Whether OP's response was emotional or not, it touches the matter.
Note it's very easy to look for fallacies when you are detached from the subject. The question is if the person doing this wants to make the world a better place in his way or is just a policeman for the sake of verbal purity..
It touches a matter, but not the matter of the article he thinks he is arguing against.
The OP is against advertising, on two grounds: 1) that he doesn't want to be exposed to things against his will, and 2) that business is by its very nature unethical.
You're right when you say that these are emotional arguments, and not logical ones.
The fact that the OP "wants to make the world a better place in his way" isn't comforting to me; as Shaw pointed out, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
My point isn't one of "verbal purity"; rather, I'm just trying to take the words seriously enough to follow through their implications.
(I assume, by the way, that the OP would be upset to find that his post was linked to on HN, because that link could be viewed as a form of advertising for the piece, and we know how he feels about advertising....)
> (I assume, by the way, that the OP would be upset to find that his post was linked to on HN, because that link could be viewed as a form of advertising for the piece, and we know how he feels about advertising....)
I'm not in love with the OP's piece myself but I think this is being unfair to it. There's at least a quantitative if not a qualitative difference between informally posting a link in a forum designed for it and the sort of weaponized mass psychology modern day advertising has (d)evolved into.
The piece is wooly and rambling and not a particularly coherent argument, please don't sink to its level when criticizing it.
> It touches a matter, but not the matter of the article he thinks he is arguing against.
So what? He still can have some good points, which you seem to refuse to consider as he "broke" your rule of being strictly consistent.
Btw, with your last sentence you clearly put yourself on a side of a policeman..
[edit] I forgot to mention that this 'good intention' vs 'policeman' was about you not the OP. You falsely assumed that I want to attribute everything right to the OP and everything wrong to you, making another fallacy btw. Not at all. I hoped you with your comments want to make it all better and not just be a nazi here.
Please also don't underestimate the power of motivation. I personally find Shaw's famous cite intellectually witty but not wise. Motivation is a primary source of what we do.
Note it's very easy to look for fallacies when you are detached from the subject. The question is if the person doing this wants to make the world a better place in his way or is just a policeman for the sake of verbal purity..