I have to disagree. The Major left out the third way, irrational/emotional appeal.
But that passes for reason among liberals.
The Major left out the third way, irrational/emotional appeal.
That's persuasion. I agree that irrationality is often used to apply to emotional appeal. It is also true that to act based on ones emotions rather than reason is irrational. Actions based on reason are rational. Appeal to emotion is an attempt to manipulate people to act on their emotions rather than reason. But because a person acts with consent then it is still persuasion.
That they don't know they're being manipulated via their mysticism does not relinquish them from being responsible (held accountable) for their actions. Heck, most people aren't aware of mysticism. If they were, they'd eliminate it. Neither the irrational persuader or the person being manipulated can be divorced from their chosen actions.
They both acted with irrationality. One acted out of ignorance and the persuader acted with intent. Intent to circumvent the reason of person he wants to manipulate. It is in this process that the persuader chooses to turn against himself (acting irrationally) by manipulating his victim to act on irrationality (act on emotions) rather than reason. The persuader is the lesser person and tries to bring down the better person to act irrationally.
It's a mainstay of politicians, bureaucrats and other parasitical elites.
The problem with irrational/emotional appeal is that those who emply such arguments are willing to improve your judgement with their gun - although in the case of liberals, it’s a government gun, not one of their own. It would be too much to expect a lib to live the courage of their ‘convictions’.
In any case, libs always prefer to have someone else do their dirty work. That way, they can avoid any responsibility for their actions.