3 ms·

Not disagreeing with your point, but I don’t understand why people call these baseless arguments “emotional”. The aim of the person making the argument is to t

Not disagreeing with your point, but I don’t understand why people call these baseless arguments “emotional”. The aim of the person making the argument is to try and use someone else’s plight and disadvantages as a reason to excuse their choices. They don’t do this by tugging on heart strings. They do this by trying to position themselves as a 3rd party neutral observer which makes the reader more likely to believe that their claim that a claimed injustice is real or a claimed solution will work. It’s not an attempt to deceive through emotion. It’s an attempt to deceive by making themselves appear as neutral and unbiased.

compacct27 2y ago
"3rd party neutral observer" Taking a look at the rest of the blog, this one's anything but.
n42 2y ago
I don’t think it is emotional manipulation, I think it is emotional reasoning. They use a vague claim of violent diarrhea and the change of a CEO to make the case that meal substitutes have failed at the only thing they claim to do (false) and that Silicon Valley is out of touch for applying reasoning to something they don’t actually understand. I would be interested in an article making a case against these drinks that used some kind of substantial argument, but this is not it. The article may as well be an anti vaccine article claiming vaccines give you diarrhea, our bodies regulate themselves, and big pharma is trying to get you hooked on a recurring revenue model to create a class divide. A pseudo-intellectual argument worked backward from trying to explain the “feeling” that putting chemicals in your body is bad. Reading between the lines, I suspect the real root of the argument is that the author has an emotion - they don’t like the idea of Soylent or the brand that was created behind it - and is jumping through hoops to rationalize that feeling.

compacct27 2y ago

"3rd party neutral observer" Taking a look at the rest of the blog, this one's anything but.

n42 2y ago

I don’t think it is emotional manipulation, I think it is emotional reasoning. They use a vague claim of violent diarrhea and the change of a CEO to make the case that meal substitutes have failed at the only thing they claim to do (false) and that Silicon Valley is out of touch for applying reasoning to something they don’t actually understand. I would be interested in an article making a case against these drinks that used some kind of substantial argument, but this is not it. The article may as well be an anti vaccine article claiming vaccines give you diarrhea, our bodies regulate themselves, and big pharma is trying to get you hooked on a recurring revenue model to create a class divide. A pseudo-intellectual argument worked backward from trying to explain the “feeling” that putting chemicals in your body is bad. Reading between the lines, I suspect the real root of the argument is that the author has an emotion - they don’t like the idea of Soylent or the brand that was created behind it - and is jumping through hoops to rationalize that feeling.