: Yes, several people here have directly said "no compromise". You, then, may be the exception.There are compromises and compromises. Any compromise that fails to preserve your biosphere in a habitable state is as good as no compromise at all. Part of the problem lies in the argument as to how much action needs to be taken to "save the world".
: As to the logical fallacy of emotion, please, at least figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Can you point to anything specific in my post?
As to using your own words against you, I am merely highlighting a fairly obvious flaw in your arguments; human languages are emotional languages. You cannot say *anything* in English without there being emotional baggage of some sort attached to it; be it implied, emphasised or explicit. It goes deeper than the mere words; the very sounds of our language are loaded with emotional resonance, hence the power of onomatopoeic words like "plod".
Thus, pointing to the illusory audience and saying "Look! my opponent is irrational! He uses emotional language!" is fundamentally hypocritical; especially when addressing an audience; convincing a mass audience is as much a matter of appealing to their emotion as their reason.
You are attacking their style of debating in this fashion rather than attacking their logic; as such, appealing to an audience to disregard X's logic because he is emotional is using emotion yourself; throwing yourself upon the sympathy of your audience.
As I said, the only true way to debate logic properly is to use a perfectly logical language; like binary, or hexadecimal, or symbolic logic. I don't see any of them being used.
Your posts are emotional, whether you like it or not. As are mine, but at least I'm not pretending to be a perfectly dispassionate observer.
: Appeals to emotion are when someone accuses their debate opponent of being evil or how everyone's going to die if they don't follow some shining path. Pointing out that 'no compromise' usually means no pragmatic/practical action is definitely not any such appeal.
In which case, "whining Lefties" must have some strange new meaning I haven't heard of yet (and not the negative emotional message that I assumed, in my folly, that you implied). You can't have it both ways, JJ. Are you emotional or not?
(And how good are you at machine code? *g*)
: Again, please, figure out what the hell you're talking about before you post.
I notice also with some interest that you haven't actually responded to any of the points I raised in my last message; you merely attacked me on a stylistic point.
Any answers, Joel?
Gideon.
