Speaking from the Soul:tone policing, emotion, and logical fallacies

Our emotional selves provide the fuel which feeds are goals in order to construct change,  but we cannot assume that the emotional self we know is a shared experience with shared goals.    I ran into this head first earlier and wish to talk about it.

Logic is the area of philosophy that deal's with the construction of arguments.  And argument is normally constructed of a series of rhetoric and logic in order to present a perspective on a particular issue or problem.  Logic is simply the meat of the argument, the nutrients while rhetoric is the taste so to speak.

(A Very Simple Logical Constructed Argument)
 P->Q (If P then Q; If it rains (P) then the roads will be slick (Q))
P (It rained today)
Q(Your going to have a harder time getting home safely; please drive slower honey)

A good argument can normally be translated into a form of logical construction that if all of it's constituent parts are true then the argument has no other options but to be true.  It is a method of separating the chafe, the rhetoric from the actual content of what your talking about.   Rhetoric is a series of techniques and methods of convincing a person that they should hear what you have to say and that your right.

Within Rhetoric however there are a series of techniques that undermine the logical construction of an argument; these are referred to logical fallacies.  There basically methods to hoodwink and undermine logic

Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Our experiences and our emotional reactions to those experiences form the foundations for why we struggle to fix problems or share our said experiences within the worlds.  But our individual spiritual and emotion experiences can never be another person's reason for why something is inherently true.  I could say that this is because our individual experiences are built upon the context of our entire lives and therefor they will be unique to each individual.

Attempting to force said emotional reactions upon another in lieu of an effective argument is a form of logical fallacy; in this case it is called an appeal to emotion.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Our spiritual and emotional experiences are what make us "special little snow flakes" though the foundation of all experience lies in what it means to be "human" (be those experiences be based in whichever religion or non-religion you might practice/believe in).

I write this in response to a concept called Tone Policing which is a form of problem in argumentation in which someone takes offense at a particular point of view of another (which changes the nature of the conversation from the one being a victim to victimizing others).

Tone Policing:Why It's Bullshi*t

The problem is that while our experiences are related; they are also fundamentally different and have each led us to a different place in which we perceive causes, and problems as being different.  As the article says our emotional reactions doesn't make us fundamentally wrong about our perspective; but it also doesn't make us fundamentally right.  We need to realize that the subject of our perspective may be different even though it has led us to the same discourse of problems and issues which will naturally lead to different emotional topics and outcomes.

This leads to be to believe that even though there they may be a singular problem that multiple people have realized; it may have more than one cause and/or effect.  In the same way our emotional relationships to these problems may be different from each other (and therefore each has an equal stake in the solving of said problem).  But this seems to lead to a disagreement of solutions and thoughts; which returns back to the realm of an "Appeal to Emotion".    I feel that when we get to this point we are no longer arguing about the "original topic", but rather our paradigm, our focus that brought us to bear on that original topic.

For example it may be the fact that our politicians are paid for lock, stock, and barrel by corporations which we can longer stand or that the interests of the government reflect the constituents who pay for it.  In both instances the government needs to be changed and fixed; but the emotional root causes stem from issues of corporate greed versus  socially instituted racism which creates different emotional paradigms that may cause friction between two people who would other wise agree that the government needs to be severely amended and both might even point by big business.  In doing so these different paradigm's create unnecessary friction between our emotional selves that impact our ability to cause this change.