Inconsistency of words in the case

As in the previous form of manipulation, here the discussion of the topic is essentially replaced by a discussion of the opponent. Only if before there was any defaming discredit, in this case the manipulator shows the discrepancy between the arguments of the interlocutor to his own behavior, manifestations of character, life principles and position.

Suppose you are talking about war, and your counterpart asks: "How can you argue, if you yourself have not participated in any war?"

"Inconsistency of the words to the case" - manipulation is diverse:

• "What do you teach me when I did it in my youth?"
• "You are talking about modern fashion, and you yourself go in worn, dirty shoes made in China! Do not make me laugh!"
• "You say that you can not show aggression towards animals, but you yourself go in a leather jacket!"
  "You will first learn how to speak Russian without mistakes, and then make comments on how to put stress on me!"

For example, the father teaches his son: "It's harmful to smoke! This is very harmful to your health! This is a very harmful habit! "- and gives a number of arguments. According to the laws of logic and constructive dialogue, the opponent is obliged to bring a counterargument to each of the arguments or, alternatively, to defend his position. But this is not easy, is it? And besides it is laborious.

Even children and adolescents without a rich communicative experience understand that it is easier to turn their blow against the interlocutor, thus devaluating the importance of his words. Therefore it is not surprising that the son responds in response to the words of his father: "Why are you here teaching me when you smoke yourself?"