Ma Zhe s final answers!! Philosophy Final Exam Questions Gods Help Thanksgiving!! Do not return the

2: "Dogs, pigs, chickens, sheep, cows, fish, and other animals, who is prescribed to be eaten, is not the human being himself."

Substance is fallacious, because of the use of ambiguous terms, pigs, chickens, sheep, cows, fish, ......Most of them can only be eaten after human domestication, wild ones, well, so what was so sick about the epidemic that year? It is said that the most common culprit is the civet cat. Humans are prescribed to eat whatever they can?

Don't be naïve. It is clear that the person who said this was either uneducated or illogical. According to this statement, it can be extended to the ...... that wolves eat sheep and big fish eat small fishThe relationship between eating and being eaten is determined by human beings, well, it seems that I have watched too much of "Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf", and it is really when these relationships are determined by human beings themselves?

There are a lot of animal protection people who are vegetarians, so they can talk to you loudly? You eat everything, so what qualifications do you have to oppose it over here? ”

The verbal fallacy, reactionary Bao is because he eats everything, so he can oppose it (ps: That sentence is a rhetorical question, which means that since you can eat chickens, ducks and geese, it is normal to eat dogs, so you can eat anything, but the author seems to understand that reactionary Bao is a vegetarian, so he is making a big fuss about this), how can it be 'opposition for the sake of opposition'. Opposition is to protect one's own interests, to rationalize one's behavior, which is quite reasonable, and it is not to eat everything yourself, and then you have to ask others not to eat, this is opposition for the sake of opposition.

Do you have to do everything yourself to say? Thoughts are already biased towards cold eyes, so we want everyone to have no moral conscience like you and then oppose it for the sake of opposition? ”

Substantive fallacy, you are eating, you know that it is wrong, and then you can ask others not to eat it, it was originally an argument about dogs, so it doesn't extend to all edible animals? Even if an animal activist eats meat and advocates not eating dogs, then at least he doesn't eat dogs, doesn't this mean that animal activists also eat dogs, since everyone eats dogs, it is against it for the sake of opposition. Hmm, did the author quarrel for the sake of quarrels?

I can't understand the logic of what he said at all.,The main thing is not to grasp.,Instead, follow the logic of others and deliberately entangle in the unfavorable places for yourself.,And there's no truth at all.,But there's a lot of this in the post bar.,Your teacher won't be a mixed sticker.。

When I saw the last paragraph, I was completely stupid, I didn't know what those animal conservationists were trying to protect, all animals? Or is it just a dog? The reactionary Bao seems to want to eat everything, especially the dogs.

Then this epilogue ......Since the author doesn't understand the situation, people like me, who don't know anything about it, don't understand what it is. If it's what chickens, ducks, geese ......If you can't eat it, isn't that a mistake on top of a mistake? Animal conservationists eat all kinds of meat themselves, and then tell others not to eat it, isn't that just an empty slogan?

That's opposition for the sake of opposition. On the whole, there is a bit of a 'circular argument'.

Forget the last two questions.