No dude. Whattaboutism is when you accuse another of possible hypocrisy to discredit a claim without addressing the underlying logic behind it. When you manage to address a claim (or at least feel enough that your reply managed to refute it) and point out possible hypocrisy after the fact. That is, what it is. Pointing out hypocrisy. The big difference and the important differentiator that makes one a fallacy and the other not is the fact that one act addresses the original claim/logic. As simply pointing out hypocrisy in itself does not address/refute anything.

Anyone is free to debate me on this if they feel my understanding of logical fallacies cringe-y. But I’m confident that I can defend my correct definition and understanding of it. I’m not sure you can do the same, tbh.

And semantics are actually important in this scenario as the specific differences matter and an incorrect understanding of a fallacy could cause you to call out fallacy where none existed. <— this is a big deal.

I can’t, of course, speak for others. But if they did commit Whattaboutism, that is on them, not me.

For the record, I intended to be combative as well. Sorry about that. But I feel that if I didn’t coax into a discussion, you’d just throw another ill-used meme at me. Personally, I can take a nice ribbing. But I’m kinda anal about certain things (use of logical fallacies being one).

But you are right, let’s not get aggressive here as it achieves nothing and if you would allow me to explain why I even bring this stuff up: It is because I AM anal about certain things. One of them is logical consistency and intellectual honesty. I feel certain ppl split hairs and use arbitrary and self/media defined qualifiers to differentiate the bad actions of one person that they do not like from their own actions or from the actions of others they do like. Such as when they think Trump’s actions need to be held at a higher standard simply because he is President but when pressed on why, most would provide sketchy or not clearly defined, possibly biased criteria.

This creates a double standard, an inconsistency of logic and a subjective approach to accountability. I feel that the media has basically convinced certain ppl that hypocrisy is ok for as long as it helps them hate the person they are told to hate. Of course, I could very well be wrong. I am willing to discuss my point, that is why I post. And I would love it if we would all do it with respect towards each other’s beliefs.

All-in-all, I am just trying to understand their thought process (I believe that ppl are mostly good, rational and logical individuals, that is why I refuse to believe this is simply an emotional reaction) as I honest to goodness do not get it and that is why I ask.

Yes, because if you wronged the person who's putting out the hit on your kids, because let's say you already took out their kids for whatever reason, then how can you say they would be at the same level of fault? What if the person who performed the act, was indebted to them indirectly and their own kids lives were on the line if they didn't do it?

I don't disagree that when it becomes extremely personal it's not as easy to see things the same way in many cases, but the context most certainly matters as well.

If I wronged someone and they came for me you would have a case.  If I wronged someone and they decided to take it out on my family, why would anyone feel like that would be ok.  You are throwing way to many hypothetical what ifs into a basic question.  How much wrong would you have to do to someone else that you would feel its justified for someone to take out your family.  Lets say you destroyed a person car and as retaliation they decided to take out your family.  Why would you care if someone else was indebted to the person asking them to kill your kids.  That statement doesn't make sense to the context of the original question since I stated the person asking someone to kill your kids not the person who did the crime.  

How much context do you need to justify anyone taking out your family.  The only way I can view your statement is just another way to not come to a decision.  For each question I ask, you keep moving the goal post so you do not have to answer it.  Like I said, you are just jerking my chain.

You just answered why. The fact that I posed those questions, and at least one made you explain how it would make the situation different, is the entire point. You were the one who was talking about how much, if any, would be more at fault between the killer and the person of influence. If the person who commits the act, isn't simply doing it because their a cold blooded killer, but because they stand to lose as much as you, or more, I would personally say that changes their level of fault in the scenario. The question you pose cannot be just a simple basic general question without me giving a simple basic generic answer, and I've already explained I can't do that because I believe it's not the case for every situation.

You sure I answered why.  You gave so many excuses, I thought I would narrow down your rational to get you to actually make a decision instead of giving me a hundred what ifs as if anyone would care.  Since you appear to care about a thousand permutations, I thought it best to try to limit you to one dimension so I can get a direct answer.

Who cares if they did it because they are a cold bloodied killer or that they were confused or that they mistook you for someone else.  Who cares if they could lose as much as you  or they are a nice guy or feed the hungry.  Who cares if they are a priest or a teacher or any other excuse you can dream up to not answer a direct question.  The basic question, if someone ask another person to kill your kids DO YOU believe they are just as guilty as the person committing the crime.

In another effort to remove all excuses so what would you believe absolves a person from asking another person to kill your kids.  lets try the reverse psychology route.  So what scenario would you believe a person is not just as guilty as the person who actually committed the crime.  You can limit it to just one answer.

Like when Trump said 'I like a guy who can give a good body slam'. If someone went out and body slammed another politician and killed them, I would give Trump almost no blame, and the body slammer the overwhelming majority.

As for who cares, if the killer is mentally challenged/ill, are you really going to give them equal blame?

Ok, that at least clears up your stance on such a topic.

To your second paragraph, who would you give more blame to.  If killer is mentally challenged but the person who ask that person to kill someone and the mentally challenged does, who gets the blame.

I can tell you from my own point of view both still equal to blame.  The only difference is that the person who asked the mental person to commit such a crime should be throw in jail at the least while the mentally challenged person should be taken off the streets until is proven that person is no longer a danger to be used again.  Either neither should be given a pass.

To go back to the Trump phrase I used, in that specific case I would say not only is he still hardly to blame, but the mentally challenged killer is also hardly to blame (assuming this is out of the ordinary and not like the maga bombers history). Now if Trump had said a somewhat similar phrase but in a more direct way, in which it was more clear he was advocating for violence, then that would add more blame to him. If he said that more violent phrase directly to the eventual killer behind closed doors, instead of at a public rally with a crowd, that would add even more blame. If he knew or could easily assume that the eventual killer was mentally challenged/unstable/ill and still fed them the more violent phrase, then the majority if not entirety of the blame would be his. What exactly was said and how it was said would also surely matter, but without getting too specific, that's my view in this case. Now either way, I agree, the mental person needs help regardless and can't be left to their own devices, and as for the initiator, they either get a free pass for the killer interpreting it wrong, or they face the legal system and potentially jail time if they are clearly more to blame.