Here's another catch on the prof's commentary from pagunblog:
"I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like."In her self-centered, narcissistic world, only her emotions, and those she agrees w/ matter. Those that 'feel' anything other than she does are heartless, soulless, juvenile beings who should not be allowed to discuss their point of view. This is not only dehumanizing but seems to have become the standard of debate by those who share her mindset. Control the conversation through dismissing, demeaning, and censoring opinions that are considered 'invalid' because they said so.
2 comments:
Moreso that she apparently can't conceive of experiencing emotions without letting them rule one's actions.
That's an infantile perspective and speaks volumes about the professor's emotional maturity.
What Matthew said. It's a "No true Scotsman" fallacy variant: She feels rage, and it controls her actions; her conscious mind takes a back-seat. You or I feel rage, but we work through it as any normal, mature adult does; our rational mind retains control. But because we are able to keep control of ourselves and our actions under emotional pressure, we must not be feeling "real rage".
My response would be, "Who are you to define what 'real rage' is for me? My ability to control myself and behave like an adult -- and your inability to do the same -- is no reason for you to dictate the extent or scope of my rights."
Post a Comment