Talk:Appeal to fear/Archives/2012

2004 discussion

Appeal to fear is used in political propaganda. (See e.g.[1]). Sebastian 07:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another example, from religion is,"If you don't pray for forgiveness, you will go to Hell.".

I think a slightly more religiously-neutral example would be "If you don't show remorse, you will burn for eternity" Opblaaskrokodil 08:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This veers into POV and isn't a good teaching example. --Uncle Ed 21:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that is somewhat the point of an appeal to fear... it's exciting emotions. I'd like to see more appeals to fear myself... I'd be better qualified to evaluate them if I had a large selection especially if they came from political speeches. --DennisDaniels 04:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

merge suggestion

hi, i know the merge will be disputed, as FUD is a popular term in tech. Really its just a phrase describing the appeal to fear, in which there is alot of study done.Spencerk 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Drinking example

"You should stop drinking unless you want to die young like your father."

I'm not sure this is such a good example, is it? Appeal to fear normally involves options P and Q being unrelated in terms of the fear. Surely this is not that far removed from: "Studies suggest that smokers are more likely to die of lung cancer, and quitting is believed to reduce your chances of getting cancer. If you want to avoid cancer, you should not smoke."

It is quite plausible that the subject's father died young from alcoholism, and that the subject is likely to die young too. In other words, while the statement follows the pattern of appeal to fear, there is likely to be implicit information that makes the statement reasonable. Chovain 00:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not just with the drinking example, but with all examples given. In all three, the first statement in the general case, "Either P or Q is true," is so implicit as to be virtually absent. But isn't that really key to how the appeal to fear works? If that's the case, could that be made more explicit in the introduction? After all, if one ever had to actually follow the logical template followed, the absurdity of the argument would be clear:

"Either you will not continue to drink, or you will die young. Dying young is frightening. Therefore you will not continue to drink." (?) I think it's clear the logical template is not quite equivalent to the example, even after some translation.

The "intended" argument in this case, even if the proponent doesn't recognize it, is "Either you will not continue to drink, or you will increase your chances of dying young. Dying young is frightening. Therefore you should not continue to drink." This is a logically valid argument, and refutable only in degree.

And the terrorist example has no pedagogical value. If the candidate happens to be Osama bin Laden or Tim McVeigh, it's a valid argument, and not necessarily at all an appeal to fear or any other emotion. If the candidate is my cat, slightly less so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.66.18 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FUD Should stay

Although I believe they are linked in general I believe that FUD should stay because in and of its self it is generally associated with the extensive categories it is applied to in the Technology field. Merging these two would be bad move in that they are two separate things. FUD is something that is spread through misinformation. Appeal to fear is something that a single person consciously chooses to gravitate towards. Appeal to fear is something that FUD spreaders do from their own conscience decision and FUD is what they try to spread either to deter someone from something they have bias negative opinions on.

I agree that FUD should stay. Though FUD is related to Appeal to fear, it is a seperate entity. Appeal to fear is a technique, while FUD is a thing. You can sling FUD, you can spread FUD, and you can hide FUD in someone's sock drawer. You can't 'do' these things with 'Appeal to fear,' as it's already something that you do. 216.143.234.252 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. FUD and "Appeal to fear" are related concepts, but they are distinct enough to warrant their own articles. --Ashenai 12:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As per Ashenai; FUD has a particular computer usage that makes the articles significantly different and the level of detail in FUD should be maintained. I suggest that the FUD section in the "Appeal to fear" article be replaced by a much shorter definition and link to the main FUD article. T. J. Day 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Im not sure that the recent PC change by SC98007 is such a good idea. It takes too much focus away from the example, and removes the link to appeal to force, which helps the reader understand how types of fallacies relate to one another. It's also not possible to do in a completely PC way ("Hey, you left Zoroastrianism off the list!")

Here's the change for reference:

- *"Believe in God or burn in Hell." (this also uses [[Argumentum ad baculum|appeal to force]])

+ *"You’ll go to hell if you remain Jewish/Protestant/Catholic/Shia/Sunni/Buddhist/Atheist!"

Chovain 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put this back as it was. The more I look at it, the worse it reads in its current state. The "Believe in God..." example is a well known example (similar to [2]} and I see only disadvantages in changing it to the one that tries to offend no religions. Chovain 08:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Real-world examples

I've added some examples from actual quotes. I think this section would be strengthened if all the examples were like that. Just sayin'. Ribonucleic 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just sayin' what? That if you had more examples that showed an obvious liberal bias, it'd somehow make the point stronger? I suppose that when I go and check out the "Argument from Authority" fallacy, it'll mention David Letterman holding up Cindy Sheehan as untouchable? These comments have been removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.13.190 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Apple included in FUD?

As of 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC) this article includes the statement

Although FUD was originally attributed to IBM, the 1990s saw the term become often associated with industry giants Microsoft and Apple Computer.

Why is Apple Computer included? There are no supporting references on this page, nor mention of Apple in relation to FUD in the main article on FUD. Does anybody care to provide a citation supporting Apple's inclusion? If not, I would like to remove that statement about Apple. (Ironically, it is arguably FUD!). Vykk 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More examples needed

Actually, what I mean is "example needed". We've got none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey12345345 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this real, really?

1. Is Appeal to fear the same as argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem and does such a fallacy be sourceable from a reliable source?
2. Is the logic section really Appeal to fear?

Sources are needed for central statements in this article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

2. seems to be wrong: The Nizkor Project, describes the logic quite differently, and that argumentum ad X stuff is missing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The logic used seems similar to that in Argumentum ad baculum, so I believe that these two fallacies are confused somehow. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)