The appeal to consequences occurs when a belief is argued as true or false based on its potential outcomes rather than its intrinsic validity. In online communities, this can manifest in discussions where users argue that a certain rule or policy must be upheld because its removal would lead to undesirable results, regardless of the actual merit of the rule itself. This type of reasoning can stifle nuanced debate and promote emotionally charged, fear-based arguments.
For example, a forum discussing environmental policies might see users claiming, "We must accept this regulation because rejecting it would doom the planet," without addressing whether the regulation is scientifically or economically sound. Such arguments can derail productive discourse by focusing on emotional stakes rather than objective analysis.
In a forum about technology ethics, a user argues, "If we don't regulate AI now, it will lead to catastrophic job losses." While this statement highlights a potential consequence, it doesn't engage with whether the regulation proposed is effective or necessary. Moderators might step in to steer the conversation toward discussing factual data and expert studies, fostering a more grounded debate.