Emotionality in Law

This is about the problem of emotional appeal in law and politics.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• sonnygll
• youtube
• justice
• punishment
• bloodlust
• revenge
• vengeance
• retribution
• restitution
• rehabilitation
• ethics
• evil
• morality
• apologetics
• propaganda
• atheist
• abortion
• racist
• homophobia
• evangelical
• catholic
• evolution
• USA
• atheism
• religion
• christianity
• islam
• bible
• quran
• god
• satan
• allah
• creationism
• epic
• fail
• win
• owned
• pwned
• viral
• conspiracy
• debunked
• fundamentalist
• freedom
• media
• politics
• right
• left
• fox
• cnn
• msnbc
• bbc
• government
• feminism
• bigot
• obama
• palin
• maddow
• concept
• economic
• philosophy
• discussion

[Ktina0420]

I absolutely agree with you entirely and trying to explain these same views to others eem to fall on deaf ears. Thanks you for not being blind> I truly respect your views!  "The Law is reason free from passion" -Aristotle

[sonnygll]

@Ktina0420

I like that Aristotle quote. That's a very good way to put it.

[sbergman27]

Have you considered maybe putting on some clothes before appearing on YouTube? Just a thought. It's just hard to take a guy sitting there naked on the screen too terribly seriously. The days of Diogenes are long past.

[sonnygll]

@sbergman27

Well technically I'm not actually naked. I have pants on, so I'm just shirtless. I don't really wear shirts inside for the most part. I had been doing my videos like that, not really thinking anything of it because you can't see below my shoulders. Then it kind of became my trademark. If you notice my channel is titled "the shirtless atheist". I suppose I might consider it if that sentiment was more common. But it's about my ideas rather than my attire.

[sbergman27]

@sonnygll Oh. Well, then you should pan the camera down for the occasional crotch-shot so that we can see that you are not really naked. :-)

I had not actually looked at your channel page. I got a YouTube recommendation re: this video based upon my interest in Astrobrant2's videos.

Please do keep posting, despite any possible future variations in your wardrobe allowance. ;-)

[sonnygll]

@Astrobrant2

That's worth a lot. It sounds very good coming from a retired teacher.

[Astrobrant2]

@sonnygll You deserve it. Wherever schools have courses like "Law and the Individual," or similar subject, this is something that really should be covered, as these kids will all be voters, (and jurors), one day.

Excellent work. Subbed.

(I'm a retired teacher, for what it's worth.)

[sonnygll]

@Astrobrant2

Thank you, that is high praise indeed.

[Astrobrant2]

I saw this from Cabbie's channel.

Hey, this needs to be packaged as a lesson plan and put into high school Social Studies curricula.

[sonnygll]

@markdzima

I would say it's not an ad hom, because the statements are both true, and directly in regard to the validity of their testimony. Just because the reason something is invalid is insulting, does not invalidate the reasoning.

But I could also see arguing that the fallacy is irrelevant for the same reason as above.

So I think a circumstance that makes you think an ad hom is valid, makes me think it's not an ad hom, but we both agree it logically follows.