Your disingenuous attempt to look for fallacies in the other's arguments instead of actually addressing them
is a fallacy itself.
I was addressing your dismissal of his argument with a fallacy, I never said anything about your overall position. Much like your "if you really cared about people you would donate all your money to charity" points this sentence has literally nothing to do with the discussion.
Someone illustrated the value of human life being more than dog life with an example, you then commit a tu quoque fallacy to somehow disprove his point. No you committing this fallacy does not automatically make your position wrong, but I never said that was the case did I? Which is why you're misusing the argument from fallacy fallacy when trying to apply it to me. I'm simply pointing out that your rebuttal of his point, which you have been doubling down on despite literally everyone telling you is fallacious, is moot and irrelevant - because it is fallacious.
I said your point was wrong, not your position. Argument from fallacy does not apply.
I would not have time to write anything meaninful if I had to address every single fallacy from appeal to emotion to direct ad hominems that have been tossed my way in this thread. I have already proven that your previous attempt to pin a fallacy on me were spurious, so I will easily address this one and put you on ignore
Nice.
calling out inconsistency in moral beliefs is entirely appropriate and on topic when the matter of discussion is moral beliefs.
This is literally a tu quoque fallacy. It is also called an "appeal to hypocrisy" fallacy for that very reason. Someone not giving up all their worldly possession to save human life does not mean they can't say that a human life is worth more than a dog life. It doesn't mean they are wrong to say a human life is worth more than a dog life either. Their lack of living out what they say (as defined by you and your interpretation of their position, incidentally) has no bearing on the internal logic of what they are saying. Again, this is why it's called an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.
If you ultimately take emotion out of the equation, the value of life is zero. There isn't a measurable property called "value" like there is a "mass" or "height"; the universe doesn't give a fuck whether you're alive or dead. Are you sure you want to go down that dark and spiraling path of nihilism?
I said take emotion out of the equation, not the human perspective. No the universe doesn't care or place any value on either humans are dogs. That's because the universe isn't sentient. But you can look at things from a human perspective not from a basis of feelings. Ultimately by any metric I can think of in defining value of a life - intelligence, contribution to the community, depth of relationships, knowledge added to the bank of human general consciousness etc a human outweighs a dog. Of course humans have the possibility to cause more harm to the world than a dog, but that is a function of our position - if dogs ruled the world and were more intelligent than us they would likely be no different.
Actually, don't answer. So long and thank for all the fish.
Again, nice.
Honestly I don't really particularly care. You can argue how much a dog's life means to you all you want, I think it's silly to try and dictate to other people what they do or do not value through appeal to hypocrisy, even more silly to think that means you've won a discussion and silliest of all to be upset about dog killing in murder simulators. I apologise if I upset you.
