You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Boating Safety.....Don't Be Like Troy

in #boating7 years ago (edited)

shedding light on his "misrepresentations" where he placed his wife and unborn child in jeopardy.

There were more focus on the latter than the former.

For one thing, this is the kind of Think of the Children-kind of argument, a logical fallacy.

For the second thing, "putting lifes in jeopardy" ... there is no such thing as absolute safety. Crossing the street is dangerous. Biking is dangerous. Swimming is dangerous. Even breathing is dangerous.

It's beyond any doubt much safer to be in the traffic wearing a helmet. As a pedestrian, you may be smacked down by a car anytime - wearing a helmet reduces the risk of death and permanent injury in such a case. In the winter time, with the pavement covered by slippery ice and the shock-absorbing sand on the playgrounds being harder than concrete, it's a given that one should wear a helmet. Even in the summer time there is the ever-present risk of slipping on a banana peeling. As a passenger or a driver in a car, seat belts helps a lot - but there is still a risk of head injuries in an accident, hence one should always wear a helmet while being in a moving vehicle. The bottom line is, never leave your home without a helmet on your head. The cost of a helmet is not that high, and it doesn't take much time to put on a helmet - consider that you'll be very happy you chose to wear one the day you get involved in an accident!

So following this line of thought, and following the style of the post above, I could say ...

I see you posted some family photos on Facebook last Thursday ... how can you even call it "family photos", keep in mind that ever since you got divorced you're not a real family anymore! But worst of all, YOUR CHILDREN WHERE NOT WEARING HELMETS! What are you thinking of, putting your childrens life in jeopardy like that! Shame on you!

Sort:  

Think of the children

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?") is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic. Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor). In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.

Zzzzzz.

Lecture someone else please.

Thank you.