this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
386 points (98.5% liked)
Political Memes
9779 readers
2695 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Try to reread your comment and mine, and think about it a little longer.
Here's a language model's take on this thread.
That reply commits a logical fallacy. It's an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.
My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.
Your Logical Fallacy Explained
I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.
Edited for clarity.
You seem to be completely unaware of my point, but I am not interested in arguing with autocomplete. In the future, maybe try having the courage to think with your human mind. I'll once again encourage you to reread the comment chain and think about your argument and my joke about it. Since you're a fan of philosophy buzzwords, here's some further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Since we're having so much fun, here's another language model's critique of your reply:
Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.
Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument 'autocomplete,' and question my 'human mind.' If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.
Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on 'buzzwords' while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn't for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive "voting bears"
My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.
I used the bear analogy to establish the 'Is' (our biological capacity for predation).
'Ought' (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.
My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your 'voting bears' reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.
My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the 'Ought' to the 'Is.' I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.
sapere aude, my friend