Is the Israeli regime response to Stephen Hawking a "Tu quoque" fallacy?

Is the Israeli regime response to Stephen Hawking a "Tu quoque" fallacy? Topic: Latin case system
June 20, 2019 / By Brodie
Question: RESPONSE OF THE ISRAELI REGIME Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," TU QUOQUE FALLACY Tu quoque (pron.: /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Best Answer

Best Answers: Is the Israeli regime response to Stephen Hawking a "Tu quoque" fallacy?

Ailward Ailward | 8 days ago
Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, (780 – 850 CE), was the grandfather of computer science and the father of Algebra.In that case we can expect to hear less of the Israelis whinging about Muslims and dem pesky Persians?
👍 224 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Is the Israeli regime response to Stephen Hawking a "Tu quoque" fallacy? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Latin case system

Ailward Originally Answered: Stephen Hawking's argument: The universe created itself?
I agree, hawking's presentation along side his new book, were a disappointment. His book had nothing new in respect to the physics, and his misconceptions of the western view of God in the premiere of curiosity were laughable. No christian holds that God is a explanation of the universe in that he is the one to "light the touch paper". as John Lennox, mathematician said, "God is the God of the whole show".God is an explanation in the same sense that a aerospace engineer is the explanation of a Jet engine. we can tell you how the components of the jet engine came about but that does not fully explain its existence, that is only one dimension. The second thing that I found was unbelievable is that Hawking assumed that God somehow existed within time. he said in curiosity, that " sense there ws no time before the big bang, God did not have time to create" (paraphrase). that is ridiculous, no christian theist holds that God exists within time let alone physical. Hawking also seems to be defeating his whole theory. Hawking stated in his new book, The Grand Design, that the law of gravity is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The funny thing is is that laws, by definition require initial conditions in order to "act". for example, in order to have a release of kinetic energy you need potential energy. In order to get potential energy you need time to build that energy. similarly in order for gravity to cause the big bang, you need time in order for gravity to act. given a timeless state, the universe could not have began to exist out of mere laws. now, you said that your first "argument", was merely something in christian theology. I agree, but this idea is supported by logic. look up Hilbert's infinite hotel paradox. Hilbert concluded that a infinite set of things cannot actually exist. meaning in a set of cause and effect there must be a uncaused cause or unmoved mover, as Thomas Aquinas put it.
Ailward Originally Answered: Stephen Hawking's argument: The universe created itself?
He's not assuming that times stops in a black hole because time is relative to velocity and gravity. Time does in fact not exist inside a black hole where gravity is infinite. " He preferred to believe that the universe created itself rather than believe that a divine being created it." This is something that you believers will never understand about the logically wired minds of atheists. It's not a matter of preference, rather what the EVIDENCE presents. There is a BASIS (evidence) for everything Hawking presents. When scientists measure the matter/energy in the universe it adds up to ZERO. It's counter intuitive to how the human mind perceives things, but it is human arrogance that ASSUMES nature must follow their way. That's why they create Gods in "their" image. Most people can't look outside of the human box they are in, therefore they assume everything must be as their insignificant existence sees it. Nature is greater than humans and only when you realize that can you hope to understand how nature really is. Virtual particles can and do manifest out of the vacuum of space (what we would call "nothing"). There is no "nothing" in nature so it can create an entire universe starting at zero (not nothing). All positive matter in the universe has an equal amount of negative energy (gravity), so it is reasonable to think the universe can come from what we call "nothing". If the positive can cancel out the negative with a net result of zero, then it's reasonable to conclude that it can start from zero. Science doesn't have all the answers, but their theories are hardly the wild guesses or wishful thinking like you are proposing.
Ailward Originally Answered: Stephen Hawking's argument: The universe created itself?
It doesn't matter if an atheist can answer this....this is a question for physicists, not atheists. I'm getting sick of theists who think that atheists must be able to answer every question of physics that can be conceived. No amount of science can ever prove or disprove god. At most, it could demonstrate that a god wouldn't be necessary. At a minimum, it could demonstrate that science presently cannot account for nature without a god. In neither case are we left with a statement about whether or not a god exists. However, here's the bigger issue: Neither you nor myself have nearly enough qualifications to speak on these matters in opposition to the professionals. You might think you see some error they make, but you do not have enough understanding of everything in play to have any authority on the subject. Neither do I. It's problematic to say "Oh, so you're just going to take what the pros say and accept it blindly?" Absolutely I am. I do the same thing when I go to the doctor or the mechanic or my accountant. Even if I think they are overlooking something, I recognize that I am simply not knowledgeable myself to oppose them -- and that's the prudent thing for me to do. Why people think science is the main arena for arguments for/against god is beyond me. Philosophy is much more fertile ground for proving or disproving god, and it's a game that virtually anyone can play. Btw, I disagree with your statement that an atheist cannot prove god doesn't exist. IMO, the problem of evil and the problem of doxastic voluntarism do just that. Disproving god is not akin to asserting a universal negative because god is also a relation between ideas. I can prove no four-sided triangles exist, and I may similarly be able to prove that no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god created the world we live in.

Suzanna Suzanna
No. Stephen Hawking is another "thunder stealing" Babylonian who has used the (relatively domestically peaceful, free, and successful) Judeo-Christian West without giving credit where credit is due.
👍 90 | 👎 0

Suzanna Originally Answered: Can someone help me spot a fallacy??
In question 1, in his answer he never says whether he's planning to make a change, nor does he discuss why his present plan would not lead to a catastrophe (which is the focus of the question). In question 2, he talks about reactions to Dr. X. Streamist's idea, not to his own plan. In question 3, he talks about the view of an elderly gentleman he met, not about his own plan So, essentially, he avoids ever answering any of the questions about his own policies. These are typical ways that politicians use to sound good but avoid responding to the question they were actually asked.

If you have your own answer to the question latin case system, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.