3 ms·

I don't find this line of argument compelling. It's a form of moral induction that specifically selects things that are still in play today (like chess) while i

I don't find this line of argument compelling. It's a form of moral induction that specifically selects things that are still in play today (like chess) while ignoring valid warnings that altered a trend (vehicle safety) or halted a trend (smoking). Every moral or health threat needs to be evaluated on its own merits regardless of whether it has the syntax of a historical warning that ended up in hindsight seeming kind of absurd. This is exactly the kind of argument corporations exploring potent forms of addiction want trotted out.

abritinthebay 9y ago
There’s a difference in bring alarmist but making good points and bring alarmist and using rhetorical tricks. You are describing the former, they the latter. A problem should stand on its own without the emotional manipulation.
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  It should, but it doesn't. If you have a conscience and want to make a change, you need both logos and pathos.
  - Retra 9y ago
    But you start with a good argument. Without one, you are wrong to continue on making emotionally manipulative appeals.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
okreallywtf 9y ago
Actually I think it can work in your case as well, especially when you see lobbying against safety measures, health concerns etc. Maybe not in a specific 1 to 1 word replacement but showing that similar, totally false claims were made in the past in regards to something we now know the truth of. An example is seatbelts - looking at how hard lobbying groups and the auto industry fought seatbelts can be inspiration for similar fights going on today. [0] I think of current events and frame them in the context of what people said about things we totally take for granted now (like seatbelts and smoking) and apply them to issues where we see similar tactics being used (climate change). [0] http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-belts http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-be...

abritinthebay 9y ago

There’s a difference in bring alarmist but making good points and bring alarmist and using rhetorical tricks. You are describing the former, they the latter. A problem should stand on its own without the emotional manipulation.

andrewflnr 9y ago
It should, but it doesn't. If you have a conscience and want to make a change, you need both logos and pathos.
- Retra 9y ago
  But you start with a good argument. Without one, you are wrong to continue on making emotionally manipulative appeals.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

okreallywtf 9y ago

Actually I think it can work in your case as well, especially when you see lobbying against safety measures, health concerns etc. Maybe not in a specific 1 to 1 word replacement but showing that similar, totally false claims were made in the past in regards to something we now know the truth of. An example is seatbelts - looking at how hard lobbying groups and the auto industry fought seatbelts can be inspiration for similar fights going on today. [0] I think of current events and frame them in the context of what people said about things we totally take for granted now (like seatbelts and smoking) and apply them to issues where we see similar tactics being used (climate change). [0] http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-belts http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-be...