Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Emotional Anecdotes.

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.


Kelly said...

Propaganda, when used properly, can be used to influence people and outcomes. Whether it is for what the majority say is "good", "bad", "wrong" or "right" -who can say for certain?

Dark Slander said...

Rule of thumb for me that all manipulation is bad. To me it is the ultimate form of dishonesty, and can lead to terrible outcomes. Even if the invoking of emotion works for good causes I still find it very deceptive and disapprove.

Culturally it is accepted by some groups but opposed to by others, there is no definitive right or wrong here but I'm inclined to say wrong.

Kelly said...

To me, it seems very wrong, too. I preach about that on my own site often. I believe governments, high ranking military, corporations and those in powerful roles in the world are quite adept this. Usually when people say these things, think they are sometimes declared paranoid or conspiracy freaks. Careful reading and research can uncover truths.

(The Twilight Zone theme music suddenly plays)

Heh heh.