|
|
You have rights - as long as you don't use them.Imagine a political activist (Mr. X) who calls a politician (Mr. Z) a traitor. Furious, the government passes a law making it illegal to call public officials traitors.
Instead of getting angry at the government, the public turns on Mr. X: "If you had just kept your mouth shut, we'd still have that right!" What they're effectively saying is we have certain rights in theory, which is really cool - just as long as we don't actually use those rights. Does the public's argument constitute a fallacy? If so, what kind? |
| asked on Thursday, May 24, 2018 03:57:50 PM by David Blomstrom | |
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.
|
|
That is funny! It sound like an Inconsistency |
| answered on Thursday, May 24, 2018 04:00:51 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wouldn't this be a false cause? He's done nothing wrong, and at worst is a catalyst.
|
| answered on Thursday, May 24, 2018 05:39:30 PM by Bryan |
Comments |
|
| |