Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am finding your comment a bit difficult to read, and don't really have time to discuss this further, so I will only remark that I'm not at all offended by anything you said -- my mention of "sensitivity" was only to advise on how to act in such a way so as to make people listen to your arguments (in other words: people will typically shut down their aural response as soon as they hear something offensive to their cor…
Well I'll summarize my perspective as well. If somebody needs emotional coddling in order to see reason - they aren't really going to see reason (not in the long term at least). It therefore makes no sense to deviate from a logic based approach in argument; the "geeks" are doing it right. A verbose argument is easily ignored (as I've apparently demonstrated), so adding emotional appeals can do nothing but distract.
Re: Baseless Calls to Expand Surveillance Fit Familiar, Cynical Pattern
#121Thank you. I share your view that logic/reason is superior to emotional appeal. However the two are often orthogonal. When dealing with public, it is possible not to sacrifice any logical soundness whatsoever while also ensuring that your message is not ignored b/c of seeming insensitivity to whatever bullshit people care about. Just because something is not often done does not mean it is impossible. Understanding what other people care about is called "emotional intelligence". Possessing emotional intelligence does not necessarily mean that one does not possess rational intelligence (heh, it would be a logical fallacy to say so). The two can complement one another. If you care about having influence in the world, you should attempt to acquire both. Just because some people only have one and some only the other does not mean that no person exists that has both. That was my point.