the fallacy thread NOW HIRING! fallacy mods!

[theprof00]

happydolphin said:

theprof00 said:
well had i not used a proven assumption, then id be guilty of faulty conclusions. It should have been readily understood that in saying all animals have gay populations, ive already been under the assumption that all animals share similarities at least a few steps back.
It's not a missing predicate, it's an assumption based on previous conclusions. If you disagree that animals are alike, then you are disagreeing with a founding argument, not mine, but we can discuss that one instead if you'd like.

Appeal to authority. I disagree with it, but sure I'd discuss it with you, I'm feeling more confident about your honesty.

i am always honest in admitting, as I've shown you many times previously.

And it's not appeal to authority, I'm not saying they're right because they're scientists, I'm saying it is proven and if you'd like i will prove them to you as well. That is the opposite of appeal to authority because I'm saying if you don't take their word for it, I'll discuss it further.

 

Taking the the understanding that all animals are alike is as much of an appeal as saying logic works. ironically, logic can be used to prove logic works. You don't question that, now do you?

For instanve, animals have different traits

some traits are shared  by all anim

therefore there is at least one trait that all animals share.

 

There are some traits that all animals share is proven by

carbon based life is a trait

x has this trait

y has this trait, etc etc until all animals are listed

all animals share at least this one trait.

 

couple with

statements proving other traits.

You see, it's just working backwards through proven conclusions that I arrive at all animals are alike, and thereby, humans having the same traits as animals is therefore natural.