What fallacy is this?

Question

Jason Mathias	What fallacy is this? Person T did something illegal and corrupt. People D take legal action against person T. Person T claims people D are idiots and therefor that means person T is innocent.
	asked on Thursday, Oct 17, 2019 09:31:22 PM by Jason Mathias
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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

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.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

Steven Hobbs 0	non sequitur The premise does not support the conclusion.
	answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 01:22:38 AM by Steven Hobbs
Comments

mchasewalker 0	D’s charge T with being a corrupt criminal T claims D ’s are idiots Therefore T is innocent Argumentum Ad hominem Corruption is a crime Insulting one’s accusers is not a defense
	answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 03:11:06 AM by mchasewalker
Comments

skips777 0	People are idiots, therefore, T is innocent.....ad hominem
	answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 03:30:53 AM by skips777
Comments

Bo Bennett, PhD 0	The relevant part is "Person T claims people D are idiots and therefor that means person T is innocent." Idiots can be correct about the guilt of person T regardless of any intellectual deficiencies they might have. This is a classic Ad Hominem (abusive) . More generally, it is also a non-sequitur .
	answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 06:35:56 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Comments

Citizen Irrelevant 0	Although there is an ad hominem component ( the perjorative insult leveled ), the fallacy seems a straightforward non-sequitur.
	answered on Friday, Oct 18, 2019 06:49:42 PM by Citizen Irrelevant
Comments