front page news are for attracting people attention....so there isn't any that doesn't have at least one of these fallancy....
Yeah, and also the fact that there are some instances that slippery slope are real( at least some people see it that way) such as gateway drugs(would lead to further abuse) , paying ransoms(will lead to more crimes) , even the contraversial "bake the cake, bigot" people say lead to "wax my balls,bigot" or the whole sexual reassignment to minors. The quote "give them an inch they take a mile" is sometimes true.
What about using specific and convenient aspect(s) without the general entirety of the information, in order to justify a claim?
Politics uses most sophism and manipulative tactics in order to 'crowd control' Heck, religion is also a crowd controlling strategy.
Think that still falls under "Appeal to Ignorance" When you substantiate a claim with patchwork evidence. I've done plenty of that myself when I'm too lazy to do complete/exhaustive research.
Does it? Unlike "appeal to ignorance", this situation is more concrete, unlike "appeal to ignorance" which uses the lack of information itself as an argument. Like if someone would say that I had a bad life because I was abandoned by my parents, without telling them I got adopted by a very good couple. One could argue that it falls in "Hasty Generalization", but that fallacy's a bit too vague.
You mean there are no women in the internet? only men and undercover agents. Refering to the old rules of the internet.
Well yes..? Rhetoric is the most basic foundation behind speeches, ads, marketing, and general debate. Logos is referring to verifiable accounts, especially accounts that have multiple instances of working. Look at the Age of Enlightenment and/or the Scientific Revolution for a surge in this area of rhetoric ~ Typically today it’s statistics, credible sources, surveys, etc. Meanwhile, Ethos appeals to peoples, well ethics~ We can see this in the sense that in the sense that it shows the credibility of something via credentials or past history. For example, if a big security firm announces they’ve successfully stopped some terrorist attack, than that obviously shows they have some pretty good personnel, if that same firm’s name was used in something such as an advertisement for security, for example. “Insert bodyguard company has specially trained personnel from insert famous security firm/military branch” than you’re more inclined to think of them as high quality. (Was hard to think of a good example here tbh lol) Meanwhile Pathos is just emotional appeal. Best example here is someone dies that was close to speaker = forces you to sympathize with them. Kinda went on a rant there, but wanted to further explain for any confused parties ~ As I love public speaking, and speeches. I know, I’m a damn weirdo.
A lot of times, I just see people not understanding the others point of view and the reasoning behind it, it's like they can't connect the dots.