|
|
Cause and effectSince chocolate covered strawberries and raw oysters are considered aphrodisiacs, whoever eats these two things are obviously thinking about sex and getting aroused.
|
| asked on Wednesday, Sep 07, 2016 09:55:12 AM by Kris | |
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 would say this is just confusing a probabilistic correlation with a certain one. If one were to accept that these foods do indeed promote sexual arousal (more fiction than fact), then one must realize that this is a probabilistic correlation, which means it only occurs some of the time, under certain conditions. Therefore, to claim that there is "obviously" arousal, is fallacious reasoning.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Sep 07, 2016 10:18:08 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
This is clearly a logical fallacy (a non sequitur). Even if ingesting a combination of strawberries and chocolate constitutes an aphrodisiac (and research results are far from clear) there is no indication that the participant(s) is aware of this property – they may simply enjoy the synergistic flavors. BTW, the same fallacious argument could be made substituting “anti-inflammatory property” for aphrodisiac.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Sep 07, 2016 02:24:45 PM by modelerr |
Comments |
|
| |
