|
|
I Have 2 Questions.Q1:What is the fallacy called when someone only 1 day short of 18 says “I can drink because there isn’t much difference between an 18 year old and somebody who’s almost 18”? (I remember reading this example in your book) Q2:where is the fallacy in the statement:If your friends would jump off a well,would you too? |
| asked on Saturday, Jan 16, 2021 12:21:20 PM 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.
|
|
Q1: You are referring to the argument of the beard . The example you present, however, is of a different structure so not fallacious (at least not in the same way). Your example is more an issue with simply being wrong about the law. Q2: No fallacy, that is not an argument. You could reword it to make an appeal to popularity , if the claim is that it would be the right thing to do. |
| answered on Monday, Jan 18, 2021 08:51:23 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Since the proposal of 1 day short easily converts to only 1 day short of 1 day short, I believe the fallacy becomes one of slippery slope . Usually, the context is the basis of a warning, but here it's behind the claim. I don't see a fallacy in the second statement. It's part of an admonishment not to follow the friends in error |
| answered on Sunday, Jan 17, 2021 08:54:11 AM by DrBill | |
DrBill Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Q1 I see this as an issue of context, not a logical fallacy. Depending upon the context, being one day short of eighteen is not much different than being eighteen. BUT IF you are talking about the legal aspect, then the proposition becomes: One may not legally drink until age eighteen. You are not age eighteen. Ergo, you may not legally drink. The kid’s better argument would be that it is tomorrow in Australia. Therefore, he is eighteen. :)
Q2 I see this only as a question to the kid. He can answer yes or not. |
| answered on Sunday, Jan 17, 2021 12:20:35 PM by Dr. Richard | |
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
