I just returned home from University quite pleased because an in class assignment which I thought I bombed came back marked as excellent. Of course, full credits were also given. This assignment was to take an opposing stance on an essay but also summarize the source properly. This one in particular was about corporations being liable for what people eat, especially in cases of single entities suing franchises like MacDonalds.
The essay brought up a few interesting perspectives but failed by relying too heavily on emotional anecdote to manipulate its readers into a sappy teary eyed state. Being as cold and impassive as I am to such manipulation, I saw through the teargas to the actual vague and unimpressive argument.
Such forms of emotional arguement to me are always fallible, and usually a means of masking the true lack of stability in an arguement. Why they are even allowed in academic settings is truly a mystery to me, it seems they should be more reserved for a novel who has a target niche focused on the menopauseal.
There are many who have attributed my lack of falling prey to such invoking emotional triggers to issues like sociopathy or some other personality malfunction. I can attest that I do indeed have some compromising issues with emotion, however I would definitely object to being thrown in with such fringe personality traits. I do believe my positions come from a larger understanding beyond humanity, and a specific scientific world view which has groomed my personality.
I see no justification of spilling blatant emotional dribble which is only a means to gain subliminal advantage over someone and allude them away from actual facts. I see this particularly groups like PETA, and other activism groups.
The core of all fundamentalism seems to be tactless emotional ploys and cues designed to over whelm the heart and forgo the mind. Such things are detestable, lacking merit to make them ridged enough to withstand tests alone.