|
|
Is this covered anywhere?I call it appeal to conflict, where because details about a thing are in dispute, the whole thing is in dispute. (creationists love this) |
| asked on Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 10:35:47 AM by beepboop | |
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 might be inflation of conflict |
| answered on Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 11:29:49 AM by Ed F | |
Ed F Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
" where because details about a thing are in dispute, the whole thing is in dispute."....depends on what the disputed detail(s) is I guess. But calling the "whole thing" wrong because one or so details are wrong is the fallacy of composition I think. |
| answered on Sunday, Mar 20, 2022 02:00:46 AM by skips777 | |
skips777 Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
