Talk:Appeal to emotion

Appeal to Emotion as a "fallacy"

Now, not to employ an "appeal to majority" fallacy or anything.. but..

Is there anybody here who does not use emotion to guide their judgements on a daily basis? Please speak up if there is.

Is there any human on the planet who does not use emotions to make judgements on a daily basis? Is there? Tell me, because i'd like to know. The effect of this ridiculous article on wikipedia and in acadamia is that academics think that they have to be "cold and rigid" in their analysis of problems. This of course does not translate into reality. Humans are emotional creatures. I'd like to see anyone get through Christmas with out using "emotions" to make judgements.

I suppose there are some humans who don't base decisions on emotions - The sociopaths you find in maximum security prisons.

• Two wrongs make a right (revenge)

I don't see how this is an example of a logical fallacy. The idea of "two wrongs don't make a right" is more of a slogan. So please help me write Slogan:two wrongs don't make a right. --Uncle Ed 21:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is a fallacy, but it's a fallacy of distraction/changing the subject, not necessarily an appeal to emotion. See Talk: Two wrongs make a right (fallacy) --Taak 19:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a fallacy if it is agreed by both sides as "two wrongs", (even then whether or not the equation itself is a fallacy is a further, yet just as separate, variable) usually however the arguer would be presuming the act of the other to be a wrong, which in context this 'other' would disagree to that fact; where there would be the necessary starting point of a logical argument. Saying "two wrongs don't make a right" to one who is acting in a way they do not believe is wrong is simply taking too many steps ahead of argument as an assumption to pose any kind of a proper logical argument. It is more of a coercive gesture, to take so many steps ahead as to not make it worth arguing back to the starting point for the other side, in which case you are correct, but it is rather convoluting the subject at hand than changing it. Nagelfar 10:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a fallacy when, instead of presenting actual evidence, you appeal to someone's emotions. There are people who avoid attempting to use such things as arguments, and there are people who do not feel many emotions at all. They aren't meant to be arguments, and they are often irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.76.162 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Emotional Fallcy

What are some ways to avoid falling into the emotional fallacy's trap?

Studying logic? Acquiring critical thinking skills? Becoming a robot? -Silence 16:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Since so many of these logical fallacy articles are tiny stubs with, I've been thinking about ways to efficiently merge them. This seems like one good place for a merger, considering how short all but two of these "emotion" articles are. As such, would anyone object to my merging the following articles into this article:

• appeal to fear
• appeal to flattery
• appeal to pity
• appeal to ridicule
• appeal to spite

and possibly short sections with "main article" links for wishful thinking and appeal to consequences, since these seem sufficiently long and distinct from "appeal to emotion" to merit their own articles. -Silence 16:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Which appeal is this?

"We should instate the death penalty for rape. Think about it -- why should somebody who commits such a horrible crime be let free after five or ten years while the victim is left to wallow in her sadness for the rest of her life?"

I currently call it "Appeal to fairness" or "Appeal to Justice", but it might have another name. It's certainly an appeal to emotion, but I don't know which type. ZtObOr 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)