Does people allowing there emotions to tinge there speech keep them from being understood the way they intend?

Question

When people see something other people are doing, that they believe to be very, very ethically or morally wrong, does it inflame there passions, there sense of injustice, and lead to them to speak and act in overly-emotional ways in the attempt to fix it, and lead to the people there trying to address to either tune them out or retaliate in equally overly-emotional ways, instead of calmly, effectively trying to convince them to try to figure out for themselves if they really are doing something wrong, and fixing it effectively if they are?
Does this apply to any side in any debate, especially about highly emotional issues such as ethics, morals, rights, liberties, politics, and religon?
This idea came to me when I was considering the things I've said, and how they have been misunderstood because I was over-emotional do to feeling so strongly about them, I know I've inadvertenly been too offensive, leading some people to not understand the meaning of what I've been trying to say.

Answer 1

Short answer-yes. No one will listen seriously to someone who appears emotionally unstable. To remain calm and patient in the face of surging passions shows not only the validity of your point, but also shows your strength of character and will all the more convince the other party in the debate that you are an induvidual worth listening to with an open mind.

Answer 2

The short answer is yes.
It's this type of emotional outletting that fuels today's political discourse. Rush, Hannity & Co., Air America on the left, they're all in a competition to see who can outrage their respective constituency the most.
And since moderation and understanding doesn't sell books, there's no market for it and you won't hear prominent moderate voices out there until it does.

In debate - or any discussion of any kind - your audience has filters that are as varied as the people who comprise that audience. Everyone hears certain words in certain ways; everyone has different life-experiences, opinions and even prejudices.
Thus, when someone sees something that outrages them, they may take it personally and react in such a way that may be more extreme and unforgiving than they intended. This may hit other people's "filters" and elicit a reaction from them that was unintended.

The hardest thing to do - but the most essential - in any debate is to completely remove emotion from it all together. You don't want to become too stiff, as emotion can add color, but you're always better off removing it at least to start because too often it skews what you really meant.

Answer 3

Of course emotion colors our speech and writing. We have emotions, and when we feel stronly about something it tends to bring emotion to the forefront and sometimes leave reason behind. However, going too much the other way -- no emotion whatsoever -- makes for speech and writing that is not only boring, and bereft of feeling, but makes it easier to lie or twist the truth to make a point, since there is no honest feeling behind the words. That kind of speech is what you often get from politicians, whose speeches and writings have little feeling or emotion behind them and are instead scripted "events" designed to appeal to a particular audience no matter what the speaker's true feelings are.

Keep emotion in your speech and writing. I think, however, you could learn to not confuse emotion and strong feelings about a topic with a desire to offend or tear down others. You can express your own emotions without belitting others, especially if you recognize that you're being driven by emotion but that other people's emotions are just as valid as yours, even if they are different. There's a big difference between saying, "I believe strongly that..." as opposed to, "I'm right and you're wrong so you're a huge jerk." See? :)

Answer 4

Absolutely it does.

If you'll notice, there's nothing that drives an emotionally-driven individual crazier than dealing with someone whose emotions are completely in check.

Also, when someone is driven by their emotions, they oftentimes come off sort of unhinged. I'm a liberal, but I see where conservatives think Cindy Sheehan is unbalanced. I see where she's coming from because as a mother and someone against the war, I can only imagine what she must be going through - and I think I'd be a bit unhinged too. So she's easy to dismiss as just being a bit wacky.

However, when people who don't have an *emotional* stake in the war speak out against it, their arguments carry a bit more weight and the pro-Bush crowd has to resort to things like, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Nationalistic rhetoric and slurs of "traitor," for instance. However, that's a more dangerous stance to take, since it can quickly backfire.

You can take almost any stance and sub it for the Bush/war examples. For instance, if you take people who are anti-abortion based on religious beliefs, they oftentimes take it personally - because they believe God has given them a mandate to end it. And screaming, 'DON'T KILL YOUR BABY' at women entering a clinic is the best way they know how to do it. Unfortunately, it also throws them into the "fringe" category and they're not taken seriously.

When you find people talking about why abortion is wrong who are able to base it on something more than emotion, their argument comes across more cogently and eloquently and gives people more of a reason to listen to it.

There's something in the quality of an overly emotional person's voice that assaults the ear unpleasantly. It's shrill - for me, it actually makes me wince. When someone sits with me and speaks *to* me, not *at* me, I'm far more inclined to listen. And my mind *has* been changed. Believe me, it's been changed.

When I hear people screaming, 'YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I DO," I cringe too (even if they're using pixels instead of their voice). I believe in God, but I believe I'm more successful in spreading His word through quieter actions. I raise my children well. I honor my husband and my marriage vows. I help wherever I'm able. I'm happy. I give credit to God by telling others that I'm blessed by all these things. By others seeing this, I think it affects them more than if I screamed that they were Satan's minions and were destined for fire and brimstone. Besides, does God want us to scare people into loving Him?

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

Yes we all know this
Then we have people like me that want nothing more than to enrage, and inflame whoever. I have never dreamed anything I say could change anyone mind. Piss off and insult that's me.
Besides those who I speak at have closed minds and no reason or facts to back up heir mindless opinions

Answer 6

/yes i have done this myself i know . it's just in the human nature hard to explained why it happen . every one probably stress about something that is going on this world be it bush/ economies /Iran /immigration health care etc. so it's not hard to piss someone off very easy on any debate every one have their own ideas about how thing should be handle.we have to learn to agree to disagree

Answer 7

Proper spelling and grammar will keep you from being properly understood. "There" should be "their". I couldn't understand what your question was anyway.