Welcome to DU!
    The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
    Join the community:
    Create a free account
    Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
    Become a Star Member
    Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
    All Forums
        Issue Forums
        Culture Forums
        Alliance Forums
        Region Forums
        Support Forums
        Help & Search
    
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Rio 2016: top American Olympic shooter Kim Rhode attacks gun control laws [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)39. No, but gratuitous mention of dead children is. It's known as 'appealing to emotion' or Lovejoying:
        
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
          
          
          
        
        Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]
Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]
Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?" is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.
  is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.
 is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.
  is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
  Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
						
							55 replies
							
								 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
                     = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
                        Rio 2016: top American Olympic shooter Kim Rhode attacks gun control laws [View all]
							appal_jack
							Aug 2016
							OP
                        
        
        The gun-control extremists wreck any opportunity at reasonable measures like UBCs...
        Eleanors38
        Aug 2016
        #26
      
        
        If you read about the history of gun-control, the extremist controllers set the tone...
        Eleanors38
        Aug 2016
        #30
      
        
        It's the extreme restricions that make RKBA advocates so distrustful of gun control.
        Nuclear Unicorn
        Aug 2016
        #40
      
        
        Or consider Mexico, only 1 gun store in the whole country, total gun control very safe there
        DonP
        Aug 2016
        #18
      
        
        But Brazil isn't industrialized enough to have them counted as having a higher...
        discntnt_irny_srcsm
        Aug 2016
        #19
      
        
        Reuters is virulently anti-gun.  THAT'S the reason she expected "gun control" to be more important
        Eleanors38
        Aug 2016
        #24
      
        
        No, but gratuitous mention of dead children is. It's known as 'appealing to emotion' or Lovejoying:
        friendly_iconoclast
        Aug 2016
        #39
      
        
        You 'rested your case' by using logical fallacies? Shades of 'Hitchen's razor':
        friendly_iconoclast
        Aug 2016
        #46
      
        
        "I'm not interested in debating this crap with you any further..........."
        pablo_marmol
        Aug 2016
        #54
      
        
        "(T)he NRA pays better." They do? And how did you come to know this?
        friendly_iconoclast
        Aug 2016
        #38
      
        
        So, no evidence. Did you perchance attend the College of It Stands to Reason?:
        friendly_iconoclast
        Aug 2016
        #44