When putting forth an argument

[strrrng]

You realize you just made one yourself with that quote?

Not quite. But I'm expecting one to come from you now.

[strrrng]

But if you're saying natural propensity - grasp of, whatever, it would also make sense that they understand the other "facets" of internal causalty and would be equally inclined to employ them. Why would they choose to employ emotional dynamics over other means that work just as well, maybe more?

Because that arena is one in which internal causality is commonly implemented. Surely you have witnessed this?

I'm saying it's not common ground. What is so hard to understand about that? I'm saying the correlation is wrong, the assumptions are wrong.

Yet you have absolutely no position of your own to provide us with, other than "there are so many facets." Knowing something is wrong implies at least a general idea of what it is. You can't see the space around an object without seeing the object itself.

No, they aren't. So why should we consider the correlation of emotional appeal when other, equally applicable avenues are out there? Why would people be determined to pin some ethical or logical definitions to things that cannot be defined so determinately?

I never pinned any "ethical" or "logical" definitions to anything; I was alluding to a general trend. And again, unless you can provide something halfway coherent regarding your views on what 'internal causality' is, you shouldn't be correcting others.

I'm not ranting. As far as I know we were all for "discussion" on this forum, but suddenly I'm disqualified because you say I am?

Um, no. No one is disqualifying you. Why is this post sounding more and more like ashton's writing style?

It isn't something I can't "deign to define". I seriously don't understand why people would choose to connotate internal causalty primarily or even preferrably to emotional awareness and or appeals.

Why can't you understand it? You haven't demonstrated any understanding of what internal causality even is, so how would you know what to winnow in defining it? Let me make it clear: acting all open to the infinite possibilities of some 'novel idea' (hello ivory tower instinct stacking refinements), while critiquing others, and acknowledging complexity is a bullshit stance. You haven't even added to this discussion, just criticized and mocked people without providing any real argumentation.

Oh. Right.

Yeah, it is. And this post just solidified the impression.

[strrrng]

Another one, by recursion.

Stop trying to sound smart.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

How is it this thread has twelve pages but only 15 votes?

[strrrng]

You're all too logical for my poor brain.

Silly ISFp.

[Mediator Kam]

*giggle*

i definitely appeal to emotion, not ashamed to say it.

[consentingadult]

I appeal to imagination, more than logic or emotions, I think.