If Growing Inequality Is a “Serious Problem,” Please Explain Why

[Collin Li]

Unfortunately in this case, it also comes with the side-effect that you are ignoring our logical arguments.

[Eriny]

What else is there but emotional appeal, really?  The only catalyst for change is if people get riled up and feel something about it.

And he called lefties those above things in another thread (not in all cases a direct quote), so I guess that includes me. But I must repeat: I am by no stretch of the imagination a socialist! (not that there's anything wrong with that, lol).

Oh, and I concede the debate, so, you win! Well done! Although I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that.

[costargh]

I am not ignoring your logical arguments. I find Eriny's posts very logical

[Collin Li]

What else is there but emotional appeal, really?  The only catalyst for change is if people get riled up and feel something about it.

There is nothing wrong with making an emotional appeal. I also reserve the rights to guard people from buying it and pointing the way to logical arguments instead, or pointing out said flaws in your emotional appeal.

I am not ignoring your logical arguments. I find Eriny's posts very logical

Yes, this comes right after you support an emotional appeal and ignore the proposition that her beliefs don't solve the problems she wishes to protect (logical argument).

[costargh]

I am not ignoring your logical arguments. I find Eriny's posts very logical

Yes, this comes right after you support an emotional appeal and ignore the proposition that her beliefs don't solve the problems she wishes to protect (logical argument).

I find her posts logical. You don't. Its opinion. Deal with it

I find it to be a rather persistent trend that any opposing argument to yourself or Brendan is illogical and your's is logical. If it was that easy then their would be no argument.

[Collin Li]

costargh: you have ignored a previous argument between you and brendan about how logic is objective, not subjective. You cannot find an emotional appeal logical: there is no logical connection - there is only an emotional appeal.

Don't reduce this into a karma war: I justified my reasons for highlighting "emotional appeal." It was to "guard people from buying it and pointing the way to logical arguments instead." It is petty to throw karma because you disagree, rather than based on the merit of a post. Look at my karma edits, they have been controlled and based on merit or humour. That is just my opinion though: deal with it.

[costargh]

I said I find Eriny's post logical. Meaning I support most of her contribution to this forum and find it logical. Emotional appeals can be logical.

[costargh]

Why wasn't my post considered humour then? I found Erinys post funny so I added to it. You deleted it and negative karma-ed. So what I interpret to be humour, you don't.

I gave you karma because this isn't a language analysis. As if any argument that uses an emotional appeal is illogical.

[Collin Li]

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

I forgo my right of reply and forfeit any hope to convince you.

You were not being "silenced." You simply don't need to make a karma change and a post that says exactly the same thing your karma does, especially if your reason is "LOL" or "great post." I don't do it, and others don't either (see the maths forums where people thank by karma rather than by a post - unless they are under 50 posts, i.e.: cant change karma).

Enjoy arguing with brendan alone.

[costargh]

So why didn't you just delete one?

I don't see how it could escalate into a karma war anyways. We both have one round of ammunition every 12 hours so its pretty futile.

Appeal to emotions is not always illogical. You can try convince me but I will not accept it and every post past this one in this thread will have the famous words of Eriny enshrined upon them
"lovely".

You started this a while back ago when you accused me of being a people supporter in my support of Eriny and failed to realise that anyone who disagrees with you or Brendan may just hold a differnt view.

[Eriny]

What else is there but emotional appeal, really?  The only catalyst for change is if people get riled up and feel something about it.

There is nothing wrong with making an emotional appeal. I also reserve the rights to guard people from buying it and pointing the way to logical arguments instead, or pointing out said flaws in your emotional appeal.

Ah, yes, but anything that's persuasive (including plain ol' logic) would appeal to you emotionally. It makes you say/think "that's true! I feel angry/sad/happy/whatever and I resolve to do x about it." We aren't all robots, even though we are able to assess arguments based on whether it's shown how one got from a to b, it's also important that they feel right.

And coblin, are you sure that you only give karma based on humour/merit? I've seen some of the karma you have awarded to brendan (not all). I suppose they could have been a particularly good posts... but it seems to me that it has been awarded on the basis that you agree with him. e.g. "uhm no, mao, exactly this, not that."; "talking about "fair" justice, as much as we hate the word"; "bringing rational economics back"... I'm not saying that you're unfairly awarding karma necessarily (although you may be, I don't know), but you can certaintly see how it could be perceived as such.

[Collin Li]

So why didn't you just delete one?

I did, then you reposted. What are you talking about?

people supporter

This was a typo. The intended response was "your supporters." You started it because I saw what I believed was a stupid karma edit. That is a justifiable karma edit. See Toothpick's replies to some Karma changes on enwiabe.

[Collin Li]

And coblin, are you sure that you only give karma based on humour/merit? I've seen some of the karma you have awarded to brendan (not all). I suppose they could have been a particularly good posts... but it seems to me that it has been awarded on the basis that you agree with him. e.g. "uhm no, mao, exactly this, not that."; "talking about "fair" justice, as much as we hate the word"; "bringing rational economics back"... I'm not saying that you're unfairly awarding karma necessarily (although you may be, I don't know), but you can certaintly see how it could be perceived as such.

Merit based. They usually come from link dumps, so karma edits can highlight the good from the boring. costargh makes karma edits in the middle of ideological battles. Smiting in response is justified in my opinion, because what he does adds more irrationality (favouritism) to the heat of the debate. Karma is just a social measure of you. I am attacking costargh's karma edits because I think they are stupid, but I have no right to stop them at all, of course. Consistent with this, I am opposed to enwiabe's -50000 karma policy.

[costargh]

Thats your belief. I saw a post of yours which I found to be stupid so I gave it a negative karma. Of course you won't agree with it but in what circumstances would you? Probably none so I hold the right to use my karma as I see fit.

You will also notice I have given you positive karma so you can quite easily see its your post I have a problem with and not you.

[costargh]

But so if you agree with someones post you can give them good karma but if I agree with someone and give them good karma I get negative karma for doing so?
Hmm