maharg said:
*ahem* I think this was rather heavily on the obnoxiously rude side. I expect better from you loki, even when you're imbuing your appeals with emotional fervor
Allow me to clarify:
I didn't mean that one who provides dispassionate analysis cannot
also have an emotional investment in the topic being discussed, but rather that-- in a forum such as this, at least-- those who would pretend that they are not emotionally invested in their argument
for the sake of appearing rational or "even-handed" are more interested in maintaining that outward decorum than in expressing their genuine feelings as human beings. Now, if one simply doesn't
have an emotional investment in the topic under discussion, then that's fine also-- purely rational, intellectual disagreement is well and good, and has its place. But since I
do house some of those emotions, it would require me not being true to myself to pretend that they don't exist merely to conform to the strictures of proper "debate" (this is GA, after all
). To put it more succinctly, my personal priority is to embrace my humanity, with all its attendant features (emotions, fleeting fancies etc.), before rigidly adhering to arbitrary rules of conduct-- provided that I don't step over the line and just repeatedly berate someone without providing any argumentation to back it up. I know very well where that line is, and I didn't cross it.
This is not a formal debate. If it was, you can be sure that I wouldn't have prefaced my comments with a "fuck you" or anything of the sort, as others may be wont to refrain from saying even here on the forum for the sake of "debate". The discourse here is largely informal; as such, I didn't feel that I stepped over the line in making known my disdain and anger towards his sentiments by way of a profanity. I mean, it's not as if I was constantly cursing him out or anything-- it was only one or two (okay, maybe three
) times.
I can see where you're coming from, however, and perhaps I didn't phrase it as well as I could have. Perhaps it would have been better to say that those who unfailingly offer dispassionate analysis typically care more about propriety than they do about expressing other, more human, aspects of themselves (such as emotion). I myself have often provided such detached, objective analysis (no, seriously, I have
), but if you don't get a bit riled up about people calling you a pig who deserves death, well...I'd check for a pulse if I were you.
Point being that I didn't mean to imply that those who offer up such stoic commentary are concerned with mere superficialities, or that they
have no emotion, or are somehow
less human-- it's just that, as per my
personal priorities, the expression of such sentiment, when warranted, takes precedence over interpersonal formalities...to a point (and, again, I don't feel I came anywhere near that point). If someone else's priorities hold that the provision of objective, detached analysis trumps the expression of their emotions (which can, perhaps justifiably, be seen as baser elements of themselves), then that's fine....for them.
I express my anger when it's merited, and I've seen every other poster on this board do the same, yourself included. I was just trying to explain to FightforFreeform why I personally don't care much about such concerns as he highlighted.
In my haste, I conflated two strains of reasoning in my head with my original statement which you quoted-- one of these is described in this post, and the other I clarified later in the previous post when I spoke of how emotional appeals cannot, on their own, affect the veracity of a statement or argument. I should have taken the time to get my thoughts in order. Sorry.
I hope you'll find it in your heart to forgive me, maharg.
EDIT: Also, in saying that emotions are "more human" aspects of our being, I don't mean to suggest that pure intellectualism and rationality are somehow
not "human", or that they are in any way
less human-- they're neither. But, along with our rational nature, our emotional, subjectivist inclinations also figure prominently in what it means to be human imo. I guess I meant "more human" in the primal, animalistic sense.
Personally, I'd estimate that I'm 70-80% rational and 20-30% emotional, though those numbers vary depending upon the topic under discussion.
This was just a disclaimer so that I don't get nitpicked any more. Boo on you mean men.
Fight for Freeform:
Your points are duly noted.
The fact of the matter is that I'm typically not really concerned, for whatever reasons, about how "effective" my arguments are in terms of how many people I persuade or reach, at least on GA. You know as well as I do how little people's views are changed by honest debate here, and I wouldn't want to buck that trend by providing wholly unemotional, if more efficacious, arguments.
