|
|
Disagreeing with part of it is not disagreeing with all of it...Sometimes when I disagree with one part of some ideology the response is that if I disagree with one part then I must disagree with all of it. Take feminism for instance. I agree with most of feminism but some really weird stuff is occasionally slipped in. Lets say this weird idea is X. Only a small minority of extreme radical feminists believe in X but it is represented as if all or most do. Then if you question X the response is that if you disagree with X then you reject all of feminism. But I only disagree with X.
This might be the packaged deal fallacy. -Thanks |
| asked on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2018 08:38:55 PM by noblenutria@gmail.com | |
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 the package-deal fallacy fits well. More importantly than the name, we must realize that this thinking is fallacious. This is similar to the idea that if you disagree with any radical social justice idea, then you are a "Nazi." A big problem in this current sociopolitical environment.
|
| answered on Thursday, Feb 15, 2018 06:13:52 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
