Political Crossfire Forums

[callous]

There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless. On the left, you have animal rights groups forcing people to look at the damage done to animals by chemical testing facilities. Or posting pictures of clubbed baby seals. Again, visually poignant, but devoid of situational content, and therefore solely meant to arouse the ire of a voter regardless of how much that voter knows about the situation.

Do you consider yourself vulnerable to emotional rhetoric? Do you use it to influence others and/or win debates that you can no otherwise verbally reason to a logical conclusion?

This is a reflective question for every mile marker on the political horizon line.

[CountryGuy]

I think its hard if not impossible for visually jarring images NOT to affect you emotionally. In fact, I hope I'm never desensitized enough to not be affected.

That said, images alone cannot be the basis for a position. You mention abortion protesters. While I'm pro-life, I consider the posters and pictures they show completely abhorrent. Showing gore does not do ANYTHING for a position, other than possible alienate and drive away people who might otherwise see your side of an issue.

A picture might be worth a thousand words, but a thousand pictures still aren't worth an original thought.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

The only thing that can persuade me is logic and reason. Emotion never has any affect on me whatsoever.

[callous]

CountryGuy wrote:

A picture might be worth a thousand words, but a thousand pictures still aren't worth an original thought.

A solid statement. Hopefully those who debate with pictures, followed by "nuff said" will take heed.

[EugenicHegemony]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: The only thing that can persuade me is logic and reason. Emotion never has any affect on me whatsoever. What's the number one cause of fist fights in America?

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: The only thing that can persuade me is logic and reason. Emotion never has any affect on me whatsoever. What's the number one cause of fist fights in America?

I don't know. Please enlighten me.

[Feslin]

I don't consider myself vulnerable to these. Unless they're vital to the conversation, they don't affect me in the least bit.

[flamboyant]

callous wrote: There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless. On the left, you have animal rights groups forcing people to look at the damage done to animals by chemical testing facilities. Or posting pictures of clubbed baby seals. Again, visually poignant, but devoid of situational content, and therefore solely meant to arouse the ire of a voter regardless of how much that voter knows about the situation.

Do you consider yourself vulnerable to emotional rhetoric? Do you use it to influence others and/or win debates that you can no otherwise verbally reason to a logical conclusion?

This is a reflective question for every mile marker on the political horizon line.

Wow, I've got to give you credit. I thought for sure this was going to lead into some explanation of how only the right deals in rhetoric and how the left is guided by logic and intellect. I underestimated you, but way to present it with an even-handed look.

[EugenicHegemony]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: The only thing that can persuade me is logic and reason. Emotion never has any affect on me whatsoever. What's the number one cause of fist fights in America?

I don't know. Please enlighten me. The "emotional" response they get from fighting over a woman. It's perfectly natural to allow your emotions to get the better of you.

You've never gotten angry before? How about sad, and maybe cried? Or happy, and smiled?

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: The only thing that can persuade me is logic and reason. Emotion never has any affect on me whatsoever. What's the number one cause of fist fights in America?

I don't know. Please enlighten me. The "emotional" response they get from fighting over a woman. It's perfectly natural to allow your emotions to get the better of you.

You've never gotten angry before? How about sad, and maybe cried? Or happy, and smiled?

I meant that emotion doesn't get to me in the context of a persuasive argument.

[sLiPpY]

But of course these things have influence, just as surely as advertising targeting youth is by design.

To train the youth in pressuring their parents and relatives for this or that, in the form of making a purchase.

[Revenant]

callous wrote: CountryGuy wrote:

A picture might be worth a thousand words, but a thousand pictures still aren't worth an original thought.

A solid statement. Hopefully those who debate with pictures, followed by "nuff said" will take heed.



Nuff said.

[CountryGuy]

That picture has made me outraged!!! :lol:

[EugenicHegemony]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: The only thing that can persuade me is logic and reason. Emotion never has any affect on me whatsoever. What's the number one cause of fist fights in America?

I don't know. Please enlighten me. The "emotional" response they get from fighting over a woman. It's perfectly natural to allow your emotions to get the better of you.

You've never gotten angry before? How about sad, and maybe cried? Or happy, and smiled?

I meant that emotion doesn't get to me in the context of a persuasive argument. I misunderstood you. Saying your emotions have no affect on you whatsoever, is what made me question your initial response. That's a pretty broad statement.

[bla bla]

Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic.

[LostSoul3412]

Depends on the situation.

In a professional setting, then my emotions are put off to the side.

In a personal setting, my emotions tend to rule.

[EugenicHegemony]

bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic. I've done it when showing empirical evidence of the use of white phosphorous. It Never phased jingoists at all.

Remember well that statement you made above, because I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of visual nonsense of 9-11 when it comes time for elections.

[Suheil]

callous wrote: There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless. On the left, you have animal rights groups forcing people to look at the damage done to animals by chemical testing facilities. Or posting pictures of clubbed baby seals. Again, visually poignant, but devoid of situational content, and therefore solely meant to arouse the ire of a voter regardless of how much that voter knows about the situation.

Do you consider yourself vulnerable to emotional rhetoric? Do you use it to influence others and/or win debates that you can no otherwise verbally reason to a logical conclusion?

This is a reflective question for every mile marker on the political horizon line.

The case against the US is accumulative, they lied, they went to an illegal war without assessing consequences, they spinned the war to gain the electorate advantage and when all became in the squeeze they justified the presence, saving America face a pretext to save Iraq and Iraqis. All are hard facts, the death of 655, 000 are contested but are hard facts. Death is an emotional subject, when it is supported by hard facts of a war spinning out of control, of people suffering for no reason other than another American stupidity, and a tenacious effort to save America from another folly.

A “war crime” is minted in stone by a picture, Halabja was minted in stone, Falluja was lost in the details within the spin of fighting “terrorists” by a subjective definition and intent to hide what is ugly in war.

[Feslin]

Suheil wrote: callous wrote: There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless. On the left, you have animal rights groups forcing people to look at the damage done to animals by chemical testing facilities. Or posting pictures of clubbed baby seals. Again, visually poignant, but devoid of situational content, and therefore solely meant to arouse the ire of a voter regardless of how much that voter knows about the situation.

Do you consider yourself vulnerable to emotional rhetoric? Do you use it to influence others and/or win debates that you can no otherwise verbally reason to a logical conclusion?

This is a reflective question for every mile marker on the political horizon line.

The case against the US is accumulative, they lied, they went to an illegal war without assessing consequences, they spinned the war to gain the electorate advantage and when all became in the squeeze they justified the presence, saving America face a pretext to save Iraq and Iraqis. All are hard facts, the death of 655, 000 are contested but are hard facts. Death is an emotional subject, when it is supported by hard facts of a war spinning out of control, of people suffering for no reason other than another American stupidity, and a tenacious effort to save America from another folly.

A “war crime” is minted in stone by a picture, Halabja was minted in stone, Falluja was lost in the details within the spin of fighting “terrorists” by a subjective definition and intent to hide what is ugly in war.

Great way to hijack a thread!

[bla bla]

EugenicHegemony wrote: bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic. I've done it when showing empirical evidence of the use of white phosphorous. It Never phased jingoists at all.

Remember well that statement you made above, because I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of visual nonsense of 9-11 when it comes time for elections.

WTF are you talking about?