It is said in the Epstein textbook that a lot of arguments are considered bad because “they use or require for repair a false or dubious (doubtful) premise (assumption).”
The "appeal to emotion" fallacy uses psychology to make you believe something is true. We see this all the time, especially in television. They say things like, “Buy this product! It’ll make you feel amazing!!” Almost every single commercial is using an “appeal to emotion” fallacy. Television shows use this as well.
In one episode of the Nickelodeon television series, Victorious, the character Trina tells her sister’s friends that she got her feet smoothened by “pukka fish” from Puerto Iguazu, all with no bad consequences, and you get your feet feeling as “smooth as a baby’s butt.” Of course, who wouldn’t want their thick skin on their foot to be smooth, right?
Her sister’s friends tried it, and they seemed to be fine. They got their feet smoothened and gloated over it amongst their classmates. Unfortunately at the end of the episode, they find out that they are highly poisonous and the friends (including Trina) who got their feet smoothened by the fish caught a disease that attacked their central nervous system.
Not only that, but Trina admitted, “I bought illegal pukka fish from a guy in a van!” Meaning, she knew that it would have some side effects, but she didn’t say anything to anyone about it.
As funny as it was, it doesn’t deny the fact that Trina used an “appeal to emotion” fallacy. She appealed to her sister’s friends’ emotions in getting their feet feeling smoother than the average person, but she did not even bother telling them any other additional information that did not make them feel good. As long as she got them to do it as well, it seemed like that was all she cared about. (How mean!)
You have to give some love to Nickelodeon shows sometimes. They are educating you in so many ways. Sometimes you’re not even aware they’re educating you…
Firstly, I felt that your post was awesome and that you answered the exercise precisely. Specifically, I liked how you had a lot of content in your example of what an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Meeting you in person the other day, I could really see how your interest in screen writing influences your posts, as most of them reference to television shows. Going back to the topic of fallacies though, I understood the main idea of the fallacy when you made the reference to television commercials using it as a way to reach more customers. Being an advertising major, I know that this is one of the ways of marketing we usually implement (appeal to emotion). Know although there are others, this appeal is usually used in products that relate to an improvement in physical/ body images. Even though there are some advertisers who use it wrongly, there are still moral standards that are implemented to it. But like your example though, I can see how an appeal to emotion fallacy can initially influence and attract people to a certain idea, but if used without correct sources, can be hazardous.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your example on "Appeal to Emotion" fallacies! I read the example in the book for appeal to emotion but after reading your example I feel as though I have better understanding of the concept. It is totally true that advertisements such as commercials and even our own friends try to find ways in which they can convince us to use products and other things of the sort by appealing to our emotions. Friends especially are able to convince us to use things such as the "pukka fish" because we trust them and feel that they will not try to sell us or have us use a product that will have negative effects. In the situation you presented, the friends decided to use the product because Trina told them it would work and it appealed to their emotions because they trusted Trina and the effects that the lotion could have on their feet.
ReplyDeleteUltimately this example was an appeal to emotion fallacy as Trina was able to appeal to her friends emotions just because they trusted her opinion as a friend.