancestors were sinners because the crooked laws of the land did not allow them to marry?
I remember being told to never lie, to always be truthful. But suppose the year is 1940 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo knocks on your door asking if you have any Jews in the house for them to take away, and you know you have a family hiding in your attic. Sometimes lying is the right thing to do.
In these examples, whataboutisms expose the flaw of using broad sweeping statements concerning issues. I find this perfectly reasonable.

I would say neither of those examples are whataboutisms, as they both deal directly with the moral issue being discussed rather than raising a different issue. They're counter-examples, not counter-accusations.

 

[McBell]

so are the civilian drivers who have a severely injured person aboard.



I presented in the OP an example of double standards.
Is that double standards, in your opinion?

I will not be answering any more of your questions until after you answer the ONE question I asked.

Why you are so afraid of answering it is any ones guess.

 

[Estro Felino]

I will not be answering any more of your questions until after you answer the ONE question I asked.

Why you are so afraid of answering it is any ones guess.

Ok, I will answer you: Double standards is the hypocritical tendency to apply different standards on two perfectly identical people or situations.
So an ambulance is not the same situation as a civilian's car.
A cop chasing a criminal is not the same situation as a civilian's car.

Two perfectly identical situation are two civilians, a man and a woman who both violate the law by parking on a disabled people's reserved parking lot.
May I have my question answered?

 

[Kfox]

I would say neither of those examples are whataboutisms, as they both deal directly with the moral issue being discussed rather than raising a different issue. They're counter-examples, not counter-accusations.

The first one is "what about my great, great, great, grandfather?" The second one is "What about the person who lies to save innocent lives from an evil monster?"

 

[Soandso]

I saw this as an example of an adult who regretted a bad decision he made in his youth and is warning his child of making the same mistake; which I find to be a legitimate point made.

That is a legitimate point. That's also not a whataboutism. The whataboutism in that example was when the son retorts with “But you did them, so your protests can’t be true.” the counter accusation is the whataboutism

I remember as a kid I was told sex out of wedlock was a sin. I thought of a whataboutism being; my great- great-great grandfather was a slave thus was not allowed to get married. Does this mean my ancestors were sinners because the crooked laws of the land did not allow them to marry?

This isn't really a whataboutism; it's questioning an issue and raising a valid counter argument. For a whataboutism to take place, there needs to be a counter accusation that attempts to deflect an accusation that then attempts to change the focus of the conversation. The counter argument here doesn't do that. The topic is still focused on wedlock an whether or not it is sinful

I remember being told to never lie, to always be truthful. But suppose the year is 1940 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo knocks on your door asking if you have any Jews in the house for them to take away, and you know you have a family hiding in your attic. Sometimes lying is the right thing to do.

Again, this is not a whataboutism but is a valid counter argument. If you notice, you yourself say "sometimes" as you are giving credence to the initial sentiment that lies are bad. You would need a counter accusation for this to be a whataboutism that dismissed the initial statement. Instead, the focus is still on lies and whether or not they are sinful

In these examples, whataboutisms expose the flaw of using broad sweeping statements concerning issues. I find this perfectly reasonable.

Those examples are not whataboutisms. I recommend reading the article I sent earlier as it goes into more detail of exactly what a whataboutism is and why it's not logical

 

[McBell]

Ok, I will answer you: Double standards is the hypocritical tendency to apply different standards on two perfectly identical people or situations.

So you have a much stricter idea of what double standards are then most people:

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same.​

So an ambulance is not the same situation as a civilian's car.
A cop chasing a criminal is not the same situation as a civilian's car.

So is this to say that you find the exceptions to speeding as not a double standard at all because they are not "identical"?

Two perfectly identical situation are two civilians, a man and a woman who both violate the law by parking on a disabled people's reserved parking lot.

Except they are not "perfectly identical".
One was a man the other was a woman.
So you are not even complying with your own presented standard of what you consider a double standard.

May I have my question answered?

Yes it is a double standard.
But as I have already said, not all double standards are a bad thing.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes it is a double standard.
But as I have already said, not all double standards are a bad thing.

Yes...they are all a bad thing.

I have seen people normalize double standards: bossy and arrogant people who think "I can because I am God, whereas you cannot because you're nothing".

 

[McBell]

Yes...they are all a bad thing.

No, they are not.
Because you cannot present a real life situation that meets your personal definition of a double standard.
Thus far you have not presented a make believe situation that meets your personal definition.

I have seen people normalize double standards: bossy and arrogant people who think "I can because I am God, whereas you cannot because you're nothing".

Please present a real life representation of your "perfectly identical situation" double standard.
Remember, the two key components are "perfectly identical" and real life.

Until you do, your personal definition is completely useless in the real world.

 

[Estro Felino]

Please present a real life representation of your "perfectly identical situation" double standard.
Remember, the two key components are "perfectly identical" and real life.

Until you do, your personal definition is completely useless in the real world.

But we are dealing with debates, here.
Do you believe that two debaters are equal?
Or that one may be superior to the other, so they deserve more than the other?

 

[McBell]

But we are dealing with debates, here.
Do you believe that two debaters are equal?
Or that one may be superior to the other, so they deserve more than the other?

That you can not present a realistic situation that your definition of double standards would apply, your definition of double standards is useless.
Even in a debate.

Since you are trying to use a completely useless personal definition of "double standards", you will need to define "equal".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The first one is "what about my great, great, great, grandfather?" The second one is "What about the person who lies to save innocent lives from an evil monster?"

The definition of a "whataboutism" is not bringing up an example that could be stated with the literal phrase "what about" at the start.

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Both of your examples deal directly with the moral claim being made. You're not changing the subject to distract from the point; you're raising legitimate examples that are contrary to the moral standard being raised.

 

[Estro Felino]

That you can not present a realistic situation that your definition of double standards would apply, your definition of double standards is useless.
Even in a debate.

Since you are trying to use a completely useless personal definition of "double standards", you will need to define "equal".

Equal means intellectually equal.
Do you believe you're an equal debater to me? Or do you consider yourself superior to me?
Say it tranquilly.

 

[McBell]

Equal means intellectually equal.
Do you believe you're an equal debater to me? Or do you consider yourself superior to me?
Say it tranquilly.

I fail to see how any honest reply would not be a rule violation.

 

[Estro Felino]

I fail to see how any honest reply would not be a rule violation.

Absolutely not. It wouldn't be.
You can say it very politely. Come on.