Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
Person 2 is banking on the assumption that if 2 words are different from each other, they describe different concepts. This ignores the possibility that they could be synonymous terms. If they are synonyms, then the premise is false. E.g. "furious" and "livid" are both phrases used to refer to extreme anger. This is less to do with fallacies and more to do with incorrect information. |
answered on Wednesday, Oct 06, 2021 05:20:22 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Without knowing what X and Y is it would be hard to say if it is a fallacy or not. Sometimes different words have the same meaning sometimes they do not. |
answered on Wednesday, Oct 06, 2021 11:24:27 AM by richard smith | |
richard smith Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Ambiguous assertion. The subterfuge is intentional. |
answered on Wednesday, Oct 06, 2021 06:45:06 PM by R. K. Borill | |
R. K. Borill Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Ambiguous assertion. The subterfuge is intentional. |
|||
answered on Thursday, Oct 07, 2021 01:20:27 PM by Kaiden | ||||
Kaiden Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|