>


Lol is high-school logic really that hard for people?

Nice fallacy you have there.
Russian debate tactics are so circular and silly. I’ve encountered them a few times on this very site. It’s like talking to a brick wall, pretty pointless. They don’t make anything resembling a good point but they’ll talk in circles until your brain turns to goo if you let them. >


Invading Ukraine is wrong.

But what about when you went to Iraq?

That was wrong too but what does it have to do with invading Ukraine?

But what about your war crimes in Iraq?

War crimes are wrong no matter where they're committed. 

So you admit the West is guilty of war crimes in Iraq?

We're talking about Ukraine.

But what about your war crimes in Iraq? >

TLDR : whataboutism >

Whataboutism is not necessarily a fallacy, it can be a perfectly valid thing if used well. Russia just uses it wrong. 
For example: 
Russia: we are here to denazify Ukraine.
World: why? Are Nazis bad? 
Russia: yes. 
World: so what about Aleksey Milchakov and his "Rusich" batallion, who is explicitly a neo-nazi, to the point where he critiqued the administration of "LNR" for antifascism? Who explicitly condones and advocates for war crimes on his Telegram channel? >

Whataboutism is never logically sound.
It's a non-sequitur to the question at hand, shifting the topic of discussion away, and seeks to discredit the source of a claim rather than looking at the validity and soundness of the claim being made.
The statement "if X is bad then any case of X is bad" is sound but whataboutism is "you say x is bad but you have done x which is bad so let me do x which is bad". It's smooth-brain shit.
Hurts to hear but hypocrites can be right. Would you ignore a smoker who got lung cancer saying don't smoke? Or would you tell them that they have smoked so you deserve to as well? >

Whataboutism is perfectly sound when it points out at a hypocricy of a party that tries to get a moral leverage. It's not only "you do X, therefore I do too," but "you say you are against X but you're doing it yourself, therefore you are lying/have a hidden agenda." >

The idea that youre saying someone is holding a beleif incencerely has nothing to do with the soundness of that beleif.
Again it's attacking the source of a claim rather than the claim.
Lol is high-school logic really that hard for people?