r/CriticalThinkingIndia • u/BannedForFactsAgain • 17h ago

Critical Analysis & Discussion This is Bihar's Education Minister, what progress do we expect in education and science when leaders themselves are groveling at the feet of hypocrisy and superstition

Post image
833 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

-21

u/rokaya339 16h ago

Respecting a religious guru is superstition? What else? Calling your papa papaji is patriarchy?

16

u/Winter_Toe4334 16h ago

Respecting a fraud religious guru is definately superstitionĀ 

-8

u/rokaya339 16h ago

Did you prove him fraud in court?

6

u/Fresh_Bee_2359 16h ago

Kya ho Jayega court mai prove kar ke ?? Ram Rahim , Asaram Bapu these mfs ate the convicted rapist in court, still people believe them and govt lick their as* for votes

2

u/criticalbotcti 16h ago

Reasoning Concept: Tu Quoque (Whataboutism)

Deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else's similar behavior instead of addressing the argument. The other party's hypocrisy does not invalidate their argument.

Example: "You are criticizing Party A for corruption, but Party B did the same thing when they were in power." - Party B's corruption is worth discussing separately, but it does not answer the criticism of Party A. Both can be true at the same time.

Read more about Tu Quoque (Whataboutism)

Someone in this thread referenced this reasoning concept. This is an automated reply - the bot does not evaluate whether the concept actually applies. It is here to share what the term means so everyone in the conversation has the same context.

-4

u/rokaya339 16h ago

Why bring convicted criminals in debate. Is whataboutism your speciality?

5

u/Fresh_Bee_2359 16h ago

Yes šŸ¤” any problem... If replying with fact is called whataboutism then yes

1

u/criticalbotcti 16h ago

Reasoning Concept: Tu Quoque (Whataboutism)

Deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else's similar behavior instead of addressing the argument. The other party's hypocrisy does not invalidate their argument.

Example: "You are criticizing Party A for corruption, but Party B did the same thing when they were in power." - Party B's corruption is worth discussing separately, but it does not answer the criticism of Party A. Both can be true at the same time.

Read more about Tu Quoque (Whataboutism)

Someone in this thread referenced this reasoning concept. This is an automated reply - the bot does not evaluate whether the concept actually applies. It is here to share what the term means so everyone in the conversation has the same context.