Freedom. Check it..

Freedom unrestrained is anarchy. We just need to choose whether that restraint is reason, morality and principle, or state, authority, and force.

a reply to: rockintitz

You pose an interesting question.

And, I feel the need to preface my answer with two personal facts.

First, I am a software engineer (read that as old school computer programmer).

Second, I am a rather emotional person. I have always been told that I am a live wire. That I wear my heart on my sleeve. And yes, even at 46 yrs of age, my emotions do get out of hand at times.

I see humans as being humans because of our ability to empathize. This is because of our emotions. When you see someone in pain, you almost immediately put yourself mentally in their shoes. You feel the pain, to a limited degree, that they are feeling. This hopefully invokes compassion and understanding from the one observing the other in pain.

However

There are times where, as previously stated, one must put their feelings aside. One must look at things rationally. Logically. I do not like everything I see. There are plenty of things I've seen in life that brought about sincere and profound emotional responses within me.

But, as an adult, I put them aside. At least, when the situation calls for it, I do my damnedest to do so.



The ability to choose between acting on emotion (or instinct, for that matter) and acting on rational logic is what makes us human IMHO.




So, all of this being said....to answer your question about emotions being relevant and taking precedence over logic...


I believe that there is no emotion that should not be felt. That should not be processed in a mature manner.
There is no bad emotion.

Only bad choices in how one decides to react to their emotions.


It is part of the human condition that we must make these choices. It is also what makes us human.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Freedom unrestrained is anarchy. We just need to choose whether that restraint is reason, morality and principle, or state, authority, and force.

That is a relatively easy stance to take, as it comes across that you are potentially disagreeing with the OP.

I was raised that my rights extend to the length of my physical reach. And that that reach, those rights, do not eclipse the rights of others.

This of course is something of both a metaphor and reality of the situation.

I believe that it speaks to the responsibility, as a mature person, to be cautious and concerned about whether or not your individual actions might impede the rights, the freedoms, of another.



But, the above statement is making a pretty broad assumption. The assumption that most people do not have their head up their asses.


Responsibility is a bitch, simply put.

a reply to: nullafides

simply put;

An individual that doesn't respect individual rights, liberties, and freedoms. . . . . deserves none.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nullafides

simply put;

An individual that doesn't respect individual rights, liberties, and freedoms. . . . . deserves none.

I am not 100% certain that you were agreeing with what I said, or not.

However, I do believe that I agree with you. If someone disrespects my rights...all bets are off. And the same goes for a situation where I observe someone else having their rights discarded in favor of anothers.

+1 for the freedom we have never experienced in this world.

"It's the terror of knowing what this world is about, watching some good friends scream... let me out"

a reply to: nullafides

It's true. Rights are reciprocal. Rights are also duties. Your rights are also my duty to respect and defend them, or else there are no such things are rights.

a reply to: DBCowboy

"waiting for their adopted transgender child" It's not mixed race? Pffft racist.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: nullafides

It's true. Rights are reciprocal. Rights are also duties. Your rights are also my duty to respect and defend them, or else there are no such things are rights.

Then we are in agreement, a rare find here on ATS