Yes, 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/rat

Yes, 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).