Critical thinking and political matters.

@GoshisDead,

An appeal to emotion can be put together through critical thinking in, e.g. how best to manipulate an audience's emotions, but the appeal to emotion itself eschews reason, critical thinking, and especially facts (other than the emotions evoked by the issue at hand, e.g. "it's a fact that people are upset because of x, therefore y should be done.") in favor of emotion. It attempts to make emotion more valid than reason.

Appeals to emotion can be logical in that they may be put together in a logical fashion (e.g. dealing with the problem of how best to manipulate an audience's emotions), but they aren't necessarily logical. Many appeals to emotion aren't put together logically.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

IB , Well stated; it makes clear the difference between logical emotion and illogical emotion, and how many people try to manipulate emotion to win over an argument - as it has been done on this thread.

0 Replies

We should get over this mosque madness and reconstruct our relationship with the Moslem world.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mosque-Madness-by-Kathy-Malloy-100817-501.html

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Before 9/11/1, I never cared whether anyone was a Moslem.

I 've never cared much about anyone else 's religion; has nothing to do with me.

I don't have a vendetta against the Moslems,
but I do n't necessarily want them standing behind me.

David

THAT is called paranoia

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

true, some appeals aren't logical, but to claim that all appeals to emotion are not logical nor use critical thinking is itself illogical. When an argument stirs up enough emotion to make emotion more valid than reason, emotion becomes more valid than reason. In a functional sense emotion is almost always more valid than reason as most decisions are not made with conscious rationality, but based on emotional attachments to ideals and ideology.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In the Republican primary for governor next month
I m voting for Paladino because he opposed the mosque
and he is against gun control.

David

Just as you do not any Muslims standing behind you. I do not want you standing behind me.

What is more dangerous? Someone who is Muslim who had nothing to do with a terrorist act in New York, other than by association of being a Muslim or an American bigot who carries a gun and advocates shoot first and ask questions later because he is paranoid about being mugged or set upon.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

He didn't say all appeals to emotion are not logical.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

What government has stopped the building of the mosque? Apparently the White House was all for it. It even tried arguing that if anyone tried to stop it, that would be illegal. (That was the red herring argument of Obama's Ramadan speech).

Well Kennie, if you aren't even going to remember what YOU said, then there isn't much a discussion on critical thinking. Instead we are dealing with selective forgetting.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

yes CI i realize he wasn't, the OP however was implying such.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

What government has stopped the building of the mosque? Apparently the White House was all for it. It even tried arguing that if anyone tried to stop it, that would be illegal. (That was the red herring argument of Obama's Ramadan speech).

Well Kennie, if you aren't even going to remember what YOU said, then there isn't much a discussion on critical thinking. Instead we are dealing with selective forgetting.

well, if you aren't going to tell me what you think I forgot, but did not, it is silly to have a discussion. What is this? Hit and run philosophy?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

yes CI i realize he wasn't, the OP however was implying such.

Who wasn't what? And the OP was implying what? Is this a game of guess what I am talking about?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

My response was to this from you..

Quote:

In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

When the representative acts, they are acting as the government which makes it a constitutional issue. Attempting to inform the elected officials is then a constitutional issue.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

If you are saying that when an argument stirs up enough emotion to make emotion more valid (i.e. well grounded, or just) than reason, then this is, at best, a specious assertion. An appeal to emotion is not well grounded, or just precisely because, as has been previously pointed out, it throws out reason, logic and facts in favor of emotion. An argument lacking reason, logic and facts is a poor argument.

If you are saying that when an argument stirs up enough emotion to make emotion more valid (i.e. producing the desired results; efficacious) than reason, then you are right. The appeal to emotion behind the mosque protesters has been efficacious in prompting a heavy majority of people to say that the building of the mosque is morally wrong. Rational arguments have not been nearly as efficacious.

If you are saying that when an argument stirs up enough emotion to make emotion more valid (i.e. containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived) than reason, then you are plainly wrong because, as has been previously stated an appeal to emotion necessarily eschews logic, and therefore cannot contain premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived.

If you are saying that when an argument stirs up enough emotion to make emotion more valid (i.e. correctly inferred or deduced from a premise) than reason, then you are wrong because an appeal to emotion cannot correctly infer or deduce from the premise that it is morally wrong to build the mosque because of peoples emotions. It necessarily lacks the criteria (i.e. reason, logic and facts) required to make inferences and deductions. It merely opines that it is morally wrong because of people's emotions.

Or, are you using the word "valid" in some other sense that I haven't covered?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

The second one.
However the arguments are entirely rational. They are calculated to achieve an outcome based on experiential and empathetic inference. Making the argument and appealing to emotion is making a caculated bet on the average emotional reaction of a listener. The arguments to precident (i.e. the constitution) are the same. The arguments about constitutional rights are arguments not based on the constition interpreted as law, they are based on the average ideologicaland emotional connection the public has about the constitution. They go a little something like this: You may be upset about the mosque but you are likely ideologically incapable of calling the 1st amendment unjust and the mosque should be covered by the 1st amendment so your emotions against the mosque are unfounded.

Both arguments are rational. Just because people aren't using actual probability statistics doesn't mean the people arguing these things do not have the ability to judge the statistics by experiential and empathetic inference.

3 Replies

@GoshisDead,

The Hutu militia leader George Rutaganda also was more valid in the second sense in his appeal to emotion to prompt Hutus to slaughter Tutsis when he said "they are cockroches. . .we will squash the infestation" than those who argued rationally and logically against the violence that Rutaganda incited.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Yes he was, and dehumanizing 'the other' is a proven technique for discrimination and inciting to violence. Look at U.S. WWII posters regarding the Japanese as rodentlike.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/images/inline_pics/at_home_comm_prop_25.jpg

http://mburgan.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/antijapanesepropagandatakedayoff.png

What is more rational than using proven tactics for inciting emotion and socially distancing you from another? I find it more rational in the second sense in which we are discussing than telling them that their family trees are so intertwined that there is no really familial difference between the Hutus and the Tutsis.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

However the arguments are entirely rational. They are calculated to achieve an outcome based on experiential and empathetic inference. Making the argument and appealing to emotion is making a caculated bet on the average emotional reaction of a listener.

To clarify, it's not that the arguments themselves are entirely rational, they are not. Saying "it's wrong to build the mosque because of peoples' emotions" is not rational. What you are trying to say is that the arguments have been effective because these arguments have been well conceived, thought out and effected, but it doesn't take much in the way of reasoning to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Why would reason need to appeal to someone other than the LCD? Does it make it more rational if the argument appeals to a higher class of 'denominator'? The class of 'denominator' in question whatever it may be is a value judgment. It in effect calling it irrational because it appeals to those prone to emotion (LCD) establishes people who deny emotion in their choices as higher (i.e. in lingusitically comparative terms, better). This in itself is an emotional appeal to those who ideologically assume that more rational is somehow inherently better, as their is no empirical proof that it is. If its the most effective way to reach a desired goal it is the most rational.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

It doesn't; but understanding a little bit of logic will help.

0 Replies

To call an argument "rational" might mean a lot of different things since the term rational is ambiguous (as well as vague). The term "rational argument" is certainly not to be found in logic. In logic arguments may be called, "valid", "sound", "cogent", "inductive", "deductive", and many more things, and all of these have some well-defined and technical meaning in logic. But "rational" does not. So it is up for grabs what might be meant by calling an argument "rational", and your guess is as good as any. In any case, I don't think I have ever heard arguments called, "rational". It is usually people who are said to be rational, or even what people say, although more often we say that what people say is "reasonable" rather than rational. So, I suppose there is no law against calling an argument "rational" and it is not, (I don't think) a category mista as calling an argument "purple" would be, but as I said, "rational argument" has no clear meaning in either logic or in ordinary language, and therefore, there is no point in looking for one. I suppose that it is possible to stipulate or invent a clear meaning, but unless you specify such a clear meaning, and explain what the purpose of stipulating such a meaning is, why do it? It is not as if there is some hidden meaning of "rational argument" that is waiting to be uncovered is there?

1 Reply

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know