Submitted by phileconomicus t3_ybn3sp in philosophy
Simple_Rules t1_itinmwt wrote
Reply to comment by NebXan in A Proposal to Price Everything in the Currency of Child Lives Not Saved by phileconomicus
You seem to be trying to argue that if an appeal to emotion is effective, it isn't a fallacy.
This is incorrect.
Fallacies are actually quite effective as far as rhetorical techniques go. The entire premise of "we should price coffees in fractions of a childs life" is blatantly an appeal to emotion, so much so that even in your attempt to defend it, you gave up on finding a way to word what it is other than calling it an appeal to emotion.
I suppose you could attempt to argue that the author is merely claiming that OTHER PEOPLE should employ the fallacy FOR THEM, but that's pretty absurd. If the author convinces some other person to actually do the appeal to emotion, they still were advocating for the use of the fallacy.
Dark_Clark t1_itivv7q wrote
That is not what this person is saying. They are saying that even though the argument relies on premises that you may disagree with, your issue should be with the premises and not the validity of the argument since there is no fallacy being committed.
“Appeals to emotion can lead us to preferable outcomes” appears to be the author’s conclusion and it’s arrived at without employing an appeal to emotion fallacy despite the fact that the conclusion is about appeals to emotion.
[deleted] t1_itivau9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itjlime wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_itn1hjc wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments