search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Argument by Emotive Language

(also known as: loaded words, loaded language, euphemisms)

Description: Substituting facts and evidence with words that stir up emotion, with the attempt to manipulate others into accepting the truth of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person A claims that X is true.

Person A uses very powerful and emotive language in the claim.

Therefore, X is true.

Example #1:

By rejecting God, you are rejecting goodness, kindness, and love itself.

Explanation: Instead of just “not believing” in God, we are  “rejecting” God, which is a much stronger term—especially when God is associated with “goodness.”

Example #2:

The Bible is filled with stories of God's magic.

Explanation: Instead of using the more accepted term “miracles,” the word “magic” is used that connotes powers associated with fantasy and make-believe in an attempt to make the stories in the Bible seem foolish.

Example #3:

I don’t see what’s wrong with engaging the services of a professional escort.

Explanation: That’s just a nice way of saying, “soliciting a hooker.”  No matter what you call it unless you live in certain parts of Nevada (or other parts of the world), it is still legally wrong (not necessarily morally wrong).

Exception: Language is powerful and should be used to draw in emotions, but never at the expense of valid reasoning and evidence.

Tip: Euphemisms, when used correctly, reflect good social intelligence. When in a business meeting, say, “Pardon me for a moment, I have to use the restroom,” rather than “Pardon me for a moment, I have to move my bowels.”

References:

Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book