Wow..that sucks...so we are all supposed to act like vulcans or something?
We are humans. Humans are emotional beings. Therefore I argue that letting your emotions become known is valid during an argument.
Of course, it should not be weighed on as hard evidence against a certain logical point, but it IS evidence of something very real in the one making a stance during an argument.
If someone admits they are racist, and i hate racists, then i argue that it is valid that i call the man a racist douche bag.
If that same racist thinks that racism is valid, and he hates me because I am a race mixer, then it is just as well in his corner to claim that i am a fool.
Also, responding to tone I consider valid as well. If someones tone is hateful sounding to me, then why cant i let them know that?
Meh, I dont know...in my opinion the more time you spend trying to organize human discussion the more you realize you cant do it, you merely stifle reality... and as much as people would like logic to rule the world, we humans are emotional beings, and we make judgements based on emotions many times throughout our lives.
Example:
other person: "This handful of people should die that this great handful of people may live."
Me: "Thats disgusting, how can you say such an uncaring thing?"
other person: "It is the most logical conclusion"
Now I am no longer able to argue anymore, because he is correct. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and it is very logical. I have also placed myself in jeopardy for replying to his logical arguement by skirting close to the bottom three rungs of your pyramid. On top of that, the racist can not only draw logical points to back up his claims, but he can also draw biological science help support many of his claims.
other person: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..so minorities should be forced to comply with the needs of the many"
I cant logically argue against that. Sure, i can drag on about "human rights", but human rights are nothing more than idealisms, which are subject to change from person to person, time to time, where as logical arguments are immune to this. I can say "right to life", but from which logical source am I able to argue this right to life? There is not one single inherent universal property that suggests that biology has a right to life. My intent has clouded my capacity to reason in this situation, as my inent is to surely ignore reality and argue emotionally by bringing up idealisms.
So, scientifically and logically speaking the racist will and should win, but only from that standpoint alone. No racist has ever be won over by logic and science alone. they are won over by emotional arguments, empathy, and appeals to non-violence and cohabitation.
Of course I plan on trying to follow these rules..I just find them very constrictive and unrealistic dealing with human condition and discussion.
We are humans. Humans are emotional beings. Therefore I argue that letting your emotions become known is valid during an argument.
Of course, it should not be weighed on as hard evidence against a certain logical point, but it IS evidence of something very real in the one making a stance during an argument.
If someone admits they are racist, and i hate racists, then i argue that it is valid that i call the man a racist douche bag.
If that same racist thinks that racism is valid, and he hates me because I am a race mixer, then it is just as well in his corner to claim that i am a fool.
Also, responding to tone I consider valid as well. If someones tone is hateful sounding to me, then why cant i let them know that?
Meh, I dont know...in my opinion the more time you spend trying to organize human discussion the more you realize you cant do it, you merely stifle reality... and as much as people would like logic to rule the world, we humans are emotional beings, and we make judgements based on emotions many times throughout our lives.
Example:
other person: "This handful of people should die that this great handful of people may live."
Me: "Thats disgusting, how can you say such an uncaring thing?"
other person: "It is the most logical conclusion"
Now I am no longer able to argue anymore, because he is correct. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and it is very logical. I have also placed myself in jeopardy for replying to his logical arguement by skirting close to the bottom three rungs of your pyramid. On top of that, the racist can not only draw logical points to back up his claims, but he can also draw biological science help support many of his claims.
other person: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..so minorities should be forced to comply with the needs of the many"
I cant logically argue against that. Sure, i can drag on about "human rights", but human rights are nothing more than idealisms, which are subject to change from person to person, time to time, where as logical arguments are immune to this. I can say "right to life", but from which logical source am I able to argue this right to life? There is not one single inherent universal property that suggests that biology has a right to life. My intent has clouded my capacity to reason in this situation, as my inent is to surely ignore reality and argue emotionally by bringing up idealisms.
So, scientifically and logically speaking the racist will and should win, but only from that standpoint alone. No racist has ever be won over by logic and science alone. they are won over by emotional arguments, empathy, and appeals to non-violence and cohabitation.
Of course I plan on trying to follow these rules..I just find them very constrictive and unrealistic dealing with human condition and discussion.
