[MDCore]

You've fallen into the trap the article talks about, in expecting the woman in the story to be talking logically and therefore held to a high standard of discourse.

People say over-the-top, outrageous things out of emotionality, when they may mean something far less or completely different.

Instead of seeing the woman's statements as a logical argument, one should see them as the expressions of emotion that they are, and try to engage in talk that connects to the emotions and experiences underneath.

[dragonwriter]

> People say over-the-top, outrageous things out of emotionality, when they may mean something far less or completely different.

Yeah, but that's useless for communication of information (its useful for -- socially important -- request for and reception of sympathy, etc., especially from people with a shared emotional context.)

OTOH, when presented in a context where the intent is to get people who don't share the emotional context, especially in a context which asks for people to accept your position on a fact claim, change behavior, or support some kind of policy proposition, it is not useful, and it is appropriate to point out its deficiencies for that context and call on the speaker to recast it in a manner appropriate to the context.

[sageikosa]

Gotta agree on this one. Appeals to emotion are for persuasive argumentation, and best applied against audiences for whom sympathy to your narrative is likely. Skeptics aren't that audience.

[khyryk]

Sorry, I don't think I'm going to be afforded the same courtesy if I start ranting about how all Valley girls are sluts because of my few experiences, for instance, even if it happens to be my genuine expression of emotion. Hoping that everyone's interpretation of certain emotions converges on something similar (and civil) is just asking for a clusterfuck.

[Avshalom]

Turns out you don't live in a vacuum ¡social context!

That said you can rest easily knowing that people would probably not attempt to convince you valley girls were not sluts by pointing out your logical fallacies.

[icambron]

> Turns out you don't live in a vacuum ¡social context!

Is that social context that women are considered purely emotional creatures incapable of logical thought? I ask because you seem to be suggesting that women should get a pass for emotionally-charged reasoning whereas men shouldn't.

I do hold women to high standard of discourse (GP's term) and I find that they meet it with the same frequency as men.

[kmm]

Am I immune to any challenge by saying my slander is an expression of emotion?

She didn't say something of the sort of "I was treated in a sexist way". She said something more like "The skeptics movement is fundamentally sceptic". That is not an expression of emotion, but slander. And even if it were, it shouldn't be allowed.

[hacker789]

> Instead of seeing the woman's statements as a logical argument, one should see them as the expressions of emotion that they are, and try to engage in talk that connects to the emotions and experiences underneath.

Why not afford to the men and women who respond to her that same privilege?