Anti-Vegans Use Poor Logic
“One way to understand the issue [of animal rights] is to carry the underlying logic to its extreme: Would you extend to the surviving family of a rabbit the right to sue the fox that killed it?” (source)
No, actually, that’s not “one way to understand” the issue. That’s one way to confuse the issue. That’s one way to promote anti-animal propaganda. That’s one way to make veganism seem ridiculous. The actual, true logical conclusion of animal rights is a lifestyle of veganism (or of relative non-interference with non-human animals). What the writer above did is called a slipery slop fallacy:
“the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. [...] The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymous with continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to category B.”
It’s ABSURD to think non-human animals should have the right to sue other non-human animals. Absolutely absurd. Anyone who argues that kind of logic is merely trying to smear vegans and veganism.
It’s that type of nonesense that makes me think people should be taught how to reason before they are taught how to write.
I agree with you, Matt. I think critical thinking is critical! it should be taught in elementary school.