Jason Mathias

Are there any fallacies in this internet meme?


asked on Thursday, Sep 09, 2021 02:25:59 PM by Jason Mathias

Top Categories Suggested by Community


Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

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.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book


Bo Bennett, PhD

This appears to be an unsupported claim rather than an argument. If it were fitted into an argument, we might have a false premise or at least a premise that is unsupported.

p1. In real pandemics, every single healthcare worker would take the vaccine created to end the pandemic.

p2. Every single healthcare worker is not taking the vaccine.

C. Therefore, this isn't a real pandemic.

answered on Thursday, Sep 09, 2021 02:31:57 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories


Jason Mathias writes:

I think is what the meme is saying is why would they fire healthcare workers when they need as many healthcare workers as possible during a real pandemic. Could it be a non sequitur?

posted on Thursday, Sep 09, 2021 02:44:04 PM
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Yeah, same problems. Unsupported claims. Depending how the argument is worded, it might be non sequitur .

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Sep 09, 2021 02:45:27 PM
Jason Mathias writes:

Yeah, I think it could be a non sequitur since the conclusion does not follow. I would think the opposite, I would think that its important for those caring for sick and dying people in the hospital during a pandemic to be protected and protect their patients by having to be vaccinated. 

posted on Thursday, Sep 09, 2021 03:10:17 PM
Rationalissimus of the Elenchus

This isn't an argument; the claim needs buttressing though. It's suggesting that, if the pandemic were such an emergency, then the healthcare system would need all the help it can get - and you certainly don't start by firing essential, experienced workers for refusing get vaccinated when you need all the help you can get...

...or do you? Well, you might, if you consider those workers to be a risk to the patients they're caring for. While vaccination isn't perfect, it's demonstrably cut transmission rates (yes, including the Super Mega Death variants the media talks about, even if by considerably less) as well as reducing hospitalisation and fatalities. If frontline workers choose not to take a vaccine, they're more likely to spread infection to others. Thus, it makes sense to drop people who are presenting this risk to patients.

That is, from one point of view. But as the above entails, the statement requires support.

answered on Thursday, Sep 09, 2021 03:35:32 PM by Rationalissimus of the Elenchus

Rationalissimus of the Elenchus Suggested These Categories