Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. What judgmental attitude? What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get specific. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. Fascinating. So what's your point? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|