proverbial cat is already out of the bag, the codification of such a thing as “animal rights” could potentially lead to consequences that all but the most careless rat-lover would find dire. Certainly if merely gouging a nickel-sized hole in an elephant’s shoulder is the act of a criminal, then hunters should be charged with murder, road kill is manslaughter, and owning a dog an act of involuntary servitude. Scott McPherson
This statement commits the slippery slope fallacy, which means that the speaker interprets a simple statement in very general terms and exaggerating it in the process. The definition of animal rights here is exaggerated and its exceptions are not considered by the speaker in that even benevolent acts like owning a dog, unintentional acts like road kill, and purposeful acts for the benefit of mankind like hunting are all considered violations of animal rights.
Although this statement also commits the other fallacies of begging the question, non sequitur and false analogy, it is clearly a hasty generalization. The claim of the speaker that the particular university is not recommended is obviously not valid for it is based on but two people. There must be a considerable number of students in a sample plus backing of research before one can make a valid claim that one university cannot be recommended.
This statement is a sweeping generalization. Such a fallacy is committed in this statement because the speaker had already labeled all churchgoers as mindless and old even before the actual disadvantages of going to mass or going to church (if ever there are any) were underlined.
As far as I know, this statement commits the Red herring fallacy. Instead of the speaker explaining the disadvantages of President Obama’s reversal of President Bush’s ruling on stem cell research, the speaker befogs the issue by tossing out the red herring of his support for President Bush.
8. “Ugandas controversial ethics and integrity minister… said