Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I've noticed this common thread in both the forcing beliefs/death penalty topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

Basically, the whole "Believe in god or burn" is a logical fallacy, plain and simple put down on e-paper, so while it's an acceptable personal belief(depending) you can't use it to defend actions in a debate.

There were some similiar arguments used in the Death Penalty topic; check up "Appeal to Emotion" in general.
" Either P or Q
Q is fearsome
Therefore, P is true. "

I think you can see how that applies easy enough.

Though, most of the Capital Punishment argument argument is based off this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs ... fallacy%29

Basically, if something is a logical fallacy, you can't use it to defend yourself in a debate, or justify actions. These rules were decided on a long time ago but are constantly being refined by educated and intelligent people and are reducable to basic logic.

I think people should read up a little more on stuff like this before constructing their arguments. They're fairly common mistakes but very frustrating to someone who's getting used to adhering by them.

Frotzer is pretty much the living emodiment of this LF, btw.

America is the epitome of a nation run on fear. The American public is spoon-fed fear every night when they watch the news. People have bought into the fear and the let it run their lives.

_________________

Yeah, it's really sad; fear is such a powerful tool. People should learn to look for these logical fallacies in what people tell them, it's a good hint as to whether you're being fed BS or not.

Ya, American right now seem to base half their political choices on the fear that someone is going to attack them. What they don;t know is that the people they are afraid of play them off of this, because they know that all they have to do is pop their heads out once every 3 years and everyone will run down to their bunkers.

_________________

I love you rosey...wait.. i mean,... uhh... true, yes, true, spoonfed fear, this is what were brought up on and thats why i am afriad to change my religion because im afriad to burn.

_________________

Wow. Does anyone else find the anti-Bush, anti-government appeals to fear, like the ones seen in this very thread, trite and hypocritical?

Seriously, think about it. What kind of messages do you hear from people who claim Americans supported Bush on fear?

"If you support Bush, you'll support a Fourth Reich!"
"If you vote for Bush, you're supporting mass infantcide!"
"If you vote for Bush, you'll help start a second Vietnam!"
"If you vote for Bush, gays will be shot on sight!"

An appeal to fear is a sword that can cut in any direction. It's not something used merely by your conservative opponents.

Appeals to fear are almost as common as comparing people to Nazis, really. Not surprising I've seen such anti-Bush appeals to fear commonly intertwined with Nazi imagery. And yet with a straight face they accuse the other side of using fear tactics! *laughs*

I'm not a conservative. I'm a centrist. I voted based on who I think would run the country best, not out of fear. (That's why I voted Libertarian and not Democrat!) I supported the war in Iraq not because I was afraid of Saddam Hussein invading the country or some wacked out crap, but because I feel we owe it to the Iraqis to right a wrong that occured so long ago.

I'm a Christian, but as I've said many times, conversion by force and fear are not the way you inspire people. People will only resent it and become opposed to it.

If you think the country is based on fear, you might want to take a closer look.

_________________

The problem is that those statements are a summary rather than a be all and end all. Most people who say that Bush will start a "third reich" actually do have some level of presentable evidence that causes them to believe so.

Yes, quite. As an example I can flesh out, the fourth one-shooting gays on sight-is drawn from the Bush administration's discrimination against the homosexual population. The critics aren't just finding random ways to make people afraid of voting Bush-they're illustrating somewhat exaggerated extents of the consequences of his having office. As such, they're not true appeals to fear.

Before I go further, I'd like to point out I seem to have jumped the gun a bit. See, I'm used to people who are viruently anti-Bush or anti-government in general claiming that only the Bush administration/the American government in general uses appeals to fear and that they believe "fear will keep us in line." Such is the case with frightening propaganda like this. I actually don't know where you guys stand, but judging from the similarity of comments I inferred the same, although the initial post was more general.

That said, the challenge on the anti-Bush appeals to fear have been accepted, so I must continue:

... You honestly think that "mass infantcide" and "shooting gays on sight" are truthful exaggerations? What evidence do you have that makes these statements immune to being appeals to fear?

Surely you realize that the people who stand by the arguments you all accept as appeals to fear (such as "if you vote Kerry, the terrorists will win") believe they ARE completely true, or are truthful exaggerations and not fallacious, don't you?

Could it be you just don't want to accept that the anti-Bush side is just as "in it" as the other side when it comes to resorting to fear tactics to win arguments? That it doesn't give them a pedistal of superiority to stand on through the realization?

All I'm seeing is a reflection of the people criticized so readily. :/

_________________