Is the following tu quo que a reasonable argument?

Don't be a communist, you saw what happened in Russia


And the slave trade was run by capitalists.

I'm not even sure if the reply is true, but wondered what the argument was like.


The argument used here is an argument from analogy. It is not an instance of tu quoque as not being ad hominem.

Expanding reasoning, it means:

  1. And the slave trade was run by capitalists.

  2. Don't be a capitalist, you saw what happened in capitalist countries (1).

Is the following tu quo que a reasonable argument?

Whether an analogy is a reasonable argument, depends on it's applicability.

Linked wikipedia page contains info about the fallacy called "False analogy". It violates the second rule of analogy - it's applicability.

In either case, in given situation you'd want to have a better argument than

you saw what happened in Russia

| improve this answer | |
  • hm not sure it's an argument from analogy, rather than a generalization or even tu quoque – user34105 Jul 14 '18 at 17:04
  • It can't be tu quoque, since you did not sell slaves. Generalization is exactly your argument. Analogy of generalization is generalization as well. – rus9384 Jul 14 '18 at 17:14

This argument is a real mess. For one thing there's a type/ token fallacy : it does not follow, because Communism (type) produced (arguably) bad results in Russia (token), that as a type of system Communism invariably or even probably produces bad results (bad tokens). (I'm not saying whether it does or doesn't - I am exposing only the illogic of the argument.)

There is also a fallacy of irrelevance. Even if Capitalism, another system, produces bad results, it does not follow that Communism doesn't. Nor does the single if terrible example of slavery on the Capitalist side enable an overall comparison of the relative badness of the results of Communism and Capitalism.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy