That reply commits a logical fallacy. It’s an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.
My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.
Your Logical Fallacy Explained
My Statement Was About:
Your Reply Misrepresents It As:
The Logical Error in Your Response
Biological Capacity
Identical Ethical/Political Agency
Reductio ad Absurdum / Straw Man
The fact that Homo sapiens are omnivorous animals and predators driven by evolutionary needs (justifying the capacity to eat meat).
A claim that humans and bears share identical social, political, and ethical traits (e.g., the capacity for voting rights).
You took my comparison (predation as a biological reality) and pushed it to an absurd extreme (voting bears) to avoid addressing my actual point.
The amoral reality of predation in nature, which makes the prey’s opinion irrelevant to the predator’s act.
A dismissal of all human ethical systems and social responsibilities, implying I advocate for complete ethical equivalence with wildlife.
My argument accepts that humans have ethical agency, which is why I explicitly called for avoiding factory-farmed meat. You ignored the ethical choice to focus on an irrelevant political concept.
My defense for eating ethically sourced meat, acknowledging the failure of factory farms.
A crude defense of all forms of killing for food, regardless of method or context.
The entire point of my comment was to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable meat consumption, a nuance your fallacy completely discards.
I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.
You seem to be completely unaware of my point, but I am not interested in arguing with autocomplete. In the future, maybe try having the courage to think with your human mind. I’ll once again encourage you to reread the comment chain and think about your argument and my joke about it. Since you’re a fan of philosophy buzzwords, here’s some further reading:
Since we’re having so much fun, here’s another language model’s critique of your reply:
Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.
Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument ‘autocomplete,’ and question my ‘human mind.’ If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.
Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on ‘buzzwords’ while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn’t for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive “voting bears”
My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.
I used the bear analogy to establish the ‘Is’ (our biological capacity for predation).
‘Ought’ (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.
My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your ‘voting bears’ reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.
My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the ‘Ought’ to the ‘Is.’ I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.
Your condescension notwithstanding, it’s safe to say we’re certainly not friends, by any stretch.
Here some more fun takes from a language model, that "dares to know’.
“Sapere aude” means ‘dare to know,’ the motto of Enlightenment reason.
It’s ironic you use it as a closing remark after relying on a Straw Man fallacy (“voting bears”) and an Ad Hominem attack (“autocomplete”) instead of engaging the ethical distinction I explicitly made regarding ethically sourced meat.
Applying reason means addressing the actual argument, not running from it with a haughty, snide attitude, citing your Latin phrase as a dismissal.
I don’t understand. Is your argument that bears do have ethical and social responsibility regarding humans?
Try to reread your comment and mine, and think about it a little longer.
Here’s a language model’s take on this thread.
That reply commits a logical fallacy. It’s an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.
My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.
Your Logical Fallacy Explained
I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.
Edited for clarity.
You seem to be completely unaware of my point, but I am not interested in arguing with autocomplete. In the future, maybe try having the courage to think with your human mind. I’ll once again encourage you to reread the comment chain and think about your argument and my joke about it. Since you’re a fan of philosophy buzzwords, here’s some further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Since we’re having so much fun, here’s another language model’s critique of your reply:
Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.
Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument ‘autocomplete,’ and question my ‘human mind.’ If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.
Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on ‘buzzwords’ while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn’t for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive “voting bears”
My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.
I used the bear analogy to establish the ‘Is’ (our biological capacity for predation).
‘Ought’ (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.
My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your ‘voting bears’ reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.
My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the ‘Ought’ to the ‘Is.’ I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.
sapere aude, my friend
Your condescension notwithstanding, it’s safe to say we’re certainly not friends, by any stretch.
Here some more fun takes from a language model, that "dares to know’.