Haha, fair enough!

>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.

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.

Look at my comment history and post history. Clearly being "popular" isn't even in my top 20.

I mean this as criticism, but not insult, if you would be kind enough to indulge my splitting hairs. The kind of thing that I'm hearing in your post is exactly the kind of thing that would cause one to fail a psych eval.

1. Preoccupation with "righting perceived injustice" regardless of cost.
2. Authoritarian declarations.
3. Reductionist and uncharitable accounts of history and people's choices, especially describing freedom of personal choice as lunacy.
4. Expression of rage.
5. Expressing desire to turn thought into violent action to achieve a stated "manifesto" or political goal.

All of this causes me some concern.

It's a fair point!

But then, this is Reddit - expecting seriousness on this platform is perhaps not a great idea, and behaving seriously is...."not popular", to put it nicely.

> This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest.

People can be rendered unfit pretty easily - people in the Middle East have a fair amount of experience with that principle. Would be a shame if such a fate befell us over here some day.

> I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

Your support is appreciated, but not required.

> I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

Sometimes. And sometimes one's destiny is set by other people (like the people "the West" drops bombs on, or the people that were not so lucky to make it out of the twin towers, or the people who died as a consequence of some lunatic refusing to get a vaccine - so terribly sorry about that, better luck next time!).

> We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

Close enough for this domain, imho.

Besides, the whole "democracy" illusion gives me near infinite fuel to sustain rage for the rest of my life.

> This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

Oh, I know I'm not thinking "clearly" here - I think a good target to aim for is the clarity of thinking that the personnel in the US War Machine have when doing their dirty work - clear, but with very carefully drawn limits such that one can achieve one's goals: determine the destiny of certain people, whether they like it or not. As the saying goes: "One good turn deserves another!"

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

>In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least:
>
>much more virtual).

Or you could just restate it more clearly instead of going off on this infinite loop of abstract obfuscation.

> Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest. By taking ideas and processes that fail and elevating them over processes that produce "unequal" results, you're choosing failure as your condition for excellence.

I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

>we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

>We're told we have control over our destiny

We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

>I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged,

This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least: much more virtual).

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.

>No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

Is that your heuristic interpretation of my interpretation?

> 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.

> The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

It is excellent!

> I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

I am an extremist (or, very open to the principle of it at least), so I am a-ok with spreading death around much more evenly. At the very least, I think it can be persuasive. Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

> In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children.

True. But then, we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

> Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

We're told we have control over our destiny (via Democracy, our most sacred institution), but I happen to not buy it. So as long as our leaders are ok with playing make believe, I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged, globally. And if some Very Bad Luck befalls Westerners - too bad, so sad...after all: that's "just the way it is, nothing can be done, don't worry things will get better in time, just be patient". I'm sure some charts can be found that are moving from the lower left to the upper right, indicating that All is Well - would be fun to see if they buy that so easily when the shoe is on the other foot.

/rant

“He’s using it as a premise for his argument.” Yes. Exactly. He’s not arguing that such premise is true, though. That’s the whole point. He’s starting with that premise. Which is not the same as arguing for it.

You are actually making my point for me. We’ve skipped over that argument because that’s not what the article is aimed at. If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy. Even then, he doesn’t even give an argument for that premise; he just assumes it.

Because he gives no argument supporting the premise, the fact that you think he made an appeal to emotion to defend it says that you are finding things that you either have bad reading comprehension skills or you’re a mind-reader of some sorts. You’re just assuming he made an appeal to emotion in an argument that is no where to be found. Either way, if you don’t understand why you’re wrong yet, you’re not going to.

No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

My argument is contained within the text of my comment - interpret it literally and you should be able to come up with a closer version.

(I guess my plan to be nice to you didn't work lol)

hm same I guess

I did the "which would I shoot in the head" test.

If you handed me a pistol and made me shoot either a polar bear or a five year old, I'd shoot the polar bear 100% of the time.

> he’s not arguing that this premise is true using an appeal to emotion.

He is. He's using it as a premise for his argument. SINCE purchasing products have a cost in children's lives, we SHOULD label products in those terms to correct the gap in knowledge of the consumer, is essentially what he's saying.

Instead of arguing THAT purchasing products has a cost in children's lives, we're directly appealing to the emotional element of "save the children". Another poster put up some kind of poem or quote much more effectively putting forth the sentiment of the article. How many rivers and towns for progress, the false dichotomy of capitalism vs the Earth, etc.

We've skipped over the argument and gone directly to how many children are you going to kill with your consumerism.

So, your argument seems to be that since it "could" be false, it's false?

>Your accompanying flaws (as noted)

The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

>If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness?

I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children. Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

why is saving a polar bear obviously worse than saving a child?

> I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument. > > > > You were wrong.

I presume you were identifying anything that could be legitimately considered erroneous - and it isn't that you were flawed in that regard (I technically agree with you), it's that you accompanied it by similarly flawed text of your own.

> When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

I think that's not just fair, but righteous! But in this case I have two issues:

1. Your accompanying flaws (as noted)

2. I happen to have a fairly strong personal opinion about this particular topic, and as a consequence I think you and I are optimizing for different variables. In this case, I would say you are behaving how I would normally behave, and I am behaving anomalously to my normal approach - I think I may well qualify for some kind of criticism based on that, but would need to think about it a bit.

> Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

I do not disagree at all, but in this case, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.

If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness? It's true that these things are subjective, but that goes both ways.

And then on top of it, there's the element of ~power (which comes in many forms, the media being a particularly noteworthy one), distorting things even further.

I happen to disagree with you on principle on this particular issue, but your argument is excellent and enjoyable to read, so I absolutely must upvote you if I'd like to get a good sleep tonight! I may even RES tag you in hopes that I may be somewhat less of a dick next time we have an encounter. :)

Some unluckiness: there is no single implementation of an algorithm to test that against novel internet propositions - all we have are human "algorithms" that tend to be implemented using heuristics, and the possessor of the heuristic has little insight into its operation, and typically has low if not negative interest in whether their algorithm is sound.