Talk:Appeal to emotion

Why the revert? Society does stereotype global warming deniers as bad or stupid people. Its true! 98.17.14.134 04:29, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Well, denying global warming is really an argument in itself - or it attempts to be one. It is not, in itself, usually used as an emotional appeal to support other arguments.--Bob^{bing for apples} 04:37, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

You know, Al Gore uses emotional appeal. 98.17.59.198 02:23, 3 December 2007 (EST)

I thought he used Crest®? CЯacke®

Um, theres a toothpaste called emotional appeal? 98.17.59.198 02:42, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Maybe Al Gore does use emotional appeal. Can you give an example?Bob^{bing up} 05:09, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Emotional appeal is not an inherently deceptive rhetorical technique. It is only invalid if the argument could not succeed without it.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 14:38, 3 December 2007 (EST)

I haven't seen his show, but from what I understand there is a graphic of how much of NY would be under water if the ice caps all melted. While the information is "true", there is also an emotional factor in a presentation like that. As Doc says, if it's true the emotional appeal is not inherently a logical fallacy - it's only a fallacy if it's the only thing supporting a point (gee, like saying "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over a US city"). The emotional appeal, when used along with a valid argument, makes a presentation more compelling. It aids in communication. Vis, "if the ice caps melted, oceans would rise x meters." "Many coastal cities are below this line" "here's what NY would look like if this happened". Adding the third line, with a graphic, makes it more obvious what is being said. human 15:10, 3 December 2007 (EST)

PETA's images

Are PETA's animal testing images fifty years out of date? Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename this article?

Why is this article named "Emotional appeal" with "Appeal to emotion" acting as the redirect? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the article can do with a mention of the illusory disconnect between reason and emotion

Title, as well as the possible subconscious stereotypical application. There are people out there that really think they can avoid emotions in their reasoning and try to form a really strict distinction between emotion and reason, but that's literally impossible. Our brain is wired for emotion first, reason second. Second, I think there's a problematic sexist undertone in the way we disparage emotions, even if unintentional. I don't think it's a stretch to associate logic/reason as masculine and emotion as feminine. It's why men are expected to take up math and science while women do child care and teaching children. So, be extra careful when trying to use this fallacy on a female figure (or try to question the masculinity of a male figure that is crying) as it can be too easy to fall into the sexist/toxic masculinity trap.

So I do believe we have to get that mention into there and make sure we humble ourselves, that we are all emotional creatures and it is okay and completely human to display emotion while arguing, such as trying to get poor people, including children, fed and with health insurance. It's a problem when emotion is substituted for argument, not to supplement argument, but I do think some people think any sort of emotion is bad. I get it that "the right" constantly attacks our emotions and it feels good to see the double standard when a right-wing group that constantly treads on our emotions then start displaying signs of being upset or sensitive. But don't assume our side is immune to strong emotions. What makes this "side" better is acknowledgement of emotions and humility and using the acknowledgement to better your arguments. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)