I did read it and I’m also reading it in the context of the article and the rabid group-think here claiming that a potential injury after closing your hand in a door four times in a row is somehow the companies fault or the fault of the engineering department.
If you have to rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy to do the heavy lifting for your argument, I suppose you’re correct that there’s nothing left to discuss.
Personally, I learned long ago not to close my hand in a door after the first attempt. I suppose there’s a reason why some people need safety warnings not to use their toaster in the bathtub, and we should all live by those standards.
I don’t understand what “appeal to emotion” you’re talking about.
You seem to project given what you wrote in your second paragraph however, given that’s not even remotely relevant to the conversation here. I hope you’re not ever in charge of anything that matters.
Your entire argument is an appeal to emotion as if logic should be ignored in this situation simply because “safety” when in reality someone would need to close their body part in a door four times in a row before they were even remotely at risk of being injured.
You followed that fallacy up with an ad hominem by claiming that I must be dumb because I don’t blindly support your emotional argument about safety even though you have yet to explain how this is even unsafe in a real world scenario. My second paragraph highlighted similar scenarios where exceptionally special people might injure themselves by doing something idiotic and dangerous that no average person would ever do, yet we must still be warned about.
Care to take a crack at making an argument without relying on fallacies the whole time?
Please read the comment I was originally answering to.
I did read it and I’m also reading it in the context of the article and the rabid group-think here claiming that a potential injury after closing your hand in a door four times in a row is somehow the companies fault or the fault of the engineering department.
If you think disabling or weakening safety features after multiple attempts is OK, there is nothing left to discuss with you on this topic.
If you have to rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy to do the heavy lifting for your argument, I suppose you’re correct that there’s nothing left to discuss.
Personally, I learned long ago not to close my hand in a door after the first attempt. I suppose there’s a reason why some people need safety warnings not to use their toaster in the bathtub, and we should all live by those standards.
I don’t understand what “appeal to emotion” you’re talking about.
You seem to project given what you wrote in your second paragraph however, given that’s not even remotely relevant to the conversation here. I hope you’re not ever in charge of anything that matters.
Your entire argument is an appeal to emotion as if logic should be ignored in this situation simply because “safety” when in reality someone would need to close their body part in a door four times in a row before they were even remotely at risk of being injured.
You followed that fallacy up with an ad hominem by claiming that I must be dumb because I don’t blindly support your emotional argument about safety even though you have yet to explain how this is even unsafe in a real world scenario. My second paragraph highlighted similar scenarios where exceptionally special people might injure themselves by doing something idiotic and dangerous that no average person would ever do, yet we must still be warned about.
Care to take a crack at making an argument without relying on fallacies the whole time?