4 ms·

> Dorothy: “Dad, you look tired. Want to sit down?” > Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?” > Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.” There's a difference between argu

• gamache 17y ago
  This was an example to show pathos. He had covered logos earlier. And this isn't a quote from his daughter, it's a quote from a theoretical daughter who employed pathos to get what she wanted.
• amalcon 17y ago
  It would probably disturb me, but I'm not sure I'd truly be disappointed. People are going to try that sort of manipulation on the child, and it's important that they be aware of the technique. It increases their resistance to it. The "advertising inoculation" mentioned in the article is an example of this.
• shard 17y ago
  I wouldn't feel disappointed. I'd be delighted at the clever twist she put on the answer. The response would be to out-clever her answer: "Sure! You're inviting me so you're buying, right?"
  • Wallo 17y ago
    I agree to an extent I believe that pathos is the one you don't really want to overdo with children. It's basically emotional exploitation or extortion. I would never do that to my parents out of a sense of guilt for exploiting them that way. The overall thing is that he's teaching his kids to be critical, which is a good thing for kids to learn. But it's also important to put ground rules and let the kids know that you're the one teaching them this and to lead them on that you'd be wise to their attempts at using it on you.
  • nirmal 17y ago
    My father loved to have back and forths with me trying to come up with a clever response. But the most important lesson he taught me was that there is a time and place for such things.
• dusklight 17y ago
  But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation. If we are taught manipulation is wrong, we never learn how to use it and we are less able to defend against it, and it puts us at a disadvantage when we have to deal with a less scrupulous person who doesn't have a problem using it. Instead if we are taught that manipulation is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or evil depending on the tool user, maybe we would get less upset at the beer commercial with the twins in wet t-shirts, but also we would be less affected by it.
  • beta 17y ago
    But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation No kidding. That's the whole point of the parent post in the first place isn't it? He's asserting that manipulation, is self evidently wrong, that there is no justification to resort to manipulative tactics over argument through reason. Here's a counter example for you: If we taught that murder is wrong, we'll never use it and we are less able to defend against it... etc. That's actually, exactly how most people are brought up and for good reason. We generally consider murder to be wrong. Let me tell you something, the world seems to be raising more individuals comfortable with implementing these sort of manipulative tactics, "appealing to the audience" as it were. As far as I can tell, what this article promotes is a sure fire way to encourage your child to grow up into being a manipulating psychopath; nothing could be further from fostering talent for argument through reason.
    • shard 17y ago
      what this article promotes is a sure fire way to encourage your child to grow up into being a manipulating psychopath Wow, talk about employing pathos to manipulate the audience!
      • petercooper 17y ago
        And appeal to probability, appeal to consequences and fallacy of the undistributed middle.. :)
• petercooper 17y ago
  I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative. No shit Sherlock! It's called "How to Teach A Kid To Argue." That's where you bat a point of debate back and forth in an attempt to manipulate the other side to agreeing with you or at least seeing your viewpoint. Reasoning is manipulation because you use reason to change other people's opinions or actions.