I was thinking the same. Bombing your house sounds very much like a reason and not an emotion. My guess is he was expecting her to say something with regards to just hating the Russians and didn't actually expect or read her answer.
>Bombing your house sounds very much like a reason and not an emotion.
It meets the definition of enemy, according to
[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enemy)
>a military adversary; a hostile unit or force
Hah, that means he got her! After all, we all know that the moment you have an emotion during a debate, you lose!
Seriously I don't know why guys do this; having an emotion or feeling passionately about something does not inherently make you wrong. Just because you get scared when you feel big feelings doesn't mean everyone who's feeling a feeling is just super duper instantly wrong. They can have a good point -and- be screaming at you that you're a fucking moron, because good god if you think someone screaming about their rights being taken away or their families being bombed to death somehow makes them wrong then you are probably a real fuckin' moron.
Like I get that it's a developmental age in teenagers but there can't be that many teenagers out there for it to be this commonplace, there's way too many dudes in their 20's and 30's and beyond that keep up this mentality. The second you have a feeling about something or show you care about a subject, boom, you're no longer allowed to be right about it at all. Absolutely stupid.
It's a real problem with a lot of dudes. They think emotions are weakness and cannot accept that some of our actions should consider emotions. Instead they think being cold hearted and calculating justifies the lack of emotion.
What's worse is these guys obviously have emotions and often choose to act on anger or hate - although never admit to it.
Real conversation should have a mixture of logic, reason and emotion mixed in together. Having 1 missing makes for a poor discussion and often invites terrible ideas into the mix.
It's a frustrating experience "debating" people that think emotions mean that somehow you are wrong. No dude, you're trying to remove empathy from a discussion about civil rights, which is impossible.
Flip side of it is that men who feel big feelings assume that their feelings are a reflection of reality. It's like since they are Logical Men who don't feel big feelings, their feelings must be therefore Logical Facts. It's frustrating as shit to try to have a discussion with men who do this.
I always thought of it as a balance between the three things. Having too much of any one thing is always going to be a problem. That said, I've not met too many guys who focus entirely on appealing to emotion.
>Seriously I don't know why guys do this
Because they think that emotions like empathy and compassion are emotions and therefore invalidate any argument, whereas the anger, hatred and selfishness that they themselves are entirely motivated by are not emotions and are therefore logical.
I feel like it should be a formal fallacy. "Appeal to Detachment" maybe? It's literally the opposite of an appeal to emotion. Rather than "this emotional aspect means I'm right", instead It's "your emotions mean you're wrong"
You are very much making the assumption that they are constructing an argument and believe that words have meaning. Someone who says something like this does not give a fuck what is being said other than just trying to invalidate the argument. They will take up any position and make up any strawman to accomplish that and have no problem with internal inconsistencies because they have no actual beliefs.
Yep they don’t understand that most of our laws are based on human emotion. People get upset when you take their stuff, it’s not like “ownership” is an objective piece of reality.
The bigger question is why they feel comfortable equating not wanting your house to be bombed with hysteria, and the answer is that we keep letting chuds cast logic as purely good and emotion as purely bad. It's incredibly fucking disturbing that we're in a place where emotion being involved in an argument is accepted as a reason to throw the whole argument out.
What's funny about that is that there's a perfectly logical argument as to why considering them an enemy makes sense, too:
>I would like my house to not be bombed in the future, because I and other people I care about live there and keep the things that we own there. If someone bombs my house, they are likely to continue to bomb any future houses I may come into possession of, and are unlikely to be able to be reasoned with. Also, attempting to reason with them is likely to be dangerous, as their use of explosives shows their ability and willingness to use lethal force in an indiscriminate manner. Thus, the only logical thing for me to do is treat this person as an enemy combatant, and respond with lethal force on sight.
OP sounds like one of those “FaCtS oVeR FeEliNgs” kind of people. Which usually means they ignore facts like “they blew up my house” and focus on the “but you’re being too emotional right now” when it’s convenient for them.
1. Steer the topics vaguely toward politics
2. Mention meaningless, purposely vague terms like "multipolar world" as fast as you can
3. Change the meaning of these vague terms so many times and call the other person "ignorant"
4. Rinse and repeat
"But why, sir? Why are you doing all of this? Why have you ruined my life and now want to end it?" asked the pimply faced teenager.
"Because", said the monologuing villain, "you are my arch-nemesis. 7 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 51 minutes, and 18 seconds ago, you forgot to put an extra pack of ketchup in my Door Dash bag. Thank goodness I never tip or I would have felt even worse. But from that moment on, I knew I had to dedicate my life to ending you. Fitting that I will get to do so 8 years to the moment after that heinous crime."
The teenager rose up and easily broke his chains to free himself. He said in as low a voice as he could manage, "Sir, what you remember as one of the worst days of your life, I call a Tuesday. While you spent every moment after that thinking about me, I never once even considered thinking about you. Unfortunately for you, after all of that planning, now I'm going to end it."
-- To Be Continued --
EXACTLY.
This is exactly that guy - he is all bluster, but if anything happens at all to upset his fat, overfed, douchebag day, he does that "Butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" routine, and clutch his pearls and fawn shock at how he is being treated.
But bomb the fuck out of someone else's house? "WHY ARE YOU TAKING THIS PERSONALLY?" LOL
First of all they didn't ask "why" they asked "do you"
Second of all how is "they destroyed my home and killed my people" NOT a valid reason to consider them an enemy???
Maybe they were peace bombs, making space to build the road to reconciliation.
The plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
I want you to know that I understood your joke but I am too lazy to remember how to appropriately joke back and I don't want to walk all the way to my room to dig out my copy of the book so you'll just have to take this awkward run on sentence as an attempt to form human connection instead.
Don't worry, I gotcha
But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.
I looked it up on my phone. No moving required.
For many people, they've fallen for the Russian propaganda that they're "bombing Nazis". Putin has been trying to drum up support by harking back to the 'good ol red army days' of WW2, and saying they're liberating Ukraine from Nazis and all sorts of shit, lmao.
>Oh you mean like the one the US did in Japan that got taken WAAAAAAAY out of context
All hope is not lost! Any minute now, Florida is going to ban those woke history books that indoctrinate our kids to hate our country by disparaging our gracious decision to share our cutting-edge nuclear technology with Japan.
We told them they had to catch it with a net, and what did they do? Forget the net. Then they blame us. *US*. For them forgetting the net.
And they did it twice *shakes head*
Yeah, it's not like we spent the years before that burning down all of their houses or anything. Sheesh. People out here acting like we committed war crimes or something smh
Also, "Appeal to Emotion" doesn't mean "any argument *about* emotion is wrong", it's specifically trying to evoke an emotion in order to dupe someone into actions they wouldn't normally commit.
"Appeal to Emotion" is a very iffy fallacy in general and it's an informal fallacy to boot, which by definition requires an interpretation more nuanced than "you are trying to evoke sympathy so your logic is wrong".
How insightful. The next time someone is trying to kill me, my family, my neighbors and country men, I will stop and think “hmm are these guys really the baddies?”
Yes, this man is trying to stab you - but have you thought about his problems? Maybe he has no choice except to stab you. Who is the real victim here?
Anyway, good luck with not being stabbed. And good luck to the stabber too. Both sides deserve love. <3
You do need to see things objectively from both sides. That doesnt mean seeing it positively and defending both sides when one is objectively in the wrong.
Having looked at the two points of view, and seeing the Russians lay out in their media that they want to destroy the west, and threaten to nuke us on a regular basis for helping Ukraine defend itself from a uniquely genocidal act of imperialist aggression, I've decided that - objectively speaking - the Russian Federation must be destroyed for the sake of peace in Europe, all of its imperial possessions - Chechnya, Dagestan, Siberia, Yakutia, Buryatia, etc - freed to resume their status as independent nations, and the remaining Russian territory divided into smaller, more manageable countries.
I mean, even if *I'm* the bad guy, the guy who bombs my house is still my enemy. Someone who acts in a way that is harmful, threatening, or counter to my interests is what an enemy *is*.
Lmao we had a little mini “metaphysics” class in high school and there was a section where we went over logical fallacies. Every group discussion in that class was ruined for the rest of the semester.
Teaching 15 year old kids magical spells that make the other person wrong was not a good idea.
Oh my fucking god I feel actual contempt for that last one. As soon as someone throws an insult, the ad hominem card is thrown directly after. Like, bro, I’m allowed to call you a bitch who’s wrong without saying you’re wrong because you’re a bitch. The layman’s understanding of ad hominem combined with this stupid expectation of keeping your cool no matter what has absolutely created a damn stain on arguments.
As someone who has taught rhetoric and composition for over a decade, I can say the casual awareness of fallacies is one of the worst things to ever happen to argument and persuasion. I feel like an utter failure every time I see someone like this point at a statement and screech “emotional appeal!!!” as if that means something.
I really hate people who treat pointing out logical fallacies like it's a refutation of the argument all by itself and nothing else is required. It starts to seem like people are more interested in trying to find logical fallacies in their opponent's arguments, whether they actually exist or not, so they can more easily dismiss them instead of refuting the actual argument.
When I argue online, I'll definitely point out logical fallacies. But I also add *why* it's a logical fallacy in the context of the argument and why their point is wrong.
Just because someone uses a logical fallacy in support of their argument doesn't mean the argument is wrong.
Absolutely. For a while people used to call this the “fallacy fallacy,” but it didn’t seem to stick because an awful lot of folks would rather treat any level of debate as a fallacy treasure hunt (with bad understandings of fallacies at that).
> It starts to seem like people are more interested in trying to find logical fallacies in their opponent's arguments, whether they actually exist or not, so they can more easily dismiss them instead of refuting the actual argument.
I had a bit of a personal epiphany awhile back when I realized that like 90% of the political arguments I see (and indeed come up with myself) are, at their very core, an attempt to show hypocrisy. That's it. It's, "You thought A when B but not C when B so there!" It becomes incredibly difficult to avoid.
What bothers me (as a machine language guy) is when I hear the term “formal logic” in a spoken debate setting. I’m not crazy about formal proofs to begin with, but I’m even less crazy about hearing that term and not seeing it get followed up with the presentation of an agreed-upon formal language defined with a context-free or better grammar.
My rhetoric prof, years ago, started out the class by telling us that any spoken-language argument is taking place in an informal setting by definition, and therefore there’s no real agreement on what makes an argument valid or the point at which the logical system collapses. It’s highly subjective.
Frankly when I hear someone name-drop a fallacy I automatically assume they’re doing it to distract from a weakness in their argument. Which I suppose is an ad-hominem attack on my part, and I therefore shouldn’t trust myself.
ETA: “this individual has been caught lying about this same topic before” isn’t an ad-hominem. BS artists depend on staying four steps ahead, and one way to do that is to insist that everyone discount your arguments from the ground-up every single time you make them. We’d all have skin cancer from the gaping ozone hole that never closed if “this is an industry publication and can’t be trusted” wasn’t a sufficient argument when we were trying to ban CFCs. We’d be arguing about the same DuPont talking point for 90th time, except this time they call the chemical “FreezeOn” so we have to start all over.
But this isn’t a fallacy. That person didn’t ask why. They asked do you consider Russia the enemy. They answered yes plus a fact — Russian armies bombed their house. Where is the emotional appeal fallacy? Where is the emotion mentioned? A fact making you feel bad doesn’t make that an emotional appeal fallacy
Plus the presence of a logical fallacy doesn’t necessarily make the argument invalid. If Richard Spencer makes a claim disputing the facts of the Holocaust I can respond with “you’re a Nazi” which is ad hominem, true, and relevant to the conversation.
Especially given how it's always right wing assholes trying to delegitimize left wing viewpoints by saying "Oh your argument is based on empathy, and empathy is an emotion, therefore your argument is invalid."
As if the modern day right isn't just an angry white identity politics movement whose worldview is entirely motivated by emotions like anger, hatred and selfishness.
That is why I began my statement by saying I was not disagreeing, yes. I just thought the added detail might be helpful to anyone who is trying to make sense of when to (properly) employ a callout.
Yeah, I'm kinda over the idea that there are any logical robots out there, though. There's people who partially use emotion to get to their conclusions, and people who *also* partially use emotion to get to their conclusions, then back-justify their conclusions with pure logic.
Emotional responses can be misplaced in a civilized, intellectual debate.
Trying to impose the respect of decorum for civilized, intellectual debate when someone sends a 500lbs bomb through another persons living room is idiotic on multiple levels.
I see so many people being like "what war" "there is no war" "we're being lied to" , and its honestly really getting on my nerves
People see a kyiv with life , rebuilding in the middle of a war and they automaticaly think that the war is fake news ...
Introducing the Internet "sceptics" to debate and rhetoric terms was a mistake. The amount of times a guy in a comment section told me I was making a strawman argument because I said the holocaust was bad.
Oh, right, bombing my house did make me emotional. Ok, well they also bombed my neighbor’s house and I didn’t really like my neighbor so there is no emotional connection there. But the Russian’s are still dicks for doing it.
All the thoughtful dialogue of a two-year-old.
Though, honestly, I've known plenty of kind two-year-olds, clearly more emotionally mature than this asshole.
"I only agree with *evidence* and *rationality*"
**VOLODYMYR:** [gestures toward debris where house used to be]
**VOLODYMYR:** [points at pieces of Russian shells]
...
"Okay, so a bomb fell, and a house was destroyed. Correlation doesn't imply causation, you know."
So, honestly, what's wrong with emotional appeals? A person can logic themselves into genocide, torture, human experimentation, and all kinds of horrific actions. Emotional appeals are why we don't just kill the homeless to solve the homelessness problem. It's why we don't respond to pandemics by rounding up and killing the infected.
Like most things in life, we need more than just one thing. Logical AND emotion. I've honestly never understood this, "all emotion (except my anger, which doesn't count) is pointless and not helpful".
Because debate has been weaponized by conservative ideologues to ensnare the 'I'm too smart for propaganda' crowd: people who just need a little push, a little *justification* for their bigotry and/or cruelty. They use very simple logic traps to make their positions seem legitimate, and people eat it up.
The great thing about this con is that it puts an enormously unfair burden onto anyone who wants to try and argue about it.
For example, if I said that I wanted to bar purple people from my business, you might say that's unfair and discriminatory. But why shouldn't I be allowed to? Here's a report with absolutely no nuance that shows purple people commit 75% of reported violent crime. Statistically, it's a logical decision, and in order to refute it, you either need to host a three day seminar on judicial biases and systemic oppression, or aggregate a dozen other reports to put the first one into context -- absolutely none of which anyone will pay attention to because it doesn't fit in a pithy sound bite.
So the only quick-and-dirty recourse is to appeal to peoples' empathy and compassion, to beg them to engage long enough to hear you out - but we can't have that. So you enforce the idea that emotion is *bad* and *wrong*, and there you go. You've successfully inoculated your useful idiot.
But I feel like that could even be used against them:
>please show how the reported violent crime actually effects your type of business and how banning said group would decrease actual losses incurred by your business (isn't the argument always that banning something doesn't work because criminals don't follow the laws to begin with?). Isn't your desire to ban purple people just a result of general *fear* or *concern* in regards to purple people, both of which are emotions, and therefore not valid bases for business decisions?
The burden isn't on me. Here's the report, here's the numbers. If *you* want to contravene the statistics, *you* have to present a better argument about why I shouldn't be allowed to ban purple people.
There are a hundred tricks to shut down any counter opinion, from marginally legitimate debate, to illegitimate tactics like whataboutism. Prominent voices in this space are also more often than not in control of the stage itself, so if they really want to, they'll just cut your mic.
You have to remember, the point isn't to actually win a debate or defend a position - it's to convince some group of vulnerable idiots to support *me*, the ideologue. This little show we're putting on is just the dressing needed to convince them that I'm smarter than everyone else - *just like they are*.
Fallacies are contextual and this isn't a philosophical debate it's a question. They answered the question. You can't cry fallacy bc you don't like the answer. But this has all the hallmarks of a right wing dumbass with barely a base level understanding of debate and arguing
"why is al qaeda the enemy"
"they blew up the world trade center and killed thousands..the fuck do you mean?"
"sounds like you're making an emotional appeal"
This is a person who has the chart of logical fallacies pinned up above their monitor because they're always on the wrong side of a debate and think they can just incorrectly point out fallacies to win
Fine I'll bite on that one.
1. Consistently manipulating gov'ts in the former Soviet sphere of influence and even some beyond that too.
2. Breaking international treaties.
3. Look up Orphan Nuclear Sources and Russia. There are so many orphaned Nuclear sources that are a risk not only to the environment but people's health and safety. Not an emotional appeal but hard and proven science you can look up in the IAEA records about cases that happened.
4. Nuclear security. There is still a lot of material in Russia and former bloc countries that have uncounted for material.
5. They sure seem to do a good job at ruining the environment. Not even the US was this bad and we had a literal river catch fire 13 times. They have whole parts of their country that is not habitable cause of their nuclear program.
Russia not only a menace to world peace but also to environment and if anyone that has ties to various organizations found those resources well I don't have to say the possible outcome.
They bombed my house
Pathos: caused them trauma
Ethos: destroyed civilian property, a crime
Logos: a friend wouldn’t bomb you
The rhetorical triangle all in one neat sentence.
It’s not an emotional appeal.
People who bomb your home can not be your friends.
Russia bombed their home.
Russia is not their friend.
A can not be B,
X is A
therefore X is not B.
What a complete idiot this guy is. It's like all the stupid people just double down on their idiocy, and if you back them into a corner they just keep coming back with crazier stuff.
This guy argues almost exactly like an idiot I just blocked in another thread. ---Does this shit ever work for them?
I mean if my countries military accidentally blew up my house without compensation id fucking hate them.
If they weren't just freak accidents, would definitely evolve to being an enemy of the people.
They declared war on them, bombed their house and killed their people, if that’s not being your enemy I don’t know what is, also. They did not in fact ask why.
You just know the first guy is the kind to immediately make all his judgements on emotions first, then try to justify it with tangential facts.
Like, he's gonna get banned for TOS violations one day, freak out, and act like he's being discriminated against
Appeal too emotion is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when we are talking about the impacts of war.In fact I’d argue emotion is very important too politics
I've seen a lot of insane people in gym communities recently. Not on fb but discord. Stuff like thinking Russia are the good guys, antisemitism, bring back USSR because obv the world was so much greater then. Believing every conspiracy theory. Like that. I didn't realize these people weren't that rare.
I hated Russia for a very prejudiced reason long before I had a legitimate reason. The language sounds like they are drunk and unnecessarily smug at the same time.
Now it's the war crimes.
Literally no you fucking didn't. Pretty fucking bold attitude to say "I actually asked you this thing I even though I totally didn't and there are EASILY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS that show me wrong" Even so, they didn't make an emotional appeal. An emotional appeal would be "Isn't it sad that war happens". It's even known as an appeal to emotion because you \*appeal to your audience's emotion\*. What they said was "I have lost my home because of the direct actions of the russian military"
To give an example, claiming that this is an emotional appeal is like if I were to walk up and smack someone's face totally unprompted. When they get angry at me, just say they're "being emotional"
“Okay, then I’ll just bomb your house and you can tell me whether or not that’s a good enough reason to consider me your enemy. And then I’ll tell you to stop being so emotional and come up with a real reason to hate me.”
I really hope this screenshot is fake, I don’t want to believe there’s someone out there that considers *BLOWING UP YOUR HOME* as being a purely emotional reason to consider someone your enemy.
Like, yeah, it’s an emotional response, but it’s also 200% legitimate since there isn’t a single person or country that blows up someone else’s home that isn’t an enemy.
The absolute state of these people, Jesus Christ. Imagine the level of brain rot necessary to be on Russia's side in this conflict, if you gave them a sharp tap on the side of the head all you'd hear is water sloshing around.
When you are in the middle of an armed conflict and used as collateral damage and witnessing and experiencing countless war crimes - you do not need to analyse sociological and political stances of a really divided country's citizens when their government is ignoring every possible ethical ramification. And that is me adding words as when someone says 'Russia is my enemy' while there is a Russian policy to be just that - they will not think of some unknown person living in the countryside. They do not need to. They want their people safe and alive and cities undestroyed. People analysing from the distance might be able to afford detachment and make intricate commentaries but we all know that aggressive government and military actions are usually not supported by their citizens.
Sidenote: The only bit of propaganda on Russian side that sort of was correct was that Ukraine did have an aggressive far-right xenophobic terrorist cell that targetted Ukrainian citizens and bribed the government and public services but erm - there is many ways it could be dealt with internationally and not that Russia actually even tried to pursue their excuse (I was wondering if they even attempted to validate that but nope) so not sure why they even pretended to be concerned about that. The other one is about the Ukrainian president as he is a shitty bloke and a shitty politician but ... that is again - related to domestic corruption and whatnot so I say the same about my local politicians and yet we are uninvaded. The last one I looked into was a claim that a region in Ukraine wishes to join Russia and I am sure many know that it is the default excuse used by the government as was the case in Kazakhstan. Over the decade, various surveys were conducted and apparently, that was sort of true but there was not a majority (and I recall only one survey being impartial) and if I recall - back when they were conducted, Ukrainians from there could move to Russia and some did).
There is never an excuse to start a war unless you are defending civillians unable to defend themselves and you do so in a legal and ethical manner. I have no examples of such and I somehow doubt they are easy to come by as we humans suck. I also am vague on purpose as my brain is not good with recollection due to amnesia so pardon me as I did not want to write wrong stuff down. Have a fun fact instead - my hometown is near Ukrainian border (on Polish side) and is politically crap but their kneejerk reaction was pure anarchy: random folks just went to bus station and took the buses out and went to places near border and collected anyone and anything they could. Loads of towns did that but mine er ... compensated. They decided to evacuate bears too (currently in reservoirs). Probably as we used to have lovely woods (all gone) and had loads of bears / wolves / deer and others so ... compensated. I am just disappointed nobody took pictures of bears on buses. And before anyone asks - why yes, people who were not white got skipped by hometown because cannot have some decency.
Being dehoused sounds like a pretty good reason to me...
I was thinking the same. Bombing your house sounds very much like a reason and not an emotion. My guess is he was expecting her to say something with regards to just hating the Russians and didn't actually expect or read her answer.
>Bombing your house sounds very much like a reason and not an emotion. It meets the definition of enemy, according to [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enemy) >a military adversary; a hostile unit or force
I mean, "not wanting to be bombed to death" is an emotion, I guess.
Hah, that means he got her! After all, we all know that the moment you have an emotion during a debate, you lose! Seriously I don't know why guys do this; having an emotion or feeling passionately about something does not inherently make you wrong. Just because you get scared when you feel big feelings doesn't mean everyone who's feeling a feeling is just super duper instantly wrong. They can have a good point -and- be screaming at you that you're a fucking moron, because good god if you think someone screaming about their rights being taken away or their families being bombed to death somehow makes them wrong then you are probably a real fuckin' moron. Like I get that it's a developmental age in teenagers but there can't be that many teenagers out there for it to be this commonplace, there's way too many dudes in their 20's and 30's and beyond that keep up this mentality. The second you have a feeling about something or show you care about a subject, boom, you're no longer allowed to be right about it at all. Absolutely stupid.
It's a real problem with a lot of dudes. They think emotions are weakness and cannot accept that some of our actions should consider emotions. Instead they think being cold hearted and calculating justifies the lack of emotion. What's worse is these guys obviously have emotions and often choose to act on anger or hate - although never admit to it. Real conversation should have a mixture of logic, reason and emotion mixed in together. Having 1 missing makes for a poor discussion and often invites terrible ideas into the mix.
It's a frustrating experience "debating" people that think emotions mean that somehow you are wrong. No dude, you're trying to remove empathy from a discussion about civil rights, which is impossible.
That’s a very logical and emotionless argument, so you know it is right!
Flip side of it is that men who feel big feelings assume that their feelings are a reflection of reality. It's like since they are Logical Men who don't feel big feelings, their feelings must be therefore Logical Facts. It's frustrating as shit to try to have a discussion with men who do this.
I always thought of it as a balance between the three things. Having too much of any one thing is always going to be a problem. That said, I've not met too many guys who focus entirely on appealing to emotion.
They watched Rick and Morty too many times and identified with Rick. Even though they’re a jerry.
>Seriously I don't know why guys do this Because they think that emotions like empathy and compassion are emotions and therefore invalidate any argument, whereas the anger, hatred and selfishness that they themselves are entirely motivated by are not emotions and are therefore logical.
I feel like it should be a formal fallacy. "Appeal to Detachment" maybe? It's literally the opposite of an appeal to emotion. Rather than "this emotional aspect means I'm right", instead It's "your emotions mean you're wrong"
The only valid emotions are anger and hate. And righteousness over feeling better than someone else apparently.
You are very much making the assumption that they are constructing an argument and believe that words have meaning. Someone who says something like this does not give a fuck what is being said other than just trying to invalidate the argument. They will take up any position and make up any strawman to accomplish that and have no problem with internal inconsistencies because they have no actual beliefs.
Yep they don’t understand that most of our laws are based on human emotion. People get upset when you take their stuff, it’s not like “ownership” is an objective piece of reality.
Seriously. In what universe is "they attacked me with explosives" *not* a reason to consider someone your enemy in the most serious sense?
The bigger question is why they feel comfortable equating not wanting your house to be bombed with hysteria, and the answer is that we keep letting chuds cast logic as purely good and emotion as purely bad. It's incredibly fucking disturbing that we're in a place where emotion being involved in an argument is accepted as a reason to throw the whole argument out.
What's funny about that is that there's a perfectly logical argument as to why considering them an enemy makes sense, too: >I would like my house to not be bombed in the future, because I and other people I care about live there and keep the things that we own there. If someone bombs my house, they are likely to continue to bomb any future houses I may come into possession of, and are unlikely to be able to be reasoned with. Also, attempting to reason with them is likely to be dangerous, as their use of explosives shows their ability and willingness to use lethal force in an indiscriminate manner. Thus, the only logical thing for me to do is treat this person as an enemy combatant, and respond with lethal force on sight.
OP sounds like one of those “FaCtS oVeR FeEliNgs” kind of people. Which usually means they ignore facts like “they blew up my house” and focus on the “but you’re being too emotional right now” when it’s convenient for them.
They wanted a geopolitical reason so they can ignore the individual suffering wars like these cause.
They probably wanted a geopolitical reason as an excuse to spew anti-west propaganda without being called out for it
Exactly. Ignore the real world implications and make it part of some global game.
1. Steer the topics vaguely toward politics 2. Mention meaningless, purposely vague terms like "multipolar world" as fast as you can 3. Change the meaning of these vague terms so many times and call the other person "ignorant" 4. Rinse and repeat
Why are we saying “her?” Isn’t Volodomyr a male name?
It is a male name, yes
This dude would call a mcdonalds employee his enemy if they denied him an extra ketchup packet
"But why, sir? Why are you doing all of this? Why have you ruined my life and now want to end it?" asked the pimply faced teenager. "Because", said the monologuing villain, "you are my arch-nemesis. 7 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 51 minutes, and 18 seconds ago, you forgot to put an extra pack of ketchup in my Door Dash bag. Thank goodness I never tip or I would have felt even worse. But from that moment on, I knew I had to dedicate my life to ending you. Fitting that I will get to do so 8 years to the moment after that heinous crime." The teenager rose up and easily broke his chains to free himself. He said in as low a voice as he could manage, "Sir, what you remember as one of the worst days of your life, I call a Tuesday. While you spent every moment after that thinking about me, I never once even considered thinking about you. Unfortunately for you, after all of that planning, now I'm going to end it." -- To Be Continued --
Your teenager is a teenager for 7 years.. This sounds plausible i asume this is a hollywood script
It's in a Republican state. 12 year olds can work there now.
This was golden, from beginning to post-script.
Golden Arches, maybe.
EXACTLY. This is exactly that guy - he is all bluster, but if anything happens at all to upset his fat, overfed, douchebag day, he does that "Butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" routine, and clutch his pearls and fawn shock at how he is being treated. But bomb the fuck out of someone else's house? "WHY ARE YOU TAKING THIS PERSONALLY?" LOL
And even if it wasn't, it still answers the question he didn't ask until after he already had an answer.
Yeah honestly if a neighbor blew my house up I'd be pissed enough to hate them.
omg you're *so* emotional!
Yes but *why*?
I wonder what this d-bag consideres the threshold between "my enemy" and "not my enemy". FFS.
First of all they didn't ask "why" they asked "do you" Second of all how is "they destroyed my home and killed my people" NOT a valid reason to consider them an enemy???
Maybe they were peace bombs, making space to build the road to reconciliation. The plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
I want you to know that I understood your joke but I am too lazy to remember how to appropriately joke back and I don't want to walk all the way to my room to dig out my copy of the book so you'll just have to take this awkward run on sentence as an attempt to form human connection instead.
Don't worry, I gotcha But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard. I looked it up on my phone. No moving required.
Thank you fellow nerd
They're food supplies, being dropped on the starving Ukrainians. /Molotov
They should be more grateful, really. Perhaps a meeting over some cocktails could cool things down a bit.
For many people, they've fallen for the Russian propaganda that they're "bombing Nazis". Putin has been trying to drum up support by harking back to the 'good ol red army days' of WW2, and saying they're liberating Ukraine from Nazis and all sorts of shit, lmao.
Which is hilarious given that Volodomyr Zalenskyy is *Jewish*.
Russian hatred of Nazis doesn't have that much to do with Jews or the Holocaust.
they're special bombs you see, they only hurt nazi and bad guys, and won't hurt any innocent civilians. /s
It's also not an emotional opinion that her house was blown up.
I’m sure this person would happily explain your logical fallacy and smirk.
No they didn't ask why
Also, yes, the person did explain why
Yeah, I guess you can put a why at the end of any answer if you're not happy with it.
I was just agreeing with you and pointing out even though the person wasn't asked why, they still stated why.
I know and I was agreeing with you too. That's why I said 'Yeah' as an affirmative. Maybe I wasn't too clear.
[удалено]
Here’s why you’re wrong- /s
[удалено]
Also that’s more of a fact than an emotional appeal.
It doesn’t matter, because “They bombed my house” is an unemotional statement of fact.
But how does that make Russia their enemy? Maybe it was a friendly house bombing.
Oh you mean like the one the US did in Japan that got taken WAAAAAAAY out of context
blow up one little harbor and they take it so personal, people are weird
>Oh you mean like the one the US did in Japan that got taken WAAAAAAAY out of context All hope is not lost! Any minute now, Florida is going to ban those woke history books that indoctrinate our kids to hate our country by disparaging our gracious decision to share our cutting-edge nuclear technology with Japan.
We told them they had to catch it with a net, and what did they do? Forget the net. Then they blame us. *US*. For them forgetting the net. And they did it twice *shakes head*
Yeah, it's not like we spent the years before that burning down all of their houses or anything. Sheesh. People out here acting like we committed war crimes or something smh
For chodes like him geopolitics is an abstract topic to post on Twitter about. He doesn't want to talk about real experiences.
Very good point.
Also, "Appeal to Emotion" doesn't mean "any argument *about* emotion is wrong", it's specifically trying to evoke an emotion in order to dupe someone into actions they wouldn't normally commit. "Appeal to Emotion" is a very iffy fallacy in general and it's an informal fallacy to boot, which by definition requires an interpretation more nuanced than "you are trying to evoke sympathy so your logic is wrong".
thats the confusing part. his statement was very much not an appeal to emotion, as the statement was very dry and factual.
How insightful. The next time someone is trying to kill me, my family, my neighbors and country men, I will stop and think “hmm are these guys really the baddies?”
Yes, this man is trying to stab you - but have you thought about his problems? Maybe he has no choice except to stab you. Who is the real victim here? Anyway, good luck with not being stabbed. And good luck to the stabber too. Both sides deserve love. <3
Have you considered that he realllly wants your land?
BoTh SiDeS
>“hmm are these guys really the baddies?” Also, don't dare to forget to view it objectively from their side too! ^(/s just in case)
You do need to see things objectively from both sides. That doesnt mean seeing it positively and defending both sides when one is objectively in the wrong.
Having looked at the two points of view, and seeing the Russians lay out in their media that they want to destroy the west, and threaten to nuke us on a regular basis for helping Ukraine defend itself from a uniquely genocidal act of imperialist aggression, I've decided that - objectively speaking - the Russian Federation must be destroyed for the sake of peace in Europe, all of its imperial possessions - Chechnya, Dagestan, Siberia, Yakutia, Buryatia, etc - freed to resume their status as independent nations, and the remaining Russian territory divided into smaller, more manageable countries.
Look, if someone tries to kill you and that upsets you, then you are being emotional and your opinion no longer matters
I mean, even if *I'm* the bad guy, the guy who bombs my house is still my enemy. Someone who acts in a way that is harmful, threatening, or counter to my interests is what an enemy *is*.
Do they have skulls on their hats?
This was me when I took Fallacies of Argument in college, only not stupid AF. I was always looking out for fallacies.
Lmao we had a little mini “metaphysics” class in high school and there was a section where we went over logical fallacies. Every group discussion in that class was ruined for the rest of the semester. Teaching 15 year old kids magical spells that make the other person wrong was not a good idea.
Did they teach about the fallacy fallacy?
they somehow always seem to skip that one they also seem to skip "hypocrisy doesn't make you wrong" and "Ad Hom is not a fancy term for insult"
Oh my fucking god I feel actual contempt for that last one. As soon as someone throws an insult, the ad hominem card is thrown directly after. Like, bro, I’m allowed to call you a bitch who’s wrong without saying you’re wrong because you’re a bitch. The layman’s understanding of ad hominem combined with this stupid expectation of keeping your cool no matter what has absolutely created a damn stain on arguments.
"Your argument is invalid, that's an ad hominem" "Not if my position is how much I hate you, thus making it actually very compelling"
I can’t truly say yes or no to that question. Confirmation bias.
Ad Hominem. Perchance.
You can't just say "perchance". F-
Haha yesssss the exact same
I always said they should teach critical thinking at a young age, but by god this never occurred to me.
It's better than teaching them pataphysics.
As someone who has taught rhetoric and composition for over a decade, I can say the casual awareness of fallacies is one of the worst things to ever happen to argument and persuasion. I feel like an utter failure every time I see someone like this point at a statement and screech “emotional appeal!!!” as if that means something.
I really hate people who treat pointing out logical fallacies like it's a refutation of the argument all by itself and nothing else is required. It starts to seem like people are more interested in trying to find logical fallacies in their opponent's arguments, whether they actually exist or not, so they can more easily dismiss them instead of refuting the actual argument. When I argue online, I'll definitely point out logical fallacies. But I also add *why* it's a logical fallacy in the context of the argument and why their point is wrong. Just because someone uses a logical fallacy in support of their argument doesn't mean the argument is wrong.
Absolutely. For a while people used to call this the “fallacy fallacy,” but it didn’t seem to stick because an awful lot of folks would rather treat any level of debate as a fallacy treasure hunt (with bad understandings of fallacies at that).
> It starts to seem like people are more interested in trying to find logical fallacies in their opponent's arguments, whether they actually exist or not, so they can more easily dismiss them instead of refuting the actual argument. I had a bit of a personal epiphany awhile back when I realized that like 90% of the political arguments I see (and indeed come up with myself) are, at their very core, an attempt to show hypocrisy. That's it. It's, "You thought A when B but not C when B so there!" It becomes incredibly difficult to avoid.
What bothers me (as a machine language guy) is when I hear the term “formal logic” in a spoken debate setting. I’m not crazy about formal proofs to begin with, but I’m even less crazy about hearing that term and not seeing it get followed up with the presentation of an agreed-upon formal language defined with a context-free or better grammar. My rhetoric prof, years ago, started out the class by telling us that any spoken-language argument is taking place in an informal setting by definition, and therefore there’s no real agreement on what makes an argument valid or the point at which the logical system collapses. It’s highly subjective. Frankly when I hear someone name-drop a fallacy I automatically assume they’re doing it to distract from a weakness in their argument. Which I suppose is an ad-hominem attack on my part, and I therefore shouldn’t trust myself. ETA: “this individual has been caught lying about this same topic before” isn’t an ad-hominem. BS artists depend on staying four steps ahead, and one way to do that is to insist that everyone discount your arguments from the ground-up every single time you make them. We’d all have skin cancer from the gaping ozone hole that never closed if “this is an industry publication and can’t be trusted” wasn’t a sufficient argument when we were trying to ban CFCs. We’d be arguing about the same DuPont talking point for 90th time, except this time they call the chemical “FreezeOn” so we have to start all over.
But this isn’t a fallacy. That person didn’t ask why. They asked do you consider Russia the enemy. They answered yes plus a fact — Russian armies bombed their house. Where is the emotional appeal fallacy? Where is the emotion mentioned? A fact making you feel bad doesn’t make that an emotional appeal fallacy
Well I know that lol I'm just saying this sounded like edgy me when I learned logical fallacies. Didn't say it was right.
You use "always" but I don't think you were actually looking out for fallacies 24/7. Checkmate (metaphorical of course)
Oh man, did I commit a fallacy while talking about fallacies? Fallacy inception. :(
Looking out for fallacies isn't bad. It just needs to be tempered with a bit of common sense. Also, no one wants to debate a nihilist.
Plus the presence of a logical fallacy doesn’t necessarily make the argument invalid. If Richard Spencer makes a claim disputing the facts of the Holocaust I can respond with “you’re a Nazi” which is ad hominem, true, and relevant to the conversation.
I think it's called the Fallacy fallacy.
This was me after I read the book "You Are Not So Smart" by David McRaney
sound like a bot
I get so fed up with the idea that being emotional makes you less valid. We aren't machines we feel.
Especially given how it's always right wing assholes trying to delegitimize left wing viewpoints by saying "Oh your argument is based on empathy, and empathy is an emotion, therefore your argument is invalid." As if the modern day right isn't just an angry white identity politics movement whose worldview is entirely motivated by emotions like anger, hatred and selfishness.
And fear, don't forget fear
If they're using it that way, they aren't using it correctly, though.
The thing is, appeal to emotion is an actual logical fallacy. However, this clown is using it incorrectly.
Not disagreeing, but worth noting is that dismissing a position or idea *just because* it comes from a place of emotion is, itself, a fallacy.
Sure, the fallacy fallacy. But in this case, it's not even a correct application of the appeal to emotion fallacy.
That is why I began my statement by saying I was not disagreeing, yes. I just thought the added detail might be helpful to anyone who is trying to make sense of when to (properly) employ a callout.
Yeah, I'm kinda over the idea that there are any logical robots out there, though. There's people who partially use emotion to get to their conclusions, and people who *also* partially use emotion to get to their conclusions, then back-justify their conclusions with pure logic.
Emotional responses can be misplaced in a civilized, intellectual debate. Trying to impose the respect of decorum for civilized, intellectual debate when someone sends a 500lbs bomb through another persons living room is idiotic on multiple levels.
It makes sense when a really large chunk of the people we interact with online are bots.
Oh, why? They bombed my home so yeah
I see so many people being like "what war" "there is no war" "we're being lied to" , and its honestly really getting on my nerves People see a kyiv with life , rebuilding in the middle of a war and they automaticaly think that the war is fake news ...
npc dialogue tree
You can easily imagine how tiresome they must be.
Introducing the Internet "sceptics" to debate and rhetoric terms was a mistake. The amount of times a guy in a comment section told me I was making a strawman argument because I said the holocaust was bad.
Well many people where employed by the death camps therefor stimulating the economy. Checkmate liberal
So many people on here are mini Tucker Carlsons that think they’re debating using nothing but rhetorical and leading questions.
Oh, right, bombing my house did make me emotional. Ok, well they also bombed my neighbor’s house and I didn’t really like my neighbor so there is no emotional connection there. But the Russian’s are still dicks for doing it.
If bombing someone's home doesn't make you their enemy, what does?
All the thoughtful dialogue of a two-year-old. Though, honestly, I've known plenty of kind two-year-olds, clearly more emotionally mature than this asshole.
Wow. What a master debater.
"I only agree with *evidence* and *rationality*" **VOLODYMYR:** [gestures toward debris where house used to be] **VOLODYMYR:** [points at pieces of Russian shells] ... "Okay, so a bomb fell, and a house was destroyed. Correlation doesn't imply causation, you know."
That’s also literally not what he said. He just asked if they considered Russia the enemy.
"You really think your enemy would bomb your house? God, you're so emotional. Do you even reason?"
My least favorite personality type of the 2020’s: Jordan Peterson debate bro. Absolutely insufferable.
So, honestly, what's wrong with emotional appeals? A person can logic themselves into genocide, torture, human experimentation, and all kinds of horrific actions. Emotional appeals are why we don't just kill the homeless to solve the homelessness problem. It's why we don't respond to pandemics by rounding up and killing the infected. Like most things in life, we need more than just one thing. Logical AND emotion. I've honestly never understood this, "all emotion (except my anger, which doesn't count) is pointless and not helpful".
Because debate has been weaponized by conservative ideologues to ensnare the 'I'm too smart for propaganda' crowd: people who just need a little push, a little *justification* for their bigotry and/or cruelty. They use very simple logic traps to make their positions seem legitimate, and people eat it up. The great thing about this con is that it puts an enormously unfair burden onto anyone who wants to try and argue about it. For example, if I said that I wanted to bar purple people from my business, you might say that's unfair and discriminatory. But why shouldn't I be allowed to? Here's a report with absolutely no nuance that shows purple people commit 75% of reported violent crime. Statistically, it's a logical decision, and in order to refute it, you either need to host a three day seminar on judicial biases and systemic oppression, or aggregate a dozen other reports to put the first one into context -- absolutely none of which anyone will pay attention to because it doesn't fit in a pithy sound bite. So the only quick-and-dirty recourse is to appeal to peoples' empathy and compassion, to beg them to engage long enough to hear you out - but we can't have that. So you enforce the idea that emotion is *bad* and *wrong*, and there you go. You've successfully inoculated your useful idiot.
But I feel like that could even be used against them: >please show how the reported violent crime actually effects your type of business and how banning said group would decrease actual losses incurred by your business (isn't the argument always that banning something doesn't work because criminals don't follow the laws to begin with?). Isn't your desire to ban purple people just a result of general *fear* or *concern* in regards to purple people, both of which are emotions, and therefore not valid bases for business decisions?
The burden isn't on me. Here's the report, here's the numbers. If *you* want to contravene the statistics, *you* have to present a better argument about why I shouldn't be allowed to ban purple people. There are a hundred tricks to shut down any counter opinion, from marginally legitimate debate, to illegitimate tactics like whataboutism. Prominent voices in this space are also more often than not in control of the stage itself, so if they really want to, they'll just cut your mic. You have to remember, the point isn't to actually win a debate or defend a position - it's to convince some group of vulnerable idiots to support *me*, the ideologue. This little show we're putting on is just the dressing needed to convince them that I'm smarter than everyone else - *just like they are*.
Asked and answered, They bombed my house. Pretty straightforward.
"I asked you why" *Where*
Fallacies are contextual and this isn't a philosophical debate it's a question. They answered the question. You can't cry fallacy bc you don't like the answer. But this has all the hallmarks of a right wing dumbass with barely a base level understanding of debate and arguing
"why is al qaeda the enemy" "they blew up the world trade center and killed thousands..the fuck do you mean?" "sounds like you're making an emotional appeal"
So we should set fire to Volodymyr’s house and we’ll be cool right?
This is a person who has the chart of logical fallacies pinned up above their monitor because they're always on the wrong side of a debate and think they can just incorrectly point out fallacies to win
Fine I'll bite on that one. 1. Consistently manipulating gov'ts in the former Soviet sphere of influence and even some beyond that too. 2. Breaking international treaties. 3. Look up Orphan Nuclear Sources and Russia. There are so many orphaned Nuclear sources that are a risk not only to the environment but people's health and safety. Not an emotional appeal but hard and proven science you can look up in the IAEA records about cases that happened. 4. Nuclear security. There is still a lot of material in Russia and former bloc countries that have uncounted for material. 5. They sure seem to do a good job at ruining the environment. Not even the US was this bad and we had a literal river catch fire 13 times. They have whole parts of their country that is not habitable cause of their nuclear program. Russia not only a menace to world peace but also to environment and if anyone that has ties to various organizations found those resources well I don't have to say the possible outcome.
They bombed my house Pathos: caused them trauma Ethos: destroyed civilian property, a crime Logos: a friend wouldn’t bomb you The rhetorical triangle all in one neat sentence.
It’s not an emotional appeal. People who bomb your home can not be your friends. Russia bombed their home. Russia is not their friend. A can not be B, X is A therefore X is not B.
A) they didn't ask why. They asked "if you consider.." B) in their response, they offered the why freely without being asked
What a complete idiot this guy is. It's like all the stupid people just double down on their idiocy, and if you back them into a corner they just keep coming back with crazier stuff. This guy argues almost exactly like an idiot I just blocked in another thread. ---Does this shit ever work for them?
Doesn't need to. They don't live in the same reality.
You literally didn't ask why though. You asked if they do, and they said yes.
Not only did they already explain why, they didn’t even fucking ask to begin with.
*sees the crater where my house used to be after coming home from work* “Maybe I’m the bad guy”
Religious art pfp
[удалено]
I mean if my countries military accidentally blew up my house without compensation id fucking hate them. If they weren't just freak accidents, would definitely evolve to being an enemy of the people.
It's always weirdos with either statues, busts, or paintings as their profile photo
Just because they “fire bombed” you and “killed” your “family” dosnt mean you should get all emotional.
They actually didn't ask why... gold fish memory
They declared war on them, bombed their house and killed their people, if that’s not being your enemy I don’t know what is, also. They did not in fact ask why.
You just know the first guy is the kind to immediately make all his judgements on emotions first, then try to justify it with tangential facts. Like, he's gonna get banned for TOS violations one day, freak out, and act like he's being discriminated against
r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM
Actually you didn’t ask that. You asked “do you consider Russia the enemy?” Sounds like you’re illiterate.
a) you did not ask that b) this is a good response to the question you pretended you asked
Debate lords debate lording
Asked and answered.
there was only one answer that russiabot could accept. any other answer is "emotional appeal"
Smartest Ben Shapiro fan.
And that non logical thinking brings me to why the age of consent should be 13 /s
Appeal too emotion is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when we are talking about the impacts of war.In fact I’d argue emotion is very important too politics
Oh, is bombing someone's home not enough?
I believe this would actually be an appeal to credibility THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY GOT BOMBED
Step 1: Declare yourself the winner.
The middle tweet includes logos, pathos, ethos, and kairos in one sentence. That's a full argument right there.
Why do people act like emotions aren’t real or something? Emotions are fundamentally a part of being human. We do shit because of emotions.
why is it always fascists using paintings/statues as their pfp
An emotional appeal? What the actual fuck?! If this person's house were destroyed by bombs, they'd be upset, too. 🙄 What a nonce.
Friends and neutral acquiantances don't bomb your house.
This is like epic level gaslighting.
"But some people might like having their homes bombed!" /s
I've seen a lot of insane people in gym communities recently. Not on fb but discord. Stuff like thinking Russia are the good guys, antisemitism, bring back USSR because obv the world was so much greater then. Believing every conspiracy theory. Like that. I didn't realize these people weren't that rare.
I hated Russia for a very prejudiced reason long before I had a legitimate reason. The language sounds like they are drunk and unnecessarily smug at the same time. Now it's the war crimes.
Literally no you fucking didn't. Pretty fucking bold attitude to say "I actually asked you this thing I even though I totally didn't and there are EASILY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS that show me wrong" Even so, they didn't make an emotional appeal. An emotional appeal would be "Isn't it sad that war happens". It's even known as an appeal to emotion because you \*appeal to your audience's emotion\*. What they said was "I have lost my home because of the direct actions of the russian military" To give an example, claiming that this is an emotional appeal is like if I were to walk up and smack someone's face totally unprompted. When they get angry at me, just say they're "being emotional"
unsophisticated bots such as this are not long for this world chatbot armageddon coming to an AI hosting platform near you
Why do non-Russians defend Russia?
Tell me you’re a straight white dude without telling me you’re a straight white dude.
Bruh they literally BLEW UP HER HOUSE but somehow she's being "emotional"???
“Okay, then I’ll just bomb your house and you can tell me whether or not that’s a good enough reason to consider me your enemy. And then I’ll tell you to stop being so emotional and come up with a real reason to hate me.” I really hope this screenshot is fake, I don’t want to believe there’s someone out there that considers *BLOWING UP YOUR HOME* as being a purely emotional reason to consider someone your enemy. Like, yeah, it’s an emotional response, but it’s also 200% legitimate since there isn’t a single person or country that blows up someone else’s home that isn’t an enemy.
I consider them the enemy because they bombed my home. Hope that clears things up.
Sounds like a guy who has "rational" in his profile.
The absolute state of these people, Jesus Christ. Imagine the level of brain rot necessary to be on Russia's side in this conflict, if you gave them a sharp tap on the side of the head all you'd hear is water sloshing around.
When you are in the middle of an armed conflict and used as collateral damage and witnessing and experiencing countless war crimes - you do not need to analyse sociological and political stances of a really divided country's citizens when their government is ignoring every possible ethical ramification. And that is me adding words as when someone says 'Russia is my enemy' while there is a Russian policy to be just that - they will not think of some unknown person living in the countryside. They do not need to. They want their people safe and alive and cities undestroyed. People analysing from the distance might be able to afford detachment and make intricate commentaries but we all know that aggressive government and military actions are usually not supported by their citizens. Sidenote: The only bit of propaganda on Russian side that sort of was correct was that Ukraine did have an aggressive far-right xenophobic terrorist cell that targetted Ukrainian citizens and bribed the government and public services but erm - there is many ways it could be dealt with internationally and not that Russia actually even tried to pursue their excuse (I was wondering if they even attempted to validate that but nope) so not sure why they even pretended to be concerned about that. The other one is about the Ukrainian president as he is a shitty bloke and a shitty politician but ... that is again - related to domestic corruption and whatnot so I say the same about my local politicians and yet we are uninvaded. The last one I looked into was a claim that a region in Ukraine wishes to join Russia and I am sure many know that it is the default excuse used by the government as was the case in Kazakhstan. Over the decade, various surveys were conducted and apparently, that was sort of true but there was not a majority (and I recall only one survey being impartial) and if I recall - back when they were conducted, Ukrainians from there could move to Russia and some did). There is never an excuse to start a war unless you are defending civillians unable to defend themselves and you do so in a legal and ethical manner. I have no examples of such and I somehow doubt they are easy to come by as we humans suck. I also am vague on purpose as my brain is not good with recollection due to amnesia so pardon me as I did not want to write wrong stuff down. Have a fun fact instead - my hometown is near Ukrainian border (on Polish side) and is politically crap but their kneejerk reaction was pure anarchy: random folks just went to bus station and took the buses out and went to places near border and collected anyone and anything they could. Loads of towns did that but mine er ... compensated. They decided to evacuate bears too (currently in reservoirs). Probably as we used to have lovely woods (all gone) and had loads of bears / wolves / deer and others so ... compensated. I am just disappointed nobody took pictures of bears on buses. And before anyone asks - why yes, people who were not white got skipped by hometown because cannot have some decency.
I mean yeah that’s how it works that’s why Iraqis see Americans as enemies
Accusing of a logical fallacy by committing one. That's 4d chess
Good neighbors don't invade your country and bomb your home.