Editing 2592: False Dichotomy

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 12: Line 12:
 
[[Cueball]] has apparently made one such error and is being called out by [[White Hat]] for it. Upon having this pointed out to him, Cueball says that we must '''embrace''' false dichotomies, because the '''only other option''' is {{w|cannibalism}}. This statement is another false dichotomy, as presenting false dichotomies is not the only alternative to cannibalism{{Citation needed}}. The reverse (that cannibalism is incompatible with expressing false dichotomies) is also not potentially true, as eating people may eventually result in having nobody you need to present false dichotomies to.
 
[[Cueball]] has apparently made one such error and is being called out by [[White Hat]] for it. Upon having this pointed out to him, Cueball says that we must '''embrace''' false dichotomies, because the '''only other option''' is {{w|cannibalism}}. This statement is another false dichotomy, as presenting false dichotomies is not the only alternative to cannibalism{{Citation needed}}. The reverse (that cannibalism is incompatible with expressing false dichotomies) is also not potentially true, as eating people may eventually result in having nobody you need to present false dichotomies to.
  
Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first.  
+
Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy, with absolutely no visible reasoning behind it.  
  
 
The false dichotomy Cueball appears to be referring to is the notion that those identified as human must not be eaten, but even closely related animals are not human and can be eaten, i.e. species can be divided clearly between "human" and "food".  If this dichotomy is not accepted, then consuming any species that shares, for instance, any significant percentage of DNA with humans could be considered a measure of cannibalism.
 
The false dichotomy Cueball appears to be referring to is the notion that those identified as human must not be eaten, but even closely related animals are not human and can be eaten, i.e. species can be divided clearly between "human" and "food".  If this dichotomy is not accepted, then consuming any species that shares, for instance, any significant percentage of DNA with humans could be considered a measure of cannibalism.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)