When someone starts a political argument with "Our Founding Fathers believed..." are they committing a logical fallacy?

Is logic ever wrong?

Do the members of a married couple with children have a moral obligation, not (just) to each other, but to their children, to not cheat on each other?

Does it make sense to talk of unconscious IDEAS? I know psychoanalysts often talk of unconscious ideas, but am puzzled by their supposed status. Many of our physiological processes are unconscious to us, but ideas? If there were unconscious ideas, how would we identify them, and how would they relate to our conscious ideas? A fan of Hume

Do some people believe their own lies?

Why are some things so difficult to express verbally? In the words of Lao Zi, "The Tao that can be can be expressed is not the eternal Tao". Do we lack the ability to define these sort of things, like art and such, or are the they simply impossible to define? Or do we just lack the appropriate understanding and 'vocabulary' to really say definitively and indisputably what these verbally ambiguous terms are? Is it a question of linguistics, or human limitations?

Something occurs to me: Different people understand the same words differently. So, for example, to my parents, "therapy" might be a self-indulgent activity that only weak people engage in. To me, therapy might be a meaningful activity designed to strengthen myself. Now, if my parents ask me: "are you in therapy", and I knew their understanding of the word, it occurs to me that I would not be lying by saying "no". No - I am not engaged in a self-indulgent activity that only weak people engage in. Now, if what I've said is true, it would seem to have implications for logic. The "if p then q" universe seems threatened or at least loosened if neither "p" nor "q" meant the same thing to everyone. 1) To what extent would my presuppositions entail a weakening of the importance of logic? 2) To what extent are my ideas correct? 3) Is there any reading I can do on this topic?

Hello philosophers, there is a vast philosophical literature that defends animal rights and vegetarianism, but the opposite camp doesn't seem to have produced much. What is the equivalent of Singer's "Animal Liberation" in the "meat eating" camp? Or is this a dead subject among philosophers, where those who care write books about the defense of animals, while those who don't simply go ahead and eat their steaks? Thanks in advance for your valuable insight.

How long is a instant? please answer!

Why are philosophers so dodgy when asked a question? It seems like I can never get a straight answer from the few philosophers I know. Is this the philosophers' fault or a fault in the questions being asked?