What I realized

What was the something I was deeming moral?

You could consider all communication manipulative with that line of logic, which I don’t think you would have concluded otherwise.

I consider this bad faith.

Yeah I’m an atheist.

What is the value of morality without emotion?

You didn’t, I was just generally speaking not you specifically.

Not if the other communicated subjects is supported with something other than emotion.

Nothing because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist.

So it has nothing to do with our conversation of you wrongly claiming I appealed to emotion.

More bad faith.

Can you make an argument for moralities existence without emotion?

What doesn’t exist?

Okay, so what if the narrative was the death penalty? Whatever argument you make for or against it I’m sure is based on your emotional appeal for human life, that was my point, just because we didn’t cover the base of a specific issue doesn’t make my argument any less valid.

Only if there’s a God to verify, in that case emotion can still be there but it stems from logic (wanting to go to heaven) if not it’s all emotional and inherently fallacious.

Morality in a purely subjective sense.

Alright, if you want to change narrative. 

The death penalty is interesting. I’m sure that applies to everyone. 

You do relies this all boils down to emotion, right?

But also intersubjective too.

Doesn’t make it any less fallacious.

You can make a case for it but it can’t lose sight of what it stems from and that’s logic.

Fallacies are also inter subjective which is the ultimate sign why it should be dismissed.

You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example, but morality does not stem from logic. We are not robots.

All concepts that are shared are intersubjective. This is why reasoning and empathising is key instead of appealing to dictators.

Robots aren’t the standard of logic, at the end of the day robots don’t exist without us.

Sounds like an emotional argument to me, and you know what emotional arguments are?

You’re starting to not even respond to the substance of my arguments. 

Such bad faith.

Emotional arguments aren’t fallacious when directly dealing with emotions. This is what the foundation of morality is based on.

Again, you haven’t explained yourself.

The substance of your arguments is inherently fallacious, how’s that for bad faith?

So give me an example when they are fallacious, I don’t see why I need to explain anything after you claimed to know what appeal of emotion fallacy is, but by the looks of it apparently not. Google is free look it up.

Now you’re nitpicking between the appeal to emotion (an official fallacy) and emotional driven arguments. 

You still haven’t explained yourself how morality is based on logic and not emotion.

...Seriously what’s the difference?

You said it yourself “You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example” no explanation from me necessary.

Appeal to emotion is the effort to manipulate the emotions of an audience without facts or logic. 

While emotional driven arguments use emotion as reason. That’s how I define it.

It’s merely the justification.

...Okay, so give me an example of both.

And that’s how I define it.

Why?

Well it’s good you’ve come around.

Because you’ve basically described the same thing your unwillingness to provide an example proves this.

Come around from what? My position remains consistent.

I’m morally justified to kill an intruder if there’s a possibility of him harming my family. 

It’s the same thing you have an appeal of emotion for family and you’re trying to convince me of that same emotion, one can very well not care about your family (hence why there attempted to be harmed).

Me defining morality as justified logic has nothing to do with subjective morality, try again.

Because subjectivity is emotional not logical.

You can’t prove a negative that’s not how logic works.

Heaven