You're being overemotional

[Dystopia]

Sometimes people get mad and react with emotional states. Often someone will tell the former that they're being emotional and therefore their point is irrational.

I don't like this idea - Being emotional doesn't mean being irrational, it just means you are being emotional. I can make a very good, rationally and logically valid argument that carries emotional baggage demonstrated by my language, tone and/or body reaction. It's not worth less than an argument present with an emotionless tone.

Emotional means irrational if my whole point is supported merely by emotional states, but if I present logic and reason it's still rational.

I just wanted to share this idea:

Someone being emotional is not equivalent to being wrong. If someone tells me that rape is right and I happen to be a rape victim (this is a random example) I will most likely react negatively and enter a very emotional state (anger, crying..), but I can still present a logically coherent argument to counter the former point.

Telling someone you're being emotional and therefore irrational doesn't look like a valid argument for me.

This is also true for atheists, Dawkins sometimes (in my opinion wrongly) classifies his opinion as magically always logical and other people's opinion as emotional (on Twitter), forgetting a point can be rationally valid while clearly demonstrating an emotional side

P.S. - Don't confuse what I'm saying with the famous appeal to emotion fallacy

[Napoléon]

I too, have had times where people tell me my response is too emotional (because "F" bombs, usually). As though that makes the points any less valid. Stupid fuckers IMO. If nobody had any emotion arguments wouldn't even be worth having. And this place would get pretty boring quick.

[bennyboy]

Sorry, guys, but I disagree with you. It's not like you are engaged in verbal communication. You are typing. Things don't just "pop" out-- they are considered and typed with conscious awareness of their implication.

So what does it mean to a reader of your posts? It means that he/she will have to read more words to understand your actual point, if in your emotional state you have bothered to have one. And for what? So you can unburden yourself, on unwilling others, of your own feelings. This is the intellectual equivalent of some perv rubbing up against me while standing on the subway, and I enjoy it about as much. What's worse is that when you are expressing anger, or using language to demean others, you are contributing momentum to the social context you're in-- people will get defensive or offended, and entire threads can be made unsalvageable for those people who were hoping to engage in meaningful conversation.

I teach my children to control their emotions. I teach them that if they want their ideas to be taken seriously, they have to say them more cogently, not just louder, more often or with increasingly strong rhetoric. And frankly, I assume that any normally developed adult engaged in writing in a forum will have mastered that level of discipline as well. Now, I'm not referring to either one of you specifically, or saying you are childish people. I don't know what posts you feel criticized for, and I can't comment on how I would feel about them. But in general principle, words meant to demean or "correct" the personalities of others should be avoided, in place of logical ideas.

I'm proud of AF for the long thread with Heywood recently. Heywood was accused multiple times of violating a basic understanding of set theory and committing logical fallacies. But (partly because of Heywood's own emotional restraint), people for the most part controlled their mode of communication, and that thread did not end up in cat memes, images of Star Trek characters engaged in head slaps, or a flame war. And that is as it should be.

[Napoléon]

I've never read so much absolute bullshit in all my life ^

[bennyboy]

I've never read so much absolute bullshit in all my life ^

Great point.

[Napoléon]

Great point.

Sorry, I meant to put my response in the form of a cat meme:

---

---

[robvalue]

I agree that "being emotional" in no way equates with "being wrong".

I would only refer to your emotions if I think it may be a reason why you are wrong. For example, I think your argument is invalid and feel that maybe you can't see it because of your emotions. I would say it more tactfully than that and only where it seems appropriate :p I try to just stick to the subject as far as possible.

Face to face, if someone is getting highly emotional, I tend to suspend any sort of debate until they have calmed down. I'd try and comfort them, or appeal for calm, depending on the emotions displayed.

[SteelCurtain]

I don't think it's possible to enter into a discussion about something you care about without emotion.

The only time I would ever consider saying someone's response is too emotional is if I know that person's normal pace of dialogue, and I can tell that they are saying things they wouldn't normally say or resorting to ad hominem or tu quoque when they normally wouldn't.

In other words, when it's obvious.

I don't think that emotion is a binary state. You are never totally without it, and the alternative is not necessarily full fanaticism.

[dyresand]

I have a switch i turn mine off and people tell me i am not emotional enough.

[bennyboy]

I don't think it's possible to enter into a discussion about something you care about without emotion.

That's right. I don't think it's wrong to HAVE emotion. I just think it's wrong not to self-edit posts full of cursing and melodrama before you press the "Post" button.

I've often enough sworn to myself at some answer or point that I consider stupid or dishonest. I might even say in a reply that I consider the post stupid or dishonest. But THAT is a LOT (!!!) Different than FUCKING filling a POST with annoying meta-fucking-comment-fucking-tary!!! R_I_G_H_T!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?

(Just playing, btw, this is not directed at you)