MSGRiley t1_itjv42m wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:24 AM

Reply to comment by Dark_Clark in A Proposal to Price Everything in the Currency of Child Lives Not Saved by phileconomicus

> If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy.

This is going to be my last post on this because one of us is having an issue understanding this. He's not saying that appeals to emotion, in the abstract, are a good way to motivate people.

He's saying specifically that we should couch purchasing (and capitalism itself) in terms of dead children. It is his choice of using dead children that is appeal to emotion. He is saying, not only is it justified, it's righteous.

There are a lot of things wrong with the argument. False premise, false dichotomy, etc, but the choice to couch everything in terms of "dead children" is, on its face, an appeal to emotion.

You said your peace, I said mine. As far as I'm concerned, we're done.

Dark_Clark t1_itjvxbg wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:32 AM

I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this. I know it’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used instead of an argument. That’s what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. I’m not even saying this argument is good; I’m pointing out that you’re misidentifying a fallacy. Goodbye.

MSGRiley t1_itjx21z wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:44 AM

I'm getting the last word because I'm petty.

You're wrong, it absolutely is attempting to push people to action out of an appeal to emotion. This is how appeal to emotion works all the time. Did you see an argument for "purchasing equals dead children"? You did not. What you saw was because purchasing equals dead children, we should....

That is appeal to emotion. And I posted last therefore I am correct. /s

Dark_Clark t1_itjxz45 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:54 AM

Yes, it is trying to get people to act out of an appeal to emotion. But that’s not a fallacy. His argument, if you understand it, is about using emotion to drive action. But that isn’t fallacious. “We should do this because people respond to emotion” isn’t using an emotional appeal to make the arguments, it is making an argument about emotional appeals.

I’ve repeated this over and over and you still don’t get it. You are just completely ignoring the whole point of everything I’ve said.

“Did you see an argument for purchasing equals deal children?” No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not. Read my comments again if that helps.

MSGRiley t1_itjyblx wrote on October 24, 2022 at 4:58 AM

>I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this.

Seriously, I was just testing to see if you were going to respond to my "last word" response.

>No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not.

Which is how appeal to emotion works. It takes the focus off of "is this true" and puts it on "out of an abundance of caution surrounding our children, we should do this thing, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

Every, single appeal to emotion argument works this way.

OK. Have the last word.

Edit: for clarity, what I'm saying is that there's no effective difference between replacing the argument for something with an appeal to emotion and using it as an unproven premise.

Dark_Clark t1_itjznho wrote on October 24, 2022 at 5:13 AM

Yes, they typically work that way, but again, this article doesn’t have to deal with the premise explicitly in order to not commit a fallacy. “Look they didn’t explicitly defend a premise, therefore they must be trying to pull a fast one! Didn’t fool me because I can identify fallacies correctly!”