RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Pathos gambit

Pathos gambit | Result: Keep

Pathos gambit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. A simple Google search will confirm that nobody uses this phrase other than FuzzyCatPotato. The phenomenon described isn't a distinct fallacy but a variant on emotional appeal and is already discussed as such on that page (under emotion baiting). Anything cromulent could be merged there but we don't need endless quotes from parody Tumblr blogs & the like, & that awful Hitler rage comic should just generally be deleted from the universe. Alternatively kick the whole thing to essay space. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Redspace is a quite fitting alternative to essayspace - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

   Of all the flavours in the internet rainbow, you have to be so salty? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's quite literally the opposite of an emotional appeal. To argue they are the same is to argue communism and red-baiting are the same. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

   No, that's absurd. Quite literally the opposite of emotional appeal would be not appealing to emotion, whereas what this essay describes is an argument based on the emotions of the people involved rather than the logical merits of their arguments - i.e. an appeal to emotion. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

   It's not the opposite of an emotional appeal — it's an inverse emotional appeal. And a distinct one enough at that, friend. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

   I agree in that it is an argument that references emotion, but to call it an appeal to emotion seems inaccurate. It doesn't appeal to the opponent in hopes that the opponent will bite and become emotional; it accuses the opponent of already having bent to their emotions in hopes of convincing others that the opponent has become emotional. Definitely think you could state that this is closely related to appeal to emotion, but it does seem distinct. B) talk 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Keep. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Like the internet's biggest database of fallacies isn't the right place to present thought-out novel fallacies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
4. It's a subset of ad hominem (accusing someone of being emotional) and a form of bulverism, and could use some improvements and clarifications. In my view, the RW should expand on rhetorics, but as several of my own were deleted, it looks like another direction is desired by the mob. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

   And some were restored. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

5. What FCP said.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Yes, it's a subset of another fallacy, but so are others. Has enough worthwhile information over the paragraph in the other article to merit its existence. Although the Hitler comic, while driving home the point, is imo kinda meh. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 20:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
7. Keep B) talk 20:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
8. hashtag keep PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat

1. It seems like it could in some cases (though not in all) be a tone argument, conditional on if you're accusing someone of presenting emotionally or just using emotional arguments. If there's agreement, probably worth noting in the article? B) talk 07:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)