|
|
I didn't need it when i was a kidPerson A claims kids need x
Person b says they didn't need it when they were a kid so they don't need it. I think this is appeal to tradition of argue from ignorance, but I'm not too sure. |
| asked on Friday, Nov 02, 2018 02:01:16 PM by JT Hendrickson | |
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 could also be a form of the historian's fallacy. However, I think the best match is simply the weak analogy. |
| answered on Friday, Nov 02, 2018 02:30:21 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
I think it is mostly a hasty generalization fallacy. The argument states that because I as a kid (one individual) didn't need X, therefore kids (in general) don't need X.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization |
| answered on Saturday, Nov 03, 2018 04:08:35 AM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
excuse my englisch and/or assumptions
if person A makes a generalization, person B can react to the claim including the generelization. stating that kids dont "need" x if you take it out of kontext, and look at person B's claim seperetly it could state, : kids "might not" need X important is that person A isnt stating, witch kids need X, so calling person B on its generelization doesnt bring you to the primary fallacy. in fact it seems that person B atempts to call person A on its fallacy (something with unprovided information i guess) without B's information A would generalize. |
| answered on Saturday, Nov 03, 2018 01:46:39 PM by thbosscher |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
So, essentially the argument is a rejection of an idea solely based on the age of the claimant?
Chronological Snobbery. |
| answered on Saturday, Nov 03, 2018 02:24:49 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Sounds like an anecdotal fallacy to me |
| answered on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2021 12:35:11 PM by Philip | |
Philip Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
