Eske Esquire wrote:
Christ almighty Kachi, yes, it's a textbook fallacious appeal to emotion. You're overreaching in your attempts to one-up gbaji. He's correct this time.
Don't worry, he'll say something silly again in 12-24 hours. Then by all means, go after him.
Edited, Mar 18th 2011 10:57pm by Eske
No, it actually wasn't, because there was content to the appeal (and as if I actively attempt to one-up gbaji-- trust me, it just happens). The fallacy of appeal to emotion is that there is no relevant argument being made; that the argument is solely asking someone to "have a heart." For example, arguing against abortion with, "Killing babies is wrong! Think of that poor child's stolen future!" Conversely, "By killing a fetus, you are taking away that child's future opportunity for happiness," is not a particularly GOOD argument, but neither is it a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a valid assertion that is relevant to the debate.
This is the way the fallacy works, and my only interest in pointing it out is out of pedantry and boredom.
Are you on crack or something? Yes, it is. I quoted the very first time the phrase "appeal to emotion" was used in this thread. It was used, by me in response to the exact paragraph from Paul I quoted.
My mistake. As you know I often skip your posts, and I assumed from the context of paulsol's post: "And that is not about emotions. That is what happens." that you accused him of making an appeal to emotion in the prior post. I see that you didn't; however, that doesn't change the fact that the quoted part is not a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a description of events with the implication that the quality, rather than the quantity, of deaths of one offsets the other.
If you're arguing that it's possible to contrive some other completely unrelated situation where one could argue using an appeal to emotion without it being a fallacy, I really don't want to get involved.
In this case, what Paul said is a logical fallacy commonly referred to as an "appeal to emotion", or more specifically an "appeal to pity".
No, what Paul said is more analogous to the example I already gave:
Just because there is a logical fallacy CALLED "appeal to emotion" does not mean that all emotional appeals are logical fallacies. e.g., "You should stop cheating on your wife, because it hurts her feelings," is an argument that appeals to emotion, but it is not the logical fallacy we classify as "appeal to emotion."
Paul's argument is an appeal to emotions in the context of quality of life, not a plea to be merciful. That is a valid argument; not a fallacy.
If anyone still doubts this, I suggest you do a bit of reading around. I'm tired of arguing something that is pretty well explained by the most basic sources.
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...
Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.
Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.