>>5919952 (l/b)

Reposting as got lost at end of last bread.

With apologies for butting in…

Isn't the real key to unity to do with separating the ideological from the person espousing the idea/philosophy?

I think it is important to judge ideologies; some just ARE better than others. If this were not the case we would have to allow that sacrificing children to Moloch has equal value to the golden rule - love your neighbour as yourself, and so on and so forth.

So judge away - between ideologies. But don't judge/condemn the person who subscribes to the ideology. He may be mistaken, uneducated, blackmailed, whatever. In short, refrain from ad hominen attacks and debate the ideology.

>>5920121

>You can criticize the ideology without hating those that self-identify with it.

Absolutely! And in so doing we can unite around our common humanity whilst still remaining up for debate about our respective ideologies. The battle for ideas should be fought in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of personal emotions and feelz.

>>5920188

>You need to be able to move in both realms of logic and emotion, you'll have to face and use both.

I disagree.

I choose not to engage on an emotional basis. I am not compelled to so why should I? If I were to I would only be condoning the very thing I purport to abhor which would place me firmly in the realm of hypocrdsy. Rational debate does NOT have to befer to emotionalism, nor should it, imo.

>>5920259

typo: defer

>>5920294

>You claim that because you think it's the right thing to say, but nobody believes you. Emotions are a key part of being human, and you are simply denying your humanity. Sure, logic should guide your actions over emotions, but don't act like you don't deal with emotions. You come across as a pompous twit.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

May I tell you how I arrived at the conclusion that it is best to debate ideas rationally not emotionally?

Many years ago, when the internet was in its infancy, I used to post on a philosophy bulletin board. I was accustomed to returning abuse for abuse - if someone verblly attacked me, I'd attack them back. And often, because I was better equipped to use the English language than my opponent, I could make them look utterly stupid. Then there came this occasion when someone posted a particularly untrue and hurtful ad hominem attack on me. I was there with my keyboard, ragng and ready to give them back not only as good as they gave me, but much, much worse. But a small voice in my head told me to turn the other cheek, to love those who despitefully use you (Bible verses.) So, against all my inclinations, I said nothing. Next thing I knew, every other poster on that BB (and a lot whom I'd disagreed with in the past) was jumping to my defence. I suddenly realised the stupidity of emotionally driven responses. So, my pride was hurt, my feelz were hurt, but when I chose to back off, to not return evil with evil, I was far more successfully vindicated than ever I could have been through my own efforts. Since that day I've learned to swallow the emotional hurts (and not to inflict them on others) and instead concentrate on attacking bad ideology through rational debate, not my feelz and hurt pride. Call it enlightened self interest, if you like. It works.

>>5920448

>Yep, just proving my point about being a pompous twit.

That is an unsubstantiated allegation, an ad hominem. Would you like to back it up with evidence? For instance, what constitutes pomposity and are you able to cite a particular phrase where I evdienced same? What is a twit and what constitutes being a twit?

You see, it is very easy to chuck out slurs - it's what the left does all the time : racist, homphobist, whatever-ist they care to invent. It's a form of verbal bullying designed to silence the opponent because they know they are incapable of winning a debate in the realm of ideas. I'm sure you're better than that, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

>>5920549

The mistake you are making is to believe that because I choose not to defer to my emotions it is equivalent to my having none. I choose to place my emotions under the authority of my rational mind, I don't deny their existence. I reserve my emotional responses for those occasions when they are called for - interpersonal relationships. But debates about ideas are not about human relationships and therefore emotions should be kept out of them. It's how judges have to operate - they have to be impartial and not swayed by emotions, only by arguments. It should be the same for ALL who engage in debates.

>>5920656

>That's all well and good, but your initial post did not imply this. The anon said you need to be able to move in both realms of logic and emotion, to which you said you disagree. I know what you're trying to get at, but I'm poking you because you're still detracting from the strength of your logic by appearing pretentious.

Of necessity there is a tendency to truncate ideas when posting on this board so if I gave a wrong impression, I apologise. My intent was to propose that logic and emotions whould be separated when it comes to debate - that's all. Obviously we all apply logic and emotions - but not all the time eually in all situations. Some situations require reason and logic and some requires emotions. That was the core of my argument.

As for pretentiousness, please evidence - just chucking out the word does not make it so.

>>5920735

>Simply saying you're guided by logic and not emotion is pretentious, which has been my point all along. We're here contributing to the great awakening because we're disgusted and appalled at what's going on in the world. There's no need to deny that or act as if it's below us.

Okay, I now get where you're coming from. But that wasn't what I said, at least, not what I intended to communicate. My original argument was that if we are to develop any kind of unity it will be necessary to argue/debate the ideology not the person who holds the ideology. I have attempted, with succeeding posts, to elaborate that concept, obviously not very successfully as far as you're concerned. Nevertheless, I hold to my original contention which is that ideas should be debated logically and rationally without attacking the holder of the ideas - i.e. without ad hominem attacks which are, by nature (and I'm sure you will agree) of necessity, emotional, which is to say they belong to the realm of interpersonal relationships and not to the realm of ideas.