|
|
Heard this on an old Larry King episodeThe discussion centered around the notoriety that those responsible for mass killings get through excessive media coverage, mentioning of their name, studying them etc
Larry: Do you think its wise that we publish the name and picture of the killer whenever we have a mass killing? Ism't this a motivating factor for copycat crimes? Guest: Well we study old age and death, those are unpleasant topics, are you suggesting we discontinue that? What is the fallacy? Is there more than 1? |
| asked on Monday, Aug 03, 2015 08:33:01 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.
|
|
This is a classic Strawman Fallacy . King's argument has nothing to do with reporting "unpleasant topics," yet the guest is arguing against that objection because it is easier to criticize than the real argument. |
| answered on Monday, Aug 03, 2015 08:37:28 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Could it also be faulty comparison? That's what came to mind when I heard it but I can see strawman.
|
| answered on Tuesday, Aug 04, 2015 03:19:52 PM by mike |
Comments |
|
| |