3 ms·
To a large extent, I guess isn't almost everything emotional? Even our entire monetary system, as scientific as we prefer to call it, is ultimately a kind of em
by wallace_f 7y ago
To a large extent, I guess isn't almost everything emotional? Even our entire monetary system, as scientific as we prefer to call it, is ultimately a kind of emotional accounting system for merits deserved, and debts owed.
But what I think the author meant was what I hear colloquially when people say others are "thinking emotionally:" that they're relying on a first-order emotional reaction.
So I guess living in an extreme surveillance state is also bad because we feel like we want humanity to continue to to live with prosperity, dignity, and liberty... And that's arguably a more-compelling thought than disagreeing because in the short-term, one life could be saved.
- shrikant 7y agoYes, this was my read as well, but parent commenter was implying that an emotional argument by itself isn't good enough in face of (presumably) more logical/rational arguments (in this case, against a surveillance state). But parent's original point about having ones remains "violated" was in itself a first-order emotional reaction. So I suppose my point is that I'm not quite seeing why their emotional response is more valid than other people's emotional responses -- presumably they've left the non-emotional part of their reaction as an "exercise for the reader"? I don't really know, and would be interested to understand correctly (more for my edification than anything else -- I'm not great at grokking people's intentions most times).
- wallace_f 7y agoIn other words, it's not a problem that it is emotionally-motivated, but that it relied solely on emotional intuition without considering second-...n-number consequences.