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.
|
Simply calling attention to the technique should be sufficient. For example, "You have listed a number of arguments, all of which deserve to be addressed. However, let's take one at a time." A more assertive response might be "You have made many unsupported claims, all of which have been debunked ad nauseaum ." You can continue with "I would be glad to debunk them all for you here, but this would be outside the scope of this debate." or "Let's take them one at a time."
Another technique is to simply provide a link to place where someone else responded to the claim. For example: Person 1: The earth is flat. Pigs fly. Elvis is still alive. Person 2: "The earth is flat." - No, it's not: nasa.gov... "Pigs fly" - No, they don't: pigsdontfly.com... "Elvis is still alive" - No, he's not: elvisiswormfood.com... The important part is to project confidence that these claims being made are without merit (if, in fact they are). |
answered on Monday, Mar 30, 2015 07:41:48 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|