|
|
Slippery slope?You woke up in the morning at 7:00 see you have 40 more mins after you woke up for office you see you have ten mins and you walk fast. Because you slept 20 more mins you ran to office because you are late and because you are late you ran fast and if you ran fast then you are more careless and because you are more careless you have more chances of accident |
| asked on Tuesday, Jul 27, 2021 11:50:48 AM by | |
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."
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.
|
|
This is stated as a past event—it already happened (not might happen). So no fallacy, just a course of events. |
| answered on Tuesday, Jul 27, 2021 02:08:55 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
No fallacies, and it's not even necessarily unsound - you're in less control of your body running than walking (though I wouldn't say significantly so; it's just a bit harder to stop). It's only problematic if we act as in an accident is likely or bound to happen (rather than just being more likely); that would be a non sequitur. |
| answered on Tuesday, Jul 27, 2021 03:09:05 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
