“X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member.”
But what do we call this similar related argument? “X gives us a certain emotional reaction, and it is in a category. Therefore, we should apply that same emotional reaction to the whole category, even though X is not a central member of it.” Or “X is good/bad because <facts>, and it’s in a category, so the category as a whole is good/bad.”
An example I saw today as an argument against civilian nuclear power due to nuclear waste: “Hanford has been leaking into the Columbia river for decades. Billions have been spent by the DOE. Contractors walk away with the money and the problem remains.” But Hanford was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project. It was not a civilian nuclear power site and civilian regulations generally weren’t applied there.
But what do we call this similar related argument? “X gives us a certain emotional reaction, and it is in a category. Therefore, we should apply that same emotional reaction to the whole category, even though X is not a central member of it.” Or “X is good/bad because <facts>, and it’s in a category, so the category as a whole is good/bad.”
An example I saw today as an argument against civilian nuclear power due to nuclear waste: “Hanford has been leaking into the Columbia river for decades. Billions have been spent by the DOE. Contractors walk away with the money and the problem remains.” But Hanford was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project. It was not a civilian nuclear power site and civilian regulations generally weren’t applied there.