Right, (we) have this new meme which is paddled now as a winning phrase of any discussion pointing out double-standard ... it is a invented nonesense and stand on no legal or moral grounds. It is a vapor on which you stand, and signals low levels of own thinking.
In the English common law and in many other countries not directly based on that concept there is something called "precedent". It ensures consistency of application of written laws. There is so much to unpack that one cannot do it here.
From logic point of view it fails as it neglects "and" clause. If I disagree Paul killing John AND I also disagree with Anna killing Marry. There is no OR, which is where "whataboutism" fails miserably (as it has or in its definition).
But the original comment tried to compare it on a moral plane. And that is exactly what I responded to. There is no moral ground to say Russia is worse in its warcrimes than US (or any other country). A warcrime is a warcrime. There is no low and high depending to which nation we hold our allegiance to (at least not for me). Just ponder for a minute this number "Over 600,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a direct consequence of US President George W." [If you serious student of international law then I recommend this (not as a sole authority but as a data point in forming views): https://www.amazon.com/Protesting-Power-Resistance-Peace-Lib...]
It is precisely this time that it is necessary to call out double speak, duplicity and crookedness of how international laws and morality is selectively applied. The events that are happening are far from unprecedented and that should be put into perspective to tame the manufactured emotions, especially when speaking about morality. That is justice and fairness to the current and past victims the west conveniently puts into collective blind-spot. (And "we" are wondering "why do they hate us; it must be our democracy..." -- if you are not young enough to remember those headlines).
In the English common law and in many other countries not directly based on that concept there is something called "precedent". It ensures consistency of application of written laws. There is so much to unpack that one cannot do it here.
From logic point of view it fails as it neglects "and" clause. If I disagree Paul killing John AND I also disagree with Anna killing Marry. There is no OR, which is where "whataboutism" fails miserably (as it has or in its definition).
But the original comment tried to compare it on a moral plane. And that is exactly what I responded to. There is no moral ground to say Russia is worse in its warcrimes than US (or any other country). A warcrime is a warcrime. There is no low and high depending to which nation we hold our allegiance to (at least not for me). Just ponder for a minute this number "Over 600,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a direct consequence of US President George W." [If you serious student of international law then I recommend this (not as a sole authority but as a data point in forming views): https://www.amazon.com/Protesting-Power-Resistance-Peace-Lib...]
It is precisely this time that it is necessary to call out double speak, duplicity and crookedness of how international laws and morality is selectively applied. The events that are happening are far from unprecedented and that should be put into perspective to tame the manufactured emotions, especially when speaking about morality. That is justice and fairness to the current and past victims the west conveniently puts into collective blind-spot. (And "we" are wondering "why do they hate us; it must be our democracy..." -- if you are not young enough to remember those headlines).