|
|
Which fallacy?Safe-injection sites opened up in a downtown park over the weekend, Toronto Public Health has announced it will open an interim site where people can shoot their drugs in a safe environment.
On a radio call in show today I heard the following from a caller: These people choose to use drugs and are responsible for their own situation, we should devote the money to autism services for kids instead. |
| asked on Friday, Aug 18, 2017 10:33:07 PM by mike | |
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.
|
|
I think this is nothing more than an opinion.
|
| answered on Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 06:52:39 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
I think maybe I need to make it clearer.
Person A: Evidence shows that supervised injection sites save lives without increasing drug use or crime in the surrounding area. I think they are a good idea. Person B: These people choose to use drugs and are responsible for their own situation, we should devote the money to autism services for kids instead. Does Person B commit a fallacy with his response? |
| answered on Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 08:20:57 AM by mike |
Comments |
|
| |
