Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Cave spots a few fallacies.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/9/Rigorous_Reasoning

Rape and eating meat isn't the same.

You can easily survive without rape, it's hard to stay healthy without meat, many vegans are malnourished.

The fallacy in this article is that the author seems to think that all justifications are linear deductive arguments. This is not necessarily the case. And it is certainly not rigorously justifiable.

In the example of the meat eating being 'natural', this is just one strand of evidence; it was not intended to be a stand-alone deductive argument.