31 Days of Inspired Holidays: day 1: Holiday Values

I am going to share with you my journey through October to Samhain, 2013. The last month of a Witch's year.

I love Organized Holidays.  One of the most important things they stress is holiday values.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

What do YOU want to celebrate and how?
What is it about Samhain you want to celebrate?
What does Samhain mean to you?

Holidays are there to give us a well needed and wanted break from the everyday, toil and trouble, blood, sweat and tears. Holidays are to be something quite opposite. No toil, no troubles, no stress, no blood, no pain, no sweat and no tears.

(At least no tears of sadness, pain and anger. Happy tears are OK :-D Though kids and animals can't see the difference, and you might need to think why you are crying happy tears... and do something about the matter. Maybe you have been too hard and too stingy with yourself, and not given yourself enough rest and joy in your life, so when you finally get it, you start crying. Think about it. Now, we women tend to have easy to cry for everything, and that's hormonal and nothing to do anything about, and if that's the reason why you cry, then it's ok. Just remember that children and animals and other sensitive living beings find tears confusing and stressful.)

I want my holidays to be Movie Magic. The Stuff Movies Are Made Off. Picture perfect... But I don't want fake. I don't want "staged".
Or I do, but just as much as is needed to set a stage for true joy and happiness, pleasure and rest, to create a space outside the time, where we don't need to worry about anything, do anything, take care of anything. This is why I think it is important to set the date apart from all the others, to lift it up, to shine it, to make it sparkle and create joyful memories :-)

It is said that for a dream to come true, we need to set a date, make a plan and break the job into small, manageable steps, and then take action.

The date is set, by God, as far as I'm concerned. I believe the equinoxes and solstice are put in place for a reason, and that is so that we would "keep the Shabat", and get the rest we need and break the year into "manageable steps". I think it is important to mark the dates, like graduation, birthdays, first blood, marriage and death. So it is also important to mark the seasons.
Samhain is in between Autumn Equinox and Winter Solstice, marking the end of Autumn and the beginning of Winter.

The plan is personal for every one of us. You want something different than I do.

To me it is important to dress the home for a party. That is, clean it better than just for everyday, decorate it, put bows on and a cherry on the top, if you understand what I mean.

To me it's important to appeal to all the five senses (and the others too, though that might be difficult, even impossible, in same cases :-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense ).
It's easy to remember sights and flavors, even smells, with decorations and food, but how to appeal to ears and touch? And what sensory elements will lift Samhain up from the rest of the Autumn?

Here's Melissa's "20 little things to treasure in Autumn". Write a list like that, for Samhain. What happens at this time of year that happens never in any other time, that you love?
You don't need to be able to write the list right away. Just add the list in your Samhain binder, and add things as you come across them. Maybe you'll find more than 20 :-)
Until then you can use that list. Those are nice things, too. :-)

Another thing that is important to me, is the spiritual meaning of the holiday. At this time of the year I feel the connection to my ancestors very strongly. In summer the connection to Mother's beating heart is strong, and now, with the vegetation disappearing, the connection with the ground, soil, dust, history, burial mounds and graves dug in the earth, comes stronger. I can feel the silver line binding me with generations before me, all the hundreds and thousands of people that were part of making me me. I remember all my relatives, my family, my people...
I have always loved the Silent Suppers and felt the closeness of Absent Friends.

To find out how YOU want to celebrate this time of the year, focus on this question: why do you do what you do?
Why do you clean, shop, bake, cook, decorate, and all the other things you do?
That is the best way to give time to things you really WANT to spend time with and in, and not waste it to things you really don't care about.

Make yourself a promise. Start collecting things, pictures, recipes and ideas that make you think and feel Samhain.

Look at other traditions and religions, and what are they celebrating, how and why.
Look at other celebrations at this time of the year.
Look at the deities associated with this holiday, and their celebrations and other traditions involved in their worship.
Look at other people and their traditions, and what you like, what you would like to bring in to your holidays.
Look at the different seasonal activities, and what would you like to add to your Samhain.
Look also at the other seasons and feasts. There might be something in Easter celebrations you could adjust to Samhain, for example. I use Yule (and Christmas) very much as a base to build on my other Sabbaths.
Look at your family and how you have celebrated the Sabbaths and other holidays. What went right? What went wrong and why? What did you forget?
Look at other parties your family has celebrated.

Now, then... it's actually time to start thinking about not the next holiday, but the holiday after that... For you to be properly ready for Yule, you should have started thinking about it already a month ago.

Little Devil by Alan Dart

Would work nicely as your "elf on the shelf"

It's officially the last half of Autumn :-)

Autumn Equinox marks the middle of the Autumn, and it was a couple of days ago.
I am working on my husband's birthday, next Sunday,
on my household binder,
on preparing for the next two Sabbaths (Samhain and Yule)
and resting at Pinterest in between the chores :-D

One thing lead to another, and I found "31 days of inspired holidays".

Er... I don't know if you find that inspiring, but I didn't.

So, I'll try to do better, and spend the 31 days of October to write my own 31 days of inspired holidays, about my preparations to Samhain, Witches' New Year, and the first day of Winter, the night of the year. :-)

Household Binder

Well... I'm a little slow in certain areas of life. I have been pinning household binder ideas and such for quite a long time now, but it wasn't before now the idea actually has rooted and seems viable. I suppose I needed the time to ruminate the idea :-D

So - Mabon is at the door, my husband's 50th birthday as well, my sister's and her son's birthdays are this month too, and then there's the 101 things in 1001 days, that I really need to start DOING something about.

I plan on starting slowly with the Household Binder, and add, remove and replace sections after need.

Right now I need

- some sort of calendar with
-- appointments
-- events
-- Sabbaths and other such reoccurring dates, holidays, birthdays etc. (with gift ideas and wishlists and cards)

- Budget
- Cleaning, household chores and such - we both need the routines and structures of this
- I suppose I need contact information. And not only to doctors and such, but also the rest of the addresses and telephone numbers.
- to do lists, planning, steps, projects and crafts etc.
- food plan, menus, grocery lists, pantry inventories etc.
- I think we need also a house renovation and decoration part
- I think the health journal might be a good thing to have in this
- I also want to have our wardrobe lists here.
- wishlists and such
- some party information, like guest lists and allergies/dislikes etc.
- library lists, book inventories, reading journal, book wish lists etc.
- inventories?

My problem here is perfectionism.
I can't do this, unless I know EXACTLY what comes where and how I want it, and what routines are going to work - and I can't know until I have tried this out! :-D

So - I have been printing a lot of free organizer/planner/household binder printables. My binder is full of post-its and page markers and notes.

So - Year at a Glance.
What to do with that? I wrote in Sabbaths, birthdays, Jewish holidays, Finnish holidays, Danish holidays, Swedish holidays and our special dates like wedding anniversary.
Here she says that she also adds in the learning blocks, so it might be a good idea to have some sort of 1001 days follow-up...

I transfer all these dates to each monthly calendar page, and all the appointments and such.
I also write them in a separate monthly list with the days in a list form, so that I can cross out the days.

And then weekly lists and daily lists. The daily lists I write every morning together with my husband.
I have seen a couple of these daily lists... or what to call them. On them are usually the daily chores, the morning, day and evening routines, dinner plans, calls to make, errands to run, bills to pay etc. The core of every day is what has been appointed to this specific day in the "year at glance".

I don't understand the "water to drink" or "take your vitamins". Feels to me like someone trying to find something to fill up the empty space.

Also I noticed that I need a special Sabbath binder. There's so much information and organization to be done for each Sabbath, that this needs an own binder. :-)
(Yes, it makes me happy. Binders, lists, organization, planners...)

Ah. I'll keep filling my binder.  I really need to start working with Henric's birthday. 

Logical Fallacy: loaded questions

"Are you still beating your wife?"

The correct answer to the classic trick question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is 'mu'.

Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her.

According to various Discordians and Douglas Hofstadter the correct answer is usually "mu", a Japanese word alleged to mean "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions".

The word 'mu' is actually from Chinese, meaning 'nothing'; it is used in mainstream Japanese in that sense. In Chinese it can also mean "have not" (as in "I have not done it", or "lack of", which may or may not be a definite, complete 'nothing').

Native speakers of Japanese do not recognize the Discordian question-denying use, which almost certainly derives from overgeneralization of the answer in the following well-known Rinzai Zen koan:

A monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have the Buddha nature?" Joshu retorted, "Mu!"

------------------ 

A common way out of this argument is to not respond with a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer, but with a full statement that also includes context. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be either
"I have never beaten my wife" or
"I have never had a wife."
This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. 

However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers with "dodging" the question. A rhetorical question such as "Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I've never had?" can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose his tactic or stop the line of inquiry.

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

"For how long are we going to tolerate this abuse of power?"

"Why can't you accept these simple facts?"

"What did I do to deserve this abuse...?"

"Why does everyone hate me?"

-------- 

"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.
"Are you to get in at all?" said the Footman, "That's the first question, you know."

-- Lewis Carroll

---------

"I recently had the 'pleasure' of being presented with a loaded question:

"When is being true to self a rationalization for stomping all over other people?"

it appeared in a post that in its entirety read:

"Being true to oneself is important. Yes, of course. But there are many ways of being true to self and not all of them are pretty. Dictators are true to themselves, serial killers are true to themselves and so on. When is being true to self a rationalisation for stomping all over other people?"

I responded:

"Did you just suggest that I am dictator-like and serialkiller-like? Inferred from the fact that you use an expression I am the only one using in this thread."

The person attempts to wriggle out of it by saying:

"Not at all, Dov, not at all. I am speaking in general, general principles. Please do not take it personally."

The problem is that by using a variation of my unique phrase: Be true to yourself, the person has de facto made it personal. There are no general principles in sight.

I replied:

"See, in my experience, people who keep telling others that they are assuming things, when they are simply sharing their perspective and their understanding, or feeling about something, which is just as valid as anyone else's, are also going to be dishonest about what they actually meant by what they said, to avoid ending up with egg on their face.

It's all very easy to claim 'general principles', when the innuendo one is making is really very clear. I believe it's called plausible deniability."

and they responded:

"Dov, you are confusing a number of things, but I really don't have time to get into this with you right now.

If you see yourself in the general principles I delineated, well, so be it, hopefully it could be a source of learning for you. I was looking beyond just you, though, as I do not think ad hominem is helpful, and if I used shocking examples of dictators and so on, it was simply an attempt to show the limitations of what I was describing, not calling you names."

I replied:

"Now, it's clear to me that you did intend the comment about dictators and serial killers to target me, along with the part about stomping, you made sure that it would be so by using an expression from one of my posts, the only one containing that expression - the very fact that you are now admitting that you see it as "a source of learning" for me and that not "looking beyond just you" would have been an "ad hominem", (personal attack) proves this. (Your use of Latin here, when you usually speak plain English is very telling, btw - why are you trying to dominate me and control me, ----, through the use of foreign terms?)

You may have been very clever in how you formulated that post,---- - after all you do it all the time, both here in Gaia and in your job. It's just a variation of the technique used to compose 'Company Audits', but that doesn't change the fact that to me it's clear that you targeted me.""

- Dov

3 part Christian videos about logical fallacies

Educating people about logical fallacies and debate techniques is a good thing, reminding people of that everyone can and will use them, at least a couple of times, in their lives, is a good thing, but... the examples are... hilarious :-D So, don't just take what is being said as the truth, because someone made a video of it and I posted it here :-D Take it as an exercise of learning more about logical fallacies

The problem here is that the person making the videos hasn't quite understood what the logical fallacies are and how they work, so his examples are in some cases not good. Nevertheless, they are a base for further discussion

Here are the examples "telemantros" gave in the videos:

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dtNPM-mrA

1. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "You are an idiot for believing in myths"

2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "If you don't stop talking about God, you'll be sorry"
B: "Convert or die!"

3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.

X: "I believe God exists because he has revealed himself through the Bible, nature and archaeology" 

A: "How could you honestly believe in God if there are starving children in Africa?"

(The correct "appeal to pity" argument here would be "How can you believe in an all-mighty God who allows innocent children suffer?")

4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

X: "I believe the Bible to be the standard of truth about God's Character" 

A: "Science disproved God long ago, everybody knows that. Why don't you?"

5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed

X: "I believe the Bible to be the standard of truth about God's Character" 

A: "Our churches' tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true. This is the way we've always done it, so it is the right way"

6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

X: "I believe in God"
A: "Science disproved God a long time ago. Science is the only way to test claims. Therefore, we know that God does not exist".

7. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

A: "Christianity believes in free will. That means since you are a Christian, you believe in free will."

8. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

A: "Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact inc ars, it is true in species."

9. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

A: "The Bible we have today is erred. So what had inspiration, the copies or the originals?"

10. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.

X: "I believe in Creation Theory"
A: "That means you are a Christian! Christians are delusional, so you are delusional and I can't talk to you."

11. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

A: "Mormon Doctrine teaches an illogical chain of infinite past event." 

B: "Mormon Doctrine is not illogical, they don't practice polygamy anymore."

12. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.

A: "That speaker over there is a Christian... Christians are delusional and illogical."

13. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.

X: "Jesus fulfilled prophecy hundreds of years after they were foretold. That is evidence of Jesus being God." 

A: "I know there is prophecy in the Bible, but that doesn't answer the problem about all the starving children in the world".

14. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.

A: "That's a straw man argument"
B: "By claiming that I am using a straw man, you are using a straw man."

The problem is that B just made a claim of straw man, yet he feels that his argument is not a straw man. This is a different standard he is applying to A

15. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.

A: "Why would God allow torture of Job? God can't be loving"

This leaves out the end, and main point of the book of Job and does not accurately represent the situation.

16. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.

A: "The Bible cannot be proven through science and therefore, the Bible is not true"

The problem is that the Bible is a historical document that contains scientific claims, it is not a scientific document.

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPwapBVTcYk 

 

1. appeal to ridicule

Fallacy where ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument"

A: "I believe that God exists"
B: "You can claim God exists all you want, the theistic position is still laughable"

2. hasty generalization

Fallacy where conclusions are reached by using not enough exemplification or when examples are used that are irrelevant and non-representative

A: "Christians can't argue their point because they all rely on blatant lies and fallacies"

3. middle ground

Fallacy in which a middle position is assumed to be correct because it is in-between two extreme positions

A: "Some say that God exists and some say that God does not exist. It seems reasonable to accept the middle position, so it's likely that God exists, but that He is not all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent. That seems fair to both sides."

4. spotlight

When an individual uncritically assumes that members or causes are like those that receive the most attention or coverage on the media.

A: "Hey, Bob, did you know I'm a Christian"
B: "You can't be. I've read about Christians in the Newspaper. They go around protesting funerals because people were killed via punishment from God and you don't do that."

5. factual error

6. argument from ignorance

Fallacy where it is argued that something is true because it has not been proven false, or something is false because it has not been proven true.

A: "God doesn't exist, because you can't prove He does!"
or "God exists, because you can't prove he doesn't"

7. plurium interrogationum

Fallacy where an individual asks for a simple answer to a complex question.

A: "Is the Christian Church unified, yes, or no?"

8. meaningless question

Fallacy in which a question that cannot be asked because it is incompatible with itself, has been asked. The question invalidates itself because one part makes another portion of the question impossible and vice-versa. Meaningless questions are questions that are illogical.

A: "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

9. the masked man fallacy
or Illicit Substitution of Identities

Fallacy where an assumption is made that because something is known under one perspective, it must also be known under a different perspective.

A: "Creationists agree that it is a known fact that changes occur within a species over time, therefore creationists agree that evolution occurs."

10. improper notion of probabilities

Fallacy in which a low probability is used as proof that something could not have happened

"There are hundreds of religions in the world that require faith and each one of them states that it's true. Since it is so unlikely that faith would bring you to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion."

11. false analogy

A false analogy is present any time similarities between objects or events are assumed without proof, just because they are similar in some other way.

"Christianity shares characteristics with Mithran mythology and Mithran mythology is false, therefore Christianity is false."

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbniauQf45k 

 

1. ad hominem tu quoque

Fallacy in which an individual claim is concluded as false because it conflicts with past claims or actions of the one making the original claim.

The fact that a person makes inconsisten claims does not make any particular claim he makes false. Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite, but this does not prove his claims are false.

X: "God's heart is for all people, that's why I help the poor and needy" A: "God doesn't have a heart for anyone, I've never once seen you help anyone other than yourself!"

2. amphiboly

Fallacy in which a premise is used in an argument that is ambiguous because of ungrammatical phrasing and the meaning is not clear.

X: "I know Jesus is God."
A: "Christians shouldn't be allowed to believe in God, it's too dangerous."

This fallacy can be used to confuse or make subconscious implications, intentional or not.

3. anecdotal evidence

Fallacy in which an individual relies on anecdotes to prove their argument.

"I prayed for Jesus to appear to me and he didn't, therefore Jesus does not exist."

It is valid to use experience to illustrate a point, as experience is one of the three methodologies that naturalism uses to illustrate itself (experience, science and logic) but not valid to prove your point.

4. appeal to consequences of a belief

Fallacy in which the consequences of a position proves the position to be true. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

"God is false because accepting that God's existence is false leads to deeper and more free thinking"

5. audiatur et altera pars (hear the other side)

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

6. circumstantial ad hominem

Fallacy in which one attacks a claim by asserting that the claim is made out of self interest and is therefore false.

"... a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. while a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own."

A: "The universe began to exist, and therefore has a cause". 

B: "You only believe that because you are a Christian."

7. composition

Fallacy in which a conclusion is drawn about the whole, based on the individual constituents (or parts) within the whole

"Islam and Mormonism are proven false via science, therefore all religions are false."

8. division

Fallacy in which it is inferred that what is true about the whole must also be true about the parts that make up the whole.

"Religion is incoherent, therefore Islam, Christianity and Mormonism are incoherent".

9. genetic fallacy

Fallacy in which a perceived defect in the origin of the claim is taken as evidence that the claim is false.

A: "I believe in Jesus"
B: "People only believe in Jesus out of fear and weakness. Christianity is a crutch."

10. slippery slope

Fallacy in which an assertion is made that if some event occurs then so will another inevitable event without any clarification This sort of reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitable follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

"If we allow religion back in our schools, my children will be forced to start reading the Bible!"

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars)

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, hear the other side. It is most often used to refer to the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against him.

As a logical error, it refers to the fact that people will argue from assumptions which they don't bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It's not a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's often viewed with suspicion.

The premises of an argument are often introduced with words such as "Assume...", "Since..." and "Because...." It's a good idea to get your opponent to agree with the premises of your argument before proceeding any further.

The word "obviously" should not be used, though. It occasionally gets used to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't understand why something is 'obvious'. So don't be afraid to question statements which people tell you are 'obvious' -- when you've heard the explanation you can always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is obvious."

---------------------

Principle that states that all premises of an argument should be stated explicitly, arguing from assumptions not stated This is not always a strict fallacy per se, but illustrates a principle that is often broken during discussion and should be avoided when possible.

X: "I believe in God".
A: "There is no evidence of God's existence".

"A is guilty of "jumping to conclusions" in regards to what he considers evidence, for the criteria for evidence is an assumption and was not explained"

---------------------

Well... it is a generally accepted fact that there is no evidence of God's existence, that you cannot prove God exists nor that God doesn't exist. Accusing "A" of "jumping to conclusions" is like accusing X of "jumping to conclusions" because he doesn't state properly what he means with "God" or "believe".

No...

This is more like some people discussing about an issue, and then someone gets into the discussion, and after a while one of the people in the discussion tells the newcomer that he should be quiet, because he doesn't know what they are talking about, referring to another discussion, that was not in any way or manner mentioned in this discussion earlier.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Pity

Argumentum ad misericordiam - Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy The Galileo Argument

How you feel about someone or something effects your opinion about the someone or something. Nevertheless, it's totally irrelevant to the argument at hands.

"Power of Weak" is an effort to create sympathy to one of the arguers, thus causing the majority to side with the "weak one".

"Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?"

A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life... Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.

Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

"My client is an integral part of this community. If he is sent to prison not only will this city suffer but also he will be most missed by his family. You surely cannot find it in your hearts to reach any other verdict than "not guilty"."

"I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket."

"You guys are young men...are you unemployed? How can you spend so much time refuting an old lady with a bad hip. You both know that from having checked me out last year. I am who I say I am.

I have an excuse to be here. My life has shut down due to age and a disability."

"My life has never, ever been as busy as it is now, and I actually neglect things I need to get done for work and myself to spend as much time on --- as I do. I cannot afford to continue doing this."

This fallacy is also called "the pity card"

One variation of this is "the Galileo Argument"

"Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait; I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of TIME."

This includes the idea that the opponent is "suffering for their beliefs". You know "laugh now, but I'll show you!"

"I must be doing something right, or I wouldn't be attracting all this attention from the Big Green Machine."
-- response from a person arguing that there is no global warming, when she is met with opposition

The Galileo Fallacy is often accompanied by the Gadfly Corollary. It goes something like this

"Great thinkers throughout history have make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. I make people upset, angry, irritated, or insulted. Therefore, I must be a great thinker."

Whenever someone says, "I'm really getting under people's skin -- I must be doing something right," or, "If people are this pissed off at what I say, then I must be doing my job" -- that's the Gadfly Corollary in action.

-- Greta Christina
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-galileo-fal.html

Variant of this is when the opposer refuses to answer the questions about their claims because "you're mean, you've hurt my feelings" or because the question is "personal".