Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Spite

The Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Spite occurs when the proof for a given conclusion is stirring up bitterness or spite against whoever or whatever is opposing the conclusion. Appeal to spite is a specific type of appeal to emotion.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Spite

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "And something I’ve always found troubling. It sounds as though you believe your worldview, which is: a literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible is correct. Well, what became of all those people who never heard of it, never heard of you? What became of all those people in Asia; what became of all those first nations people in North America? Were they condemned, doomed? . . . It’s very troubling."

Bill Nye is trying to appeal to the spite in people's minds against God's judgments. Because of Agrippa's Trilemma, Bill Nye would have no basis for making any judgments about who should be accepted by God and who should be rejected. But Bill is appealing to those who are in rebellion against God and spite against God. This is one of Bill's arguments against Creation science.

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "So, I want everyone to consider, If we accept Ken Ham's point of view . . . that the Bible, as translated into American English, serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means ... It means that Ken Ham's word, or his interpretation of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky. It’s a troubling and unsettling point of view"

Bill is attempting to demonize and marginalize, to paint Ken Ham as some sort of cult leader with a few misguided followers. Both demonizing and marginalizing are logical fallacies meant to play to the crowd rather than to deal rationally with the issue at hand. Bill is implying that Ken is dictating what people should think. In this, Bill is projecting his own desire to control the thoughts of people. He is accusing Ken of the very mind-control of which he, Bill, is guilty. By the way, there is no way that anyone can go into the back yard, in Kentucky or anywhere else, and see the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story.

.

Bill is attempting to demonize and marginalize, to paint Ken Ham as some sort of cult leader with a few misguided followers. Both demonizing and marginalizing are logical fallacies meant to play to the crowd rather than to deal rationally with the issue at hand. Bill is implying that Ken is dictating what people should think. In this, Bill is projecting his own desire to control the thoughts of people. He is accusing Ken of the very mind-control of which he, Bill, is guilty.