There’s a parade? Awesome! I love parades!
Oh, man, a moderator came in to support my arguable junior modding! They should make me a mod. I’d be the best.
In general, which is a better guide to morality - thought or emotion? My experience is that the answer to this question varies between different individuals. Some persons clearly have a much better sense of right from wrong emotionally. Others have just the opposite, they can reason more clearly to differentiate what they should and shouldn’t do, though their emotions remain murky. (Not everyone falls into one of the two categories; many people do equally well with both reason and emotion, or equally poorly as the case may be.)
Because of these differences between people, politics has to consist of both emotional and rational appeals to engage both sorts of people.
Yes you do. It may be emotionally unintelligent at times, but we get to do that in the USA. I think that you may be doing that yourself right now.
It would be interesting to know who has denounced your Constitutional rights or what you consider to be your Constitution rights. But even if someone did, she or he still has a right to speak and denounce. Did anyone have a right to denounce Prohibition? That was the Constitution law at the time.
No one is shouting you down. Your right to speak out is the same as ours.
Emotions are very much a part of reality unless one is brainwashed.
And if people have to discredit their emotions, they are not truly listening to themselves. Human beings have an emotional component for good reason. When one loses touch with emotions, that person can easily become mentally ill. Mental hospitals have booklets with a variety of “smilies” given to some patients If patients cannot give voice to their emotions, they can at least point to one of the faces that best expresses what they are feeling. That is truly sad.
This has been going on for years. I think it started with Holocaust survivors. Or perhaps it is older. Whatever, I don’t give a shit if some guy was in Auswitch and lived to tell. It doesn’t make his opinions on legalization of cannabis, the war in Iraq, taxation on cars, or any other subject any more relevant. It’s merely another form of the idea that the political opinion of rich actresses or tennis players and other celebrities are any more interesting that that of any random taxi driver or pizza delivery guy.
I have long imagined the whole reason the legal system is so slow and inefficient is just to give the mob a chance to cool down.
Where “people disagreeing with you” is,
How dare Neil Heslin refuse to be shouted down, I guess?
Not exactly the best choice of cite there . . . was it?
CMC
Do you think it’s unique to the USA? I don’t. I think in African countries, gay people who have been discriminated against or raped are being “paraded out” in support of their rights, and I suspect that in India, women are being “paraded out” in response to that horrendous gang rape story a few weeks ago.
A 19th-century example has already been posted.
I believe you, and not just because the death camp was called Auschwitz.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use his experiences at Auschwitz that way. I’ve heard it brought up in regard to religious prejudice or genocide or perhaps Israel, but I have never heard anyone try to win an argument about cannabis or taxes by saying he survived Auschwitz.
As a political strategy appealing to human emotion may actually be necessary for politicians to exploit. On a good majority of topics being discussed emotions are going to run high, they have to accept it, a lot of people will already have a set opinion on the subject. It gets attention and without attention you may not be able to get your point across, if people were looking for Straight dope answers they’d be on these forums, I don’t think people can handle this kind of information. I find my emotions driving my responses much time and have to catch myself, to keep that out and keep it to relative material, and I am practicing at fixing that. For the public who doesn’t do that very much it may be much harder, emotions will be stirred up anyways.
The story being pushed is “how dare they answer the question he posed, he lost his son.” It’s using the fact that he has an emotional connection to the incident to try to make the very act of disagreement with the gun-confiscation agenda into a mortal offense.
Would you mind posting some examples? Preferably stuff from a couple of sources people actually read as opposed to random bloggers, since you can find one person saying almost anything somewhere on the 'net.
I didn’t have time to follow this story today, but it looks like there were reports early today that the father of one of the Newtown victims was heckled while he testified during a legislative hearing. It sounds like he wasn’t heckled and it was much ado about nothing.
I have not only the right to speak my mind before congress, but also the **duty **as a citizen to do so.
which, as you see in your later post, is a nonsense narrative reporting something that essentially didn’t happen. Don’t worry, though, Piers Morgan, who those on the left agreed was perhaps the most slow-witted person in the media world until he started making bizarre claims about guns and became the new darling, is still on the story!
Bullshit. Emotion nor tears have nothing to do with it; if it did, it wouldn’t have taken the government hundreds of years to treat minorities with some semblance of humanity. What drives all of this is money, not tears, not emotion, and certainly not people.
- Honesty
I watched the clip last night and I agree that it didn’t qualify as heckling. Heslin deliberately looked around the room and declared that nobody had an answer to his question.
Now, one can argue that his question was rhetorical, that it was uncouth to shout anything while he was speaking, or that “Second Amendment!” isn’t really an answer to the question, but it was not (as I had expected from media reports) a case of him being interrupted by heartless gun nuts while in mid-eulogy for his murdered child.
Aren’t you just parading yourself out as suffering having your ‘rights’ attacked? What’s the difference?
The reporting is inaccurate, but it doesn’t say what you said it did. Nobody was outraged that anyone dared disagree with Heslin. The claim (wrong though it was) was that yelling at the man was rude and callous.
The hilarious thing about the OP is that it first complains about using emotional appeals to protest certain policies, like using Newtown vicitms to protest current gun laws, and then it–wait for it–uses Pakistani Children (and later, nazis!) to protest drone strikes.
So the takeaway:
Make an emotional appeal based on dead victims for a policy change** Condescending Robot** opposes: Boo! Hiss!:mad:
Make an emotional appeal based on dead victims for a policy change Condescending Robot favors: Hooray! 
I agree. Take Gabbie Giffords, for example. Her knowledge of gun issues boils down to the fact that she got shot. I would feel the same if she appeared before the committee in support of gun rights. Just because she was injured by a gun makes her no more qualified to discuss the appropriate level of gun control than the local pizza delivery guy.
Her presence is solely to arose sympathy and doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the debate.