Years ago in a former life I was in a meeting that seemed to drag on forever. We were debating 'round and 'round without any end in sight. I finally had enough and spoke up, laying out in what I thought was a very logical argument on how to proceed.
There was one fellow in the group who disagreed with me quite strongly and pushed back rather vociferously.
We went back and forth for far too long as I patiently answered his concerns and convinced the rest of the group to back my position. But he was going to have the last word.
"It's not fair for you to use logic," he said.
I was stunned. I thought the entire point of an honest debate was to use logic. I didn't, no, couldn't see any other option. His argument relied on emotion and what would "feel right" and I was countering his arguments with logic. He was incensed and he stormed out of the room.
I've always felt that one should be willing and able to lay out their arguments regarding any particular issue and convince others, with logical reasoning, on why their position is the best. Of course, after that virtually everyone should agree and move forward.
I just read this headline, "Obama Rethinking Health Care Pitch - More emotional appeal may surface..."
I guess that logic isn't working for him. According to the article, Obama is "expected to present a more emotional appeal" regarding his health care proposal.
There must be something fundamentally wrong with a proposal if one has to muddy a debate with emotion rather than clear benefits and costs in order to win.
Where's Mr. Spock when you need him?