00:33 She uses an argument by analogy: she compares dyeing hair pink with her mother dyeing her white hair brown.
She also uses quasi logic argument of reciprocity: Since no one objects what her mother is doing no one should object to to Mary dyeing her hair pink. It should be noted that the similarity between the 2 situation could be disputed, as her mother dyeing her hair back to brown is reverting ones hair to a previous "natural" color, while dyeing them pink is changing them to a completely new color which does not occur in nature, so the 2 situations are somewhat different.
00:35 He challenges her analogy pointing out how it is "against nature"
00:38 Once again using argument by analogy: comparing to pierced ears, which no one objects (once again argument of reciprocity). There is also an hidden assumption, which is that no one objects to pierced ears. This is true for the most part but there are some people who could consider piercing unnatural
00:46 He tries and argument by analogy: compares it to someone cutting his veins to enforce how it is against nature (Questionable analogy as the two situation are not very similar in my opinion)
00:52 She Disputes the analogy by correctly pointing out it is not as harmful as cutting ones veins
1:02 She once again uses argument by analogy by comparing it to driving a car: a potentially dangerous activity but everyone does it
1:07 She uses Another analogy: similar to putting makeup on eyebrow which no one disputes
1:13 He tries to use ad popolum argumentation
1:15 She refuses the ad popolum argumentation
She also uses quasi logic argument of reciprocity: Since no one objects what her mother is doing no one should object to to Mary dyeing her hair pink. It should be noted that the similarity between the 2 situation could be disputed, as her mother dyeing her hair back to brown is reverting ones hair to a previous "natural" color, while dyeing them pink is changing them to a completely new color which does not occur in nature, so the 2 situations are somewhat different.
00:35 He challenges her analogy pointing out how it is "against nature"
00:38 Once again using argument by analogy: comparing to pierced ears, which no one objects (once again argument of reciprocity). There is also an hidden assumption, which is that no one objects to pierced ears. This is true for the most part but there are some people who could consider piercing unnatural
00:46 He tries and argument by analogy: compares it to someone cutting his veins to enforce how it is against nature (Questionable analogy as the two situation are not very similar in my opinion)
00:52 She Disputes the analogy by correctly pointing out it is not as harmful as cutting ones veins
1:02 She once again uses argument by analogy by comparing it to driving a car: a potentially dangerous activity but everyone does it
1:07 She uses Another analogy: similar to putting makeup on eyebrow which no one disputes
1:13 He tries to use ad popolum argumentation
1:15 She refuses the ad popolum argumentation