Who can use a tennis court?
The cat and the crocodile were playing tennis at a park.
“Go for it!”
“Wow, nice ball!”
The dog and the giraffe came there.
There were only one tennis court, so they have to wait for a while.
However, the dog and the giraffe spoke to the cat and the crocodile.
“Hey, can we use a tennis court? You seem to have played enough!”
The cat and the crocodile had just started to play, so they said,
“We just started a game now. Can you give us time?”
However, the dog and the giraffe winced.
The giraffe burst into tears.
The dog said,
“Poor giraffe! He was really looking forward to playing here! You are so mean!”
The cat and the crocodile were surprised and said,
“I said we just came here! We haven’t finished even one game yet! How dare you!”
The dog said,
“How can I believe guys like you? I know you often get scolded by teacher for falling asleep during a class.”
The cat and the crocodile shut their mouths.
Mr. Koala came there.
He liked to read books and take a nap in this park.
“Giraffe, wipe your eyes. I was soaking up some sun here and I saw Cat and Crocodile came here just 5 minutes ago.”
He kept talking.
“It is wrong to conclude they are lying just because they sometimes doze off during class.
They kindly clean this park every day, that means they have good part as well.”
The cat and the crocodile laughed uncomfortably.
The dog and the giraffe apologized uneasily.
“We’re sorry for saying you badly. We’ll go.”
The cat and the crocodile said,
“That’s ok. If you don’t mind, will you play tennis with us?”
Mr. Koala started to read a book sitting on the bench.
A balmy breeze carried cheerful shout and a sound of bouncing ball somewhere.
Commentary
Appeal to emotion is sometimes valid, but the emotional argument can lead vulnerable result. In this story, the dog appealed crying giraffe to get a tennis court. Appeal to tears is not logical argument. In addition, exposing emotions can be equal to reveal your cards.
Ad hominem is to attack one’s personality or creed to deny one’s opinion without attacking the essence. In this story, the dog unbelieved the claim of the cat and the crocodile because of their attitude toward classes, but there is no logical connection. You might be able to overwhelm someone by ad hominem, but it is not the proof of your justification.
Moreover, Mr. Koala replied to Ad hominem by the dog ironically, concluding the cat and the crocodile were good guys because they had cleaned the park. We can say that ad hominem is obvious wrong way to refute to the opponents because it’s difficult to reach consist conclusions due to the multidimensional personality which all individualities have. As for the multidimensional personality, in this story, the dog had a bad image to the cat and the crocodile, but Mr. Koala had a good one. It is important to object and claim in a logical way, from various viewpoints.
In this case, how should the dog and the giraffe negotiate?
Reference："appeal to emotion"
"ad hominem"
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？