|
|
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."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
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 |
|
|
| |
