Talk:Appeal to emotion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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:
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)
