Is there a fallacy here, and how to respond to it?

Hello, I feel like I'm going mad trying to deal with something which seems so obvious that I'm actually struggling to respond to the situation;

Liz says that she had no choice but to press the red, 'destroy the world' button, because of the way Philip made her feel.

Is there a fallacy, can anyone help Philip understand how to show Liz this?

Please help

Your question gets more into philosophy and psychology than logical fallacies. Liz is making a claim that her feelings are causing her to take action X. This may or may not be the case. Her "reasoning" is that her feelings determined the action. Again, this might be the case, or might not. As a social psychologist, I can sympathize with her position since social influence can be extremely powerful. Did she not have a choice in the matter? That might get us into the topic of freewill, which is a mess. I might provide Liz with the quote by Eleanor Roosevelt who said, "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent." The point being, we do have control over how we let people affect us.

I see no obvious fallacy here or problem with her reasoning. Her problem appears to be allowing others to control her emotions to the extent that it causes her and others harm.

That's a hard question, and I hope that you will do everything you can to help Liz. I wonder if she could use some short-time counseling or a professionally-led support group to help her get through it. How would I know? But I'll suggest a few possible fallacies that aren't in any fallacy book that I know about.

First, maybe "Can't see the forest for the trees."

Second, maybe, "lack of proportion."

Anyway, good luck to both of you. Peace.

I'll let the professional psychologists weigh in on this one, but I can see two distractions from two sides interfering in an
open honest communication between Liz and the seemingly ernest interlocutor named Sean. We're not given any information about
Phillip to really diagnose a particular trait other than the fact that he infuriates Liz and confounds Sean.

Liz's claim is a classic Argumentum ad baculum (See Dr. Bo's Appeal to Force) distraction i.e. "if Phillip keeps mistreating/misunderstanding or misbehaving this way I swear I will push the red button and destroy the frickin' world."

Appeal to Force
argumentum ad baculum

(also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick)

Description: When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.

Logical Form:

If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.

Sean, The Inquirer. however, is also making an Appeal to pity or Argumentum ad Misericordium on Liz's behalf. There's no reason given for
Phillip's behavior or seeming lack of compassion or understanding. For all we know Liz is a drama queen, or, perhaps even a psychopath and Phillip's indifference could be simply one of either despair or sheer futility.

We don't know if he's called 911 or the suicide hot line or if he's in any way responsible for setting Liz off. Nonetheless, Sean, the Inquirer
makes an Appeal to Pity to all of us to intervene with Phillip on Liz's behalf.

Appeal to Pity
ad misericordiam

(also known as: appeal to sympathy)

Description: The attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity.

Logical Forms:

Person 1 is accused of Y, but person 1 is pathetic.
Therefore, person 1 is innocent.

X is true because person 1 worked really hard at making X true.

Thank you all.

Rather than pressing the red button, could Liz have chosen to, for example, not press it?

If there were other options, would there then be a fallacy?