|
|
Curious of a potential fallacySpecifically it was presented as a response two separate times, with the topic changing from holocaust related - not caring of humans life due to distance/inability to relate to. It followed as, “if you’re not vegan because you differentiate human life from animals, if someone said this about another countries citizens as being unworthy of moral considerations they’d be considered unbased, or close minded.” It feels like an extremely small minded way to engage with someone’s point, and almost like it’s a purposeful misdirection. Any help? |
| asked on Saturday, Apr 30, 2022 05:10:39 PM by Logan Stallings | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
Looks like the person is trying to draw an analogy between human life and animal life. Since it is considered wrong to draw a distinction between different types of human (people from different countries, for instance), the inference is that it is also wrong to draw a distinction between humans and animals. You can argue this is problematic. The comparison is not like-for-like - when drawing distinctions between different types of humans, you're still ultimately dealing with one species - humans! So they'd still fit into one category with most characteristics in common, it'd just be a case of them belonging to different geographical regions. When drawing distinctions between animals and humans, however, you're dealing with different species, as there are many different kinds of animal. In other words, they'd fit into multiple categories depending on their characteristics. Thus, you're more likely to get significant differences. Therefore, treating people who differentiate between animals and humans to those who differentiate between humans from other countries fails to take this into account. The analogy can be considered weak. Also, if someone keeps bringing up irrelevant points to change the topic, this is known as a red herring. |
| answered on Sunday, May 01, 2022 05:41:27 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
