Nothing gets folks riled up like horses, especially “wild” ones.
We’ve been inundated with letters and comments regarding the BLM gather of wild horses from the Piceance/East Douglas Herd Management Area.
Interestingly, none of the letters have come from people who actually live here, or people who see the horses or the conditions of the range on a daily basis, or people who make their living working on and with the land and have done so for generations.
The letters and comments tend to be romanticized, anthropomorphized ideations about horses that remind me of the copious tears I shed over the death of Ginger in “Black Beauty”. Some 40-plus years later I can still recall the scene where the protagonist (a horse) sees his stablemate wheeled by on a cart, dead from overwork at the hands of a bad master. It left a mark on my psyche … evidence of very good writing by author Anna Sewell. But this isn’t a fiction story, although there’s much fiction being presented.
The use of emotion to generate support for an argument is a red flag for a weak argument that’s not based in fact. In the world of logical fallacy, it’s called “argumentum ad passiones,” or appeal to emotion. It’s incredibly effective, because humans are emotional creatures.
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion based on logic and facts. But getting all stirred up emotionally— whether it’s about wild horses or politics — is a terrible way to arrive at a rational, fact-based position on a topic. And the people who use emotional appeals to sway you know what they’re doing. An appeal to donate your time, money or energy usually follows. Be aware.
By NIKI TURNER – editor@editorht1885.com