The jury has reached a verdict in Jennifer Crumbley's manslaughter trial over the 2021 Oxford High School shooting carried out by her son Ethan Crumbley.
So? It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers. Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.
It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers.
I never said they do.
Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.
I wasn’t staking any claims in this argument. Just pointing out how yours is invalid.
I did so because it’s constructive criticism to promote better reasoning. But of course you’re too immature to receive constructive criticism, so you defensively deflect it instead.
Edit: oh wait you’re not even the user I was speaking to…
I think it was an appeal to natural order, not tradition.
One time after GPS became pretty well available a court somewhere was called upon to decide whether, now that we have this cheaply available magical system of maritime navigation, is it negligent to crash into the rocks and destroy the vessel because you were still using a sextant and navigating by the stars? I mean, that’s the way we’ve always done it. That’s an appeal to tradition.
I disagree. It was clearly an appeal to tradition, given his specific reference to human history (traditional human hunting behavior). But the appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy anyway.
I’m not even condemning hunting, btw. It’s necessary in some cases for healthy animal populations.
This is far past the point of mattering, but the actual thing I was targeting was the statement “seems pretty weird” by stating that in the context of human history, hunting is objectively not weird, that is to say, unusual or abnormal, at all.
And I mean, if we’re trying to entertain logical rigor, I don’t think the original “appeal to vibes” is exactly a good start.
So? It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers. Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.
I never said they do.
I wasn’t staking any claims in this argument. Just pointing out how yours is invalid.
I did so because it’s constructive criticism to promote better reasoning. But of course you’re too immature to receive constructive criticism, so you defensively deflect it instead.
Edit: oh wait you’re not even the user I was speaking to…
I think it was an appeal to natural order, not tradition.
One time after GPS became pretty well available a court somewhere was called upon to decide whether, now that we have this cheaply available magical system of maritime navigation, is it negligent to crash into the rocks and destroy the vessel because you were still using a sextant and navigating by the stars? I mean, that’s the way we’ve always done it. That’s an appeal to tradition.
I disagree. It was clearly an appeal to tradition, given his specific reference to human history (traditional human hunting behavior). But the appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy anyway.
I’m not even condemning hunting, btw. It’s necessary in some cases for healthy animal populations.
This is far past the point of mattering, but the actual thing I was targeting was the statement “seems pretty weird” by stating that in the context of human history, hunting is objectively not weird, that is to say, unusual or abnormal, at all.
And I mean, if we’re trying to entertain logical rigor, I don’t think the original “appeal to vibes” is exactly a good start.