: 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".Here, you've already assumed that it's in danger. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
: Can you point to anything specific in my post?
Yeah, like falsely pointing out a logical fallacy.
: As to using your own words against you, I am merely highlighting a fairly obvious flaw in your arguments; human languages are emotional languages.
Yes. And they're arguementative, too. Appeals to emotion seek to replace logically valid arguments with pure emotive statements. For example:
Hitler was a horrible man because he killed 6 million Jews
and
You are a mean, greedy person because you support capitalism
The first is logical arguement that utilized emotion while the second was an appeal to emotion as it sought to replace logical arguements altogether with emotive statements of opinion.
: 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".
See above. Arguing from emotion is qualitatively different than arguing with emotion; you and Lark do the first while I do the second.
: 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.
Reason without emotion is dry. Emotion without reason is extremely dangerous.
: You are attacking their style of debating in this fashion rather than attacking their logic;
That's that whole point, though. Y'all don't offer logic; you simply offer emotion and opinion in place of logic. I openly admit to my biases, emotions and opinions. However, I do not substitute them for logical arguements as so many her often do.
: 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.
Again, pointing out that someone else's arguement was pure emotion with enough big words to sound logical does not a logical arguement make. And again I fully admit to emotion, but the difference is that I don't try passing it off as a logical arguement.
: 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.
Frege thought this, too, and abandonded it when he saw that only perfectly logical beings could converse in perfectly logical manners. But if your whole post is right then there is no such thing as appeal to emotion fallacy. Is this what your claiming?
If so then your a mean, mean, stinky, greedy, sulpherous, lecher, who doesn't care for his mother, and kicks every little kitty kat he comes acrost and anything you say must all be wrong. mean mean mean (hey, according to you I'm just using emotive language to provide logical arguements, and of course as there's no appeal to emotion fallacy I must be right).
: 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.
Never claimed otherwise. However, you and Lark constantly confuse emotive language with logicaly valid arguements; the two are different.
: 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).
'Whining lefties' is obviously intended as an insult and not even construed as an arguement. As I've said before ridicule is the only response to the ridiculous.
: You can't have it both ways, JJ. Are you emotional or not?
Yes. I simply don't subsitute emotion in place of rational arguement; unlike many here.
: I notice also with some interest that you haven't actually responded to any of the points I raised in my last message;
Hmm, just got here. I'll do so now.
: you merely attacked me on a stylistic point.
No. Pointing out that someone substitutes emotion and opinion for verifiably logical arguement is not twiddling over style. It's pointing out that someone is attempting to circumvent arguement by painting their side as intrinsically good or their opponent as intrinsically evil.
