Worst Political Cartoons

[N. De Plume]

How about we say "Plants have feelings too!" and call it a day on this?

That is what I’m saying.

[Kit Walker]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that you can't logically justify something on the basis that lions do it. That's a naturalism fallacy- what is does not necessary equal what ought to be.

There's got to be some kind of fallacy in separating humans from other animals when it comes to deciding the moral implications of meat eating. Lions kill and eat other animals because that is what they evolved to do, just as humans did.

[Lt. Fred]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that you can't logically justify something on the basis that lions do it. That's a naturalism fallacy- what is does not necessary equal what ought to be.

There's got to be some kind of fallacy in separating humans from other animals when it comes to deciding the moral implications of meat eating. Lions kill and eat other animals because that is what they evolved to do, just as humans did.

Again, does natural always equal right? No.

[Cataclysm]

Let's get this over with: most animals are stupid. Really, really stupid. So it's okay to raise and kill and eat them.

[Kit Walker]

Again, does natural always equal right? No.

Fair enough. So the people who argue that homosexuality is wrong have a valid point then? The few who acknowledge that it does occur in nature, I mean.

[Veras]

No, it means that the fact that it occurs in nature is basically irrelevant to whether homosexuality is or isn't morally acceptable.  However, the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature does undermine the idiotic argument that homosexuality is a choice, so it is relevant to the debate, because the issue of choice is part of the debate.  Of course, I don't see how it being a choice or not has much to do with the morality of it either, but that's not the point.

Those who argue that homosexuality is wrong are committing the ecological fallacy (in addition to just being incorrect).

[Lt. Fred]

Again, does natural always equal right? No.

Fair enough. So the people who argue that homosexuality is wrong have a valid point then? The few who acknowledge that it does occur in nature, I mean.

If the people arguing that homosexuality is not immoral were using only its existence in nature as an argument, sure. Of course, most not-bigots I've heard use other arguments as well, the most obvious being that it doesn't harm anyone.

If (when?) a bigot tries to argue that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral, they're not only lying, they're also using a logical fallacy (which is also a kind of lying).

[Undecided]

Again, does natural always equal right? No.

Fair enough. So the people who argue that homosexuality is wrong have a valid point then? The few who acknowledge that it does occur in nature, I mean.

1. Some non-human animals exhibit homosexuality.
2. If a non-human animal does something, then humans shouldn't do it.
3. Therefore humans ought not be homosexual.

1'. Some non-human animals exhibit altruism.
2. [As above.]
3'. Therefore humans should not be altruistic.

The unsound premise is (2.), i.e., that humans shouldn't do anything that non-humans do.

In general: something may exist in nature, but that fact tells you nothing about whether it's right or wrong.

[Mechtaur]

Again, does natural always equal right? No.

Fair enough. So the people who argue that homosexuality is wrong have a valid point then? The few who acknowledge that it does occur in nature, I mean.

1. Some non-human animals exhibit homosexuality.
2. If a non-human animal does something, then humans shouldn't do it.
3. Therefore humans ought not be homosexual.

1'. Some non-human animals exhibit altruism.
2. [As above.]
3'. Therefore humans should not be altruistic.

The unsound premise is (2.), i.e., that humans shouldn't do anything that non-humans do.

In general: something may exist in nature, but that fact tells you nothing about whether it's right or wrong.

1. Some non-human animals eat, breath, and eventually die.
2. If a non-human animal does something, humans shouldn't do it.
3. Humans should transcend reality?

Works for me.

[Cataclysm]

Again, does natural always equal right? No.

Fair enough. So the people who argue that homosexuality is wrong have a valid point then? The few who acknowledge that it does occur in nature, I mean.

1. Some non-human animals exhibit homosexuality.
2. If a non-human animal does something, then humans shouldn't do it.
3. Therefore humans ought not be homosexual.

This is easier to turn.

1. Some non-human animals exhibit heterosexuality
2. If a non-human animal does something, then humans shouldn't do it.
3. Therefore humans ought not be heterosexual.

[Sylvana]

For all the vegans out there I feel I just have to leave this here.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

#Edit fixed link

[Her3tiK]

For all the vegans out there I feel I just have to leave this here.

#Invalid YouTube Link#

That is um... kinda broken.

A for effort? 

[Cataclysm]

[Lt. Fred]

Have people burned Chick-fil-a in efigy? Then shut the fuck up.

[largeham]

Liberal media, lol.