Thursday, October 18, 2012

Logical Fallacies of animal rights

I feel that we do not need to ensure that animals have legal rights.  There are organizations like PETA that fill people's heads with a bunch of lies and fallacies.  When on their website today I came across this statement:
     " Giving meat the boot is also the best way to ensure a lifetime of good health".  Comparing to what we discussed in class today, I feel that this would be a perfect example of BLACK and WHITE fallacy.  PETA is stating that the best way to ensure a healthy life, is to stop eating meat.  But the fact that exercise, reduced alcohol consumption, not smoking, can also lead to a healthy life.  There is more than just ONE reason a person can be and stay healthy.  PETA loves to over exaggerate statements and bend the truth in attempts to sway the feeble minded people who can't think logically about their diet. 

Monday, October 8, 2012

Virtual Day Debate Response

I reveiwed the debate "Illegals Should Build the Border Fence", whose title explains everything. 

The issue about this debate is that the American Policy on ILLEGAL immigration is confusing, and that one participant states they should be used to build a border wall, and the other participant is against the notion.  I want to specify that the Immigration Laws (for legal immigration) are not confusing, regarding to these two people, it is the Illegal Immigration Laws, and what to do with the people who come here Illegally. 

Assumptions were made on both sides of the arguement, the easiest way will probably be to list each assumption/premises under the "pro" or "con" in regards to building the boarder wall.

     Pro- Boarder Wall
     - "Right now laws concerning illegal immigration are confused and inconsistent but with this new policy there would be no more confusion. " - Are the laws really that confusing, or just to this participant, and if/when the boarder wall policy would go into place he assumes that there would be NO confusion ever again regarding illegal immigration.
     -"This strong and consistent policy would be a strong deterrent against illegal immigration." - I agree that this would deter many people, as the work is long and hard, but how strong of a deterrent would it be?
     - "With labor groups on the border working around the clock with police and border patrol agents watching the border would also end up being watched as well." - Although there would be many more patrol agents overseeing the work, won't that take more tax dollars to pay for? 
     - "Why should we welcome the lazy, the impatient and those who believe themselves to be above the immigration proccess?" - Not all immigrants are lazy and impatient, not all believe they are above the immigration process, but perhaps they had to leave their homeland to excape harm - and they couldn't get into our country a different way.

Con - Boarder Wall
     - "The idea that imigrants would be subjected to forced labor under supervision of police is cruel and unusual." - Does this really underlie with "cruel and unusual" punishment, I was "forced" to do manual work when I was living with my parents.
     - "I want to dispell the notion that imigration policy is confused."  - this is the main reason of the arguement, both feel differently that the policy is confusing.
     -" Business wants cheap labor. It wants cheap labor more than it wants lower taxes, and thats saying alot." - Do all businesses want cheap labor over helping the american economy?  I think this is a pretty strong assumption myself.
     -"If we used immigrants we would be losing valauble jobs....to immigrants!" - Would we lose jobs to immigrants to build the fence, are we currently paying people to construct one, won't it bring more jobs to those that patrol the boarder?
     -"We've seen bridges collapse due to poor construction, Are we expecting a quality fence from these forced prisoners?" - This is a good assumption, and leads a person into critical thinking...why would they do a good job at building the fence...wouldn't they make it weaker so they could just come back easier?


     I feel that the arguement presented by the "Con" participater gave a better arguement, not that he brought forth a better arguement, but that he brought more "hard facts" to the discussion.  By quoting the constitution and important people through history, he could bring his point around as to WHY laws were set up a certain way.  To many people he would be able to "swing" their votes because of this.  I will give credit to the "Pro" participater, as he gave good arguements, that would really trigger people emotions.  So to say who had the best arguement you have to view this in 1 of 2 ways:
   1. Are you trying to just prove a point and win an arguement
  OR
   2. Are you wanting to persuade people to buy into your opinion.

My Vote goes to - MAKE ILLEGALS BUILD THE BOARDER WALL AROUND AMERICA, DON'T MAKE TAX PAYERS FRONT MOST OF THE BILL.