Do appeals to emotion count as an argument...

The same way we deal with all terrorists

Appeals to emotion are effective argument tools, they're just not rational arguments.

You can effectively argue a falsehood by appealing to emotion, and make people believe you. In that sense it's an effective argument, even if irrational. We've even seen that someone can logically dismantle it and as long as you double down you'll have a cadre of fuckwits who will hold on to it. As useless as appeals to emotion are in finding the """""truth"""""" of something, it's ideologically useful and even more effective when supported with facts.

I dont know why emotions in an argument is automatically bad. This autistic way of pretending we are these emotionless robots and should argue as such is pretty retarded.

We're not emotionless,mr Kobain, but emotion should have little place in arguments, especially if they are to decide important shit.

>but emotion should have little place in arguments

why not? Literally everyone does it anyway

Appeals to emotion are useful sometimes, but they are almost always used badly.

"Think about the children" argumentation is shit, but "Paedophilia should be illegal because it's disgusting" isn't.

Not an argument.

That second statement is still empty.

Why is it disgusting exactly? What value system are we using to come to this conclusion?

>What value system are we using to come to this conclusion?

because its abusive and traumatizing to children and autistic people want to entertain allowing it to happen because they like playing around with semantics and arguments.

Its almost like being so rational you end up being irrational.

So does this guy genuinely believe what he's saying or is he just in it for the money?

But aren't all opinions (the basis for every argument) founded in emotion? Is emotion in arguments therefore not important? If so: Why?

>This autistic way of pretending we are these emotionless robots and should argue as such is pretty retarded.

The problem is when you use an appeal to emotion to lead people to a conclusion they wouldn't have come to if they looked at it rationally / in different circumstances.

Just because we're not perfect rational beings doesn't mean that glorifying reason in debate is a bad thing. A rational argument is rational no matter who makes it, but it's dangerous to let someone charismatic have influence on policy or decisionmaking by virtue of charisma, not reason.

>argumentum ad populum

It's the difference between "I feel like" and "I know that".

If you feel like you'll die ten years younger if sand ever touches your urethra that's one thing. You can argue that opinion vehemently, believe it fully, and if you're clever you can probably convince plenty of others to believe it too. But if it's fucking false that's not a good thing to be spreading, and that's where the exercise of reason and rationality comes in. When you say "you'll die 10 years younger if sand touches your urethra" and Jeremiah Sandfucker says "prove it" it's on you.

And hell, say it's true. Yes, it started with an emotional response, a feeling. But if it's actually true that you die 10 years younger, and you have data to back it up, why wouldn't you validate your assertion with facts?

Ultimately - Unvalidated assertions can be true, or they can be false.
An unvalidated false assertion can be emotionally appealing, but that doesn't make it true. Why would you want to intentionally believe falsehoods?

>LITERALLY
>EVERYONE
No, smart people address their feelings separately from important discussions.

Logic should be the main part of a debate or argument. The moment you go "yeah but I just feel like this" you withdraw from discussion there is to be had.

Muh emotions, your emotions

Therefore I'm right.

>because they like playing around with semantics and arguments.

More like they lack any morality at all, and are simply interested in continuing to use their reason to destroy categories until civilization is annihilated.

People like this aren't doing anything good at all, they are just infatuated and in the grip of their nihilism.

>No, smart people address their feelings separately from important discussions.

This post is a nitpick and I agree with the premise that logic should be central.

The dangerous thing about 'smart people' is that they've convinced themselves of their rationality, but humans are not rational.

I don't agree with the user on the "why not?" because I think we should strive for rationality, but we're absolutely full of irrationality and biases, sometimes in bizarre and unknowable ways.

If you get the chance give pic related a read, it goes over a ton of the bullshit hoops our brains jump through, and guaranteed "smart people" are subject to the same hoops we are.

Why would you say humans aren't rational?

>but "Paedophilia should be illegal because it's disgusting" isn't.

Yes it is. That's a shit argument against Paedophilia among many better arguments against it. I agree with the conclusion but the argument makes no sense - it needs to be illegal because it disgusts you? Does that mean anything that disgusts you needs to be illegal? Does shitting disgust you, should shitting be illegal?

Obviously not, that's likely not what you're trying to say, but you failed to describe why it's disgusting, which would (ideally) be the rational part of the emotional response. Otherwise that argument has as much value as "Paedophilia is great because it turns me on." It's "x is ok/not ok because of y sensation it evokes in me."

Obviously you can convince plenty of people with the emotional part alone (preach "homosexuality is disgusting!" and you'll get supporters, preach "the west is disgusting!" and you'll get supporters, etc) but "think of the children" works in that way too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

As a start.

We're more rational than any other creature on earth, but we're not fully rational.

It's funny how easily people are swayed by their feelings like this.

Arguments are GAY, disagreements should be solved by FIGHTING!

>among many better arguments against it.

Such as?

Remember when the egghead was an atheist and then bashed atheists for bringing down Western Civilization?
Remember when he said there are no good Christians?
Remember when he said intelligence isn't genetic and then said it's racial?
Remember when he said voting was evil and then said vote Trump?
Remember when he was libertarian and then said close borders for Muslims?
Remember when he asked fans to defoo, just to explain later why the traditional family unit is so important?

Not him but it's taking advantage of an underdeveloped human that doesn't possess the mental capacity to agree to fuck, pretty much the same going with mentally disabled people.

Children and mentally disabled people are susceptible to abuse from people that know better because they don't have the limitations.

You (if you're the guy I'm replying to) literally provided some here: Arguments such as "it's harmful to the child" and "the child lacks the maturity to make decisions such as sex" are all superior to "it disgusts me" and these can also be supported with evidence beyond your opinion. It might disgust you because it's harmful to the child, but it disgusting you isn't why it should be illegal.

Well maybe I worded myself wrong then, because I of course didn't mean that something should be illegal simply because it's disgusting, but the act itself is harmful, which makes me feel disgusted, hence it should be illegal.

>Remember when the egghead was an atheist and then bashed atheists for bringing down Western Civilization?
His point is that people latch on to atheism and abandon all of what Christianity and western civilization has taught, doesn't change anything about him being an atheist.

>Remember when he said there are no good Christians?
He has admitted this was incorrect, though I think he is a bit too lenient now.

>Remember when he said intelligence isn't genetic and then said it's racial?
He's provided evidence for this and said he was wrong before.

>Remember when he said voting was evil and then said vote Trump?
I can't recall him saying voting is immoral, he was against Ron Paul earlier because he said an openly libertarian president would do more to harm the libertarian movement because he would be stonewalled and sabotaged at every step.

>Remember when he was libertarian and then said close borders for Muslims?
Libertarianism doesn't mean open borders.

>Remember when he asked fans to defoo, just to explain later why the traditional family unit is so important?
He thinks you should defoo if your foo is abusive, doesn't change his argument that a healthy family relationship is a good thing.

Can't believe I responded to this bait.

Do you actually still believe he is in any way genuine and doesn't just rotate his ass hole to wherever viewers may be?

I think he's pandering a bit for donations now, but mostly I think he's held to his principles. I've gotten tired of the Trump cocksucking.

That's the point, though.

The appeal to emotion is basically "You should dislike this because it's disgusting." You'll have people who go "Hey it disgusts me too!" and hop on board.

The step beyond that, though, is saying "It's disgusting because:" and at that point it (ideally) forms into a rational argument based on evidence. Ideally a person reflects on their stance and figures out why they hold it, and finds out whether their belief stands up to scrutiny. Obviously though you've got plenty of assholes who make an appeal to emotion and then support this argument wholly with more opinions or "facts" they made up.

I agree, but what you're essentially saying is that reason and emotion aren't as mutually exclusive as one imagines them to be though.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive, the thing is that an emotional argument without a rational basis is fucked regardless of whether the conclusion is true. It doesn't require the assertion to be wrong or right, merely convincing, and it certainly isn't an ideal form of argument.

If you're emotional about a thing that's fine, but that doesn't mean that a rational argument should be neglected (nor that you can't construct a rational argument around an emotional one). It also means you should be careful you're not irrationally rejecting the opposing argument out of hand because you feel strongly.

A lot of rationality is just a matter of justifying a feeling anyway.

Agreed.

I find it strange that you pick on Stef regarding appeals to emotion when this is literally what the Left has been doing for over 30 years

Can you give some examples maybe? It seems like most of his videos use well sourced data to corroborate his viewpoints, and not just rambling, incoherence that regurgitates whatever someone learnt in their humanities class like the vast majority of leftards

Because it's only wrong with the other side does it, obviously.

See

It's more of a rant. Not every video he makes has to be some super rigorous argument.

>It's more of a rant. Not every video he makes has to be some super rigorous argument.

So it's okay for liberals to have rants instead of arguments too then?

Except that's all "liberals" have. Every so called argument they make either falls on its face after a little examination, or is based on an emotional premise.

Prove it.

Is this guy even a philosopher lmao

That acting tho

CULT LEADER
U
L
T

L
E
A
D
E
R

Everyone is a philosopher.

Because there's a metric fuckton of data backing it up.
If we were rational we economics would be a lot more accurate and simpler.
"Soft" sciences like psychology would be harder.
But they're not, because humans.