Person A — Evaluation

Strengths:

Clarity of emotional expression: Person A expresses strong feelings (shock, disgust, betrayal) in a vivid and emotionally raw way, making their distress easy to understand.

Contextual detail: They supply specific background—shared upbringing, age proximity, comments from childhood—that construct a psychologically coherent case for discomfort.

Moral intuition: Their moral unease is grounded in lived experience and family dynamics, not abstract norms. This grants some legitimacy to their revulsion, even if it isn’t logically universal.

Weaknesses:

Limited differentiation between social discomfort and ethical violation: Person A seems to conflate emotional disgust with objective moral wrong, implying that because it feels "fucked up" to them, it is fucked up. But this leans heavily on pathos rather than reason.

Possible confirmation bias: The recall of prior “creepy” comments by the father could be subject to motivated reinterpretation. It’s emotionally plausible, but not verifiable, and is used to support a retroactive suspicion.

Assertion of universal wrongness without accountability: The closing question (“so if it’s so normal, why don’t they know?”) is rhetorical but self-defeating—it implies secrecy is wrong because it feels wrong, not because there’s clear wrongdoing.

Overall: Emotionally valid but not philosophically rigorous. Strong in pathos, weak in logos. Understandable but limited in critical distance.

Person B — Evaluation

Strengths:

Empathetic framing without capitulation: Person B acknowledges Person A’s emotional reaction as valid without affirming that the situation itself is objectively wrong. This demonstrates a high degree of emotional intelligence.

Structural reasoning: The core of Person B’s argument is that the uniqueness of Person A’s perspective creates unique emotional difficulty, and that others’ lack of discomfort isn’t evidence of wrongdoing. That’s a strong, subtle insight.

Constructive practical advice: Person B suggests both inward reflection (mindfulness) and outward action (talking to the woman involved). These are psychologically sound coping strategies.

Weaknesses:

Tone drift and unsolicited depth: The use of terms like “strategic diplomacy” and “filial good faith” borders on pompous in this context. This risks alienating the emotionally vulnerable speaker.

Undercuts own clarity with verbosity: The otherwise strong core message—your emotions are real, but don’t make them everyone else’s problem—gets diluted by a long-winded delivery.

Opening joke ("does she look like you"): This risks being read as flippant or even creepy, especially given the gravity of the situation. It may be intended to disarm or provoke perspective-shift humorously, but it’s a tonal misstep.

Overall: High in logos and moderately high in ethos. Emotionally perceptive but a bit condescending in language. The position is nuanced, challenging, and therapeutically useful, though it could have been delivered more tactfully.