Quote:
That is irrelevant.
DUCY?
You've moved the goalposts.
you: think of the children
me: try harder
you: well there are children involved. we make bad things illegal sometimes.
me: yeah there's a non-emotional argument to be made there
you: well yeah but sometimes emotional appeals are effective
wat?
You're confusing a logical explanation of why something should be done (X harms children; X should be banned) for a purely emotional argument.
"I should have a right to a gun because I want to defend my children from harm" is an example of a "Think of the children" argument that people use all the time in support of gun rights. It's not fallacious at all, it's perfectly logical. Yes, it has an emotional component, because virtually every argument has an emotional component.