Appeal to emotions

I can explain my opinions about psychology and what the Bible says about psychology but I don’t want to hurt your feelings. 

The statement "I can explain my opinions about psychology and what the Bible says about psychology but I don't want to hurt your feelings." involves an appeal to emotions, which is a type of logical fallacy. An appeal to emotions occurs when someone attempts to manipulate another person's emotions, rather than using logical reason, to win an argument or convey a point.

In this case, the speaker is preemptively suggesting that discussing their views might hurt the listener's feelings. This implies that the speaker's opinions are potentially contentious or confrontational, but rather than presenting logical arguments or evidence to support their views, they are focusing on the emotional impact it might have. This can serve to dissuade the listener from engaging critically with the discussion, thus subtly avoiding logical scrutiny of the opinions being presented.

Let's break it down to address the poor logic and reasoning:

1. **Appeal to Emotion Fallacy**: This statement leverages the potential emotional impact ("hurt your feelings") to frame the discourse, potentially silencing critical examination or disagreement.

2. **Passive-Aggressive Framing**: By suggesting they don't want to hurt feelings, the speaker implies that their views are inherently offensive or damaging, which may be a way to pre-emptively delegitimize any counterarguments based on emotional grounds rather than factual ones.

3. **Lack of Substance**: The statement does not actually present any substantive argument or evidence about psychology or what the Bible says about psychology. It's a deflection that avoids the need to provide a reasoned, evidence-based discussion.

4. **Presumptive and Condescending**: The phrase presumes that the listener will be emotionally hurt by the discussion, which can be seen as condescending. It does not give credit to the listener's ability to engage with the topic logically and maturely.

In summary, the statement employs an appeal to emotions to circumvent a logical, evidence-based discussion, which reflects poor reasoning. A more constructive approach would be to present the opinions or arguments clearly and respectfully, backed by evidence and allowing space for critical engagement.

I wouldn't consider this by itself to be an appeal to emotion argument. That is when, in place of a logical argument, someone attempts to make a listener feel a certain emotion that would make them more likely to agree with a point. For instance, "Vote yes on proposition x, or else this puppy will go hungry"

In the example given, this person isn't actually stating their argument, but instead stating a reason why they're not giving one. They're not actively trying to hurt your feelings, but instead saying your feelings would be hurt if they stated their position. 

Absent more context, the closest match I can see is, under pseudo-logical fallacies , there's one called appeal to privacy. In both cases, the person is withholding critical information by stating that it's sensitive.