Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Man Accused of Skinning and Baking His Cat

emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 2:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Not reading it.
But, I see no difference between the two, except one's arbitrary preferences.
My work here is, finally, done.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because we are omnivores? Because we need meat? As well, dogs and cats are carnivores, while cows, pigs, chicken, and other animals we generally eat are not carnivores. Even as we, humans, are omnivores, we still function best by eating mostly a carnivorous diet.
Some keep pigs as pets, some keep rabbits as pets, and those same animals are food as well. There's horse meat available too.

The issue is not that he ate the cat, it's why he did it. Cats and dogs are generally regarded as members of family or rather companions, or such, while cattle and such are kept and bred specifically for meat.

As well, cats and dogs have over thousands of years and more become part of our society. They've been helpful/useful with hunting, with getting rid of vermin, it's as well nice to pat one once in a while, etc.

Whoever asked "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?" has a lot to learn about reality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

I don't see how the statement "If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow?" is any less valid than the statement "If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:19:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:17:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

I don't see how the statement "If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow?" is any less valid than the statement "If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

It depends on who's reading it. Which ever one seems more logical depends entirely on where is reading it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:20:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:19:42 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:17:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

I don't see how the statement "If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow?" is any less valid than the statement "If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

It depends on who's reading it. Which ever one seems more logical depends entirely on where is reading it.

lol....
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:21:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:19:42 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:17:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

I don't see how the statement "If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow?" is any less valid than the statement "If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

It depends on who's reading it. Which ever one seems more logical depends entirely on who is reading it.

Fixed.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:21:05 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:19:42 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:17:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

I don't see how the statement "If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow?" is any less valid than the statement "If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

It depends on who's reading it. Which ever one seems more logical depends entirely on who is reading it.

Fixed.

That's not why I lolled, btw. I didn't even catch that
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:23:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:21:05 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:19:42 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:17:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

I don't see how the statement "If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow?" is any less valid than the statement "If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

It depends on who's reading it. Which ever one seems more logical depends entirely on who is reading it.

Fixed.

That's not why I lolled, btw. I didn't even catch that

I never catch my spelling mistakes in time.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

Try saying that in India...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:12:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:10:18 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:12:54 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:52:45 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:50:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:16:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

Flawed reasoning... It's not "If you wouldn't eat a dog, why would you eat a cow." It's "If I'd eat a cow, why wouldn't I eat a dog?"

Answer? I don't want to. But I would if I did want to. Preferences. Pets... Even farmers won't eat their favorite cow. You don't eat your pets, be them dog or chicken.

How is that flawed reasoning?...

It's like saying:
"If it's wrong to eat a cat, why isn't it wrong to eat a cow."

The actual logic goes:
"If it's okay to eat a cow, it should be okay to eat a cat."

And technically, it is okay to eat a cat. Many nations do it.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Both of those statements are fundamentally the same, as they are both predicated on the equivalence (in the relevant capacity) of the animals mentioned.

They are opposite interpretations of the same statement.

One phrasing of the statement is saying that because it's bad to eat a cat, it's bad to eat a cow. The other statement is saying that because it's okay to eat a cow, it's okay to eat a cat.

Being the same statement s completely irrelevant. The fallacy is in corrupted interpretation. Interpretation can change the meaning of a statement. Like twisting the wording. Since it's universally acceptable to eat cow, we must conclude it's universally acceptable to eat a cat.

Try saying that in India...

Lol. Very true.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 4:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

I would respond, "Good question". In fact if one thinks about it from a sustainability and ecological standpoint, it really makes not one bit of sense for a county of 300 million to reduce diversity and standardize on only four meat sources, cows, chickens, pigs, and occasionally turkey.

We should be eating rabbits, deer, horses and all types of critters. It is safe to say that meat has many cultural constraints and expectations upon it. It is also safe to say that those cultural preferences are not rooted in logic in any shape or form with the exception when the cultural preferences allows for the widest diversity possible.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 7:46:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

I'm pretty sure there is.
Hunting licenses, animal cruelty laws, and numerous regulations, like selling raw almonds and milk, constantly deny people access to food.
Whether or not these laws should exist is not the point.

http://www.slate.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:04:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 7:46:20 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

I'm pretty sure there is.
Hunting licenses, animal cruelty laws, and numerous regulations, like selling raw almonds and milk, constantly deny people access to food.
Whether or not these laws should exist is not the point.

http://www.slate.com...

Did you even read your source?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.

Ya, well I don't like fish or eggs for dinner every night. Goody for you if you do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:04:10 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 7:46:20 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:25:18 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.mfablog.org...

Any thoughts?

This article begs the question of "If you wouldn't eat your dog, cat or parakeet, why would you eat a cow, pig or chicken?"

How would you respond to such a question?

People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

I'm pretty sure there is.
Hunting licenses, animal cruelty laws, and numerous regulations, like selling raw almonds and milk, constantly deny people access to food.
Whether or not these laws should exist is not the point.

http://www.slate.com...

Did you even read your source?

Yes.
It said that in some states, there are laws expressly prohibiting the eating of certain animals.
My work here is, finally, done.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:06:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.

Ya, well I don't like fish or eggs for dinner every night. Goody for you if you do.

"It's not clear whether the eating itself is outlawed or only the butchery." That means you can not sell the meat. You can eat your cat or dog in the privacy of your own home. The law is vague because they cant up hold it. They can outlaw everything but eating for personal consumption on private property.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:24:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:11:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:06:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.

Ya, well I don't like fish or eggs for dinner every night. Goody for you if you do.

"It's not clear whether the eating itself is outlawed or only the butchery." That means you can not sell the meat. You can eat your cat or dog in the privacy of your own home. The law is vague because they cant up hold it. They can outlaw everything but eating for personal consumption on private property.

They can uphold any damn thing they want. I am constantly appalled at how little people understand the common law system. There is nothing that prevents them from outlawing eating for personal consumption on private property... nothing.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:27:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:24:28 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:11:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:06:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.

Ya, well I don't like fish or eggs for dinner every night. Goody for you if you do.

"It's not clear whether the eating itself is outlawed or only the butchery." That means you can not sell the meat. You can eat your cat or dog in the privacy of your own home. The law is vague because they cant up hold it. They can outlaw everything but eating for personal consumption on private property.

They can uphold any damn thing they want. I am constantly appalled at how little people understand the common law system. There is nothing that prevents them from outlawing eating for personal consumption on private property... nothing.

Arresting and convicting are two different animals
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:27:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:24:28 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:11:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:06:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.

Ya, well I don't like fish or eggs for dinner every night. Goody for you if you do.

"It's not clear whether the eating itself is outlawed or only the butchery." That means you can not sell the meat. You can eat your cat or dog in the privacy of your own home. The law is vague because they cant up hold it. They can outlaw everything but eating for personal consumption on private property.

They can uphold any damn thing they want. I am constantly appalled at how little people understand the common law system. There is nothing that prevents them from outlawing eating for personal consumption on private property... nothing.

Arresting and convicting are two different animals

No matter how difficult it may be to prove you ate your dog, they can still make it illegal and you will still go to prison if they do prove it.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:34:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:30:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:27:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:24:28 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:11:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:06:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:55:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/13/2014 8:12:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
People don't eat dogs and cats in America mostly because there is no need to. The rest of the world does it everyday hundreds of thousands of time a day. I can assure you if I was hungry fluffy days would be numbered. There is no law against eating dogs and cats. There can't be. You can not deny a person food. They must however be killed quickly and humanely. Americans are spoiled little brats when it comes to food.

There is no need to eat cows or pigs in America. Fish and eggs provide more than enough protein and such.

Ya, well I don't like fish or eggs for dinner every night. Goody for you if you do.

"It's not clear whether the eating itself is outlawed or only the butchery." That means you can not sell the meat. You can eat your cat or dog in the privacy of your own home. The law is vague because they cant up hold it. They can outlaw everything but eating for personal consumption on private property.

They can uphold any damn thing they want. I am constantly appalled at how little people understand the common law system. There is nothing that prevents them from outlawing eating for personal consumption on private property... nothing.

Arresting and convicting are two different animals

No matter how difficult it may be to prove you ate your dog, they can still make it illegal and you will still go to prison if they do prove it.

I repeat. Arresting and convicting are two different animals
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:34:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:30:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
No matter how difficult it may be to prove you ate your dog, they can still make it illegal and you will still go to prison if they do prove it.

I repeat. Arresting and convicting are two different animals

.... ok they are different, your point?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 4:40:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 4:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:34:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/14/2014 4:30:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
No matter how difficult it may be to prove you ate your dog, they can still make it illegal and you will still go to prison if they do prove it.

I repeat. Arresting and convicting are two different animals

.... ok they are different, your point?

If the law isn't clear then conviction is not possible. The threat of arrest and the expense that goes with it is enough to deter 99.99% of the people.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%