A hypothetical gun control proposal

Nessie said:
Lots of appeals to emotion and rhetoric in those links. Nothing really in the way of evidence and argument rather than logic.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize an appeal to rhetoric was considered to be a bad thing ...

Perhaps some implied personal attacks in the hypocrisy piece but I don't see any appeal to emotion. What emotion do you imagine is being appealed to?

"Nothing really in the way of evidence and argument rather than logic."

I agree, no real evidence (citations datasets) was provided. Just simple logic.
 
seycyrus said:
I didn't realize an appeal to rhetoric was considered to be a bad thing ...

Perhaps some implied personal attacks in the hypocrisy piece but I don't see any appeal to emotion. What emotion do you imagine is being appealed to?

"Nothing really in the way of evidence and argument rather than logic."

I agree, no real evidence (citations datasets) was provided. Just simple logic.
Click to expand...

It was a comment on You Tube links of a guy on a rant as evidence fit for JREF.
 
Nessie said:
It was a comment on You Tube links of a guy on a rant as evidence fit for JREF.
Click to expand...

A rant?

The speaker was level-headed throughout those videos. You are using a logical fallacy to attempt to discredit someone who has a viewpoint that perhaps differs from yours.
 
seycyrus said:
A rant?

The speaker was level-headed throughout those videos. You are using a logical fallacy to attempt to discredit someone who has a viewpoint that perhaps differs from yours.
Click to expand...

OK, you link away to people expressing an opinion on You Tube and see how far you get on JREF.
 
seycyrus said:
Ahh, an indirect threat.

I think the moderators are able to moderate this forum on their own.
Click to expand...

That was not a threat. You said that appeals to emotion are not good enough for JREF, which is true. But neither is argumentum ad You Tubem.

Just say what you have to say, :)
 
Nessie said:
That was not a threat. You said that appeals to emotion are not good enough for JREF, which is true. But neither is argumentum ad You Tubem.

Just say what you have to say, :)
Click to expand...

I did say what I had to say. Apparently you understood what I had to say because you just stated it.

I also stated that I think those videos are interesting. By implication of placing them in this thread, I also think they are relevant.

Would you like to take this opportunity to point out where in those videos, the speaker "rants"?

Or perhaps you would like to clarify what emotion he is appealing to? Common sense is not an emotion.
 
Sorry, I am not interested in what some bloke on You Tube has to say. You said the antigunners appeal to emotion, please evidence that.
 
Nessie said:
Sorry, I am not interested in what some bloke on You Tube has to say...
Click to expand...

And you lecture me about etiquette? You've made at least two accusations about the content of the video when you apparently are not interested in what was said. Niiice!
 
seycyrus said:
And you lecture me about etiquette? You've made at least two accusations about the content of the video when you apparently are not interested in what was said. Niiice!
Click to expand...

You rightly said appeals to emotion are not good enough for JREF. I have said neither are plain links to You Tube. Sorry if that came over as a lecture, it was not meant to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom