Conscience Vs Emotion

lostexpectation

Why is the people describe acts or speech as emotional to discredit acts or speech of the conscience.

or for the give your opinion or we'll dump you legitmate thread people

Why do people describe acts or speech of conscience as emotional.

I think it is to discredit them.

Sleepy

I think it tends to be used to describe people's acts/speech where they allow emotion to cloud over reason, logic or common sense. In this light it's a valid criticism of someone's acts or speech tbh.

The Corinthian

Conscience, like any emotive stimulant, is irrational. This does not mean that it is a bad thing, only that in a logical argument it is worthless in itself.

After all, if we accept conscience as a valid argument, then there is no reason not to accept any other emotion or gut feeling. If feeling guilt is a valid argument, why not is feeling prejudice or envy? And, for example, we could argue that something is wrong because we feel guilty about it, would that mean that a sociopath can do no wrong?

However what is potentially valid is the reason for that emotion or gut feeling, if that stands up to examination, then that and not the emotion or gut feeling is a valid argument.

lostexpectation

hmm I see conscience as being in the mind not the gut or heart.

It does seem to be a reaction from guilt, that is wha its definition says, but I see it as being distinct from meotion something that involves a greater degree of our intelligence then emotion(which isn't unintelligent either).

The Corinthian

Then you're probably not talking about conscience or you’re deluding yourself about the role that reason plays with it.

If it is the former, you need to understand what you’re really discussing. If the latter, you should differentiate between reason and emotive or false reason - after all, even a lynch mob will have reason to behave in a certain manner. Typically it will be inductive - seeking to prove a conclusion that has been jumped to by emotion or gut reaction, rather than attempting to deduce the conclusion. Unfortunately, it tends to be a very superficial reason that never stands up to any even slightly serious examination.

DadaKopf

I see them as inextricably linked. Logic and science is interesting - you could argue that logic and scientific methodology abstracts out emotive/emotionally derived concepts and realities that humans find difficult to handle. An horrific example of this is the sort of killing made possible by the rationalising ideologies of rommunism, fascism, realism etc.

Humans are physical beings, and I think it's really impossible to separate 'rational' thought from 'emotional' thought. But I'm in agreement, broadly, with Corinthian who describes the difference between having 'reasons' and 'deducing' conclusions. But the latter is just a rationalisation of the former, a family of theories about thought, which in turn colour our ideologies about how the world works, and how the world should work. These are traditions about how we think about the world - very robust traditions - but not the only ones.

I suppose I'm saying that I reject this binary opposition between 'rational' and 'irrational'. Firstly, it conceals the fact that people can and do hold contradictory viewpoints simultaneously. Secondly, is not 'feeling good' and 'feeling bad' about something a physical manifestation of a cognitive process/outcome of cognitive analysis and understanding? In this case, the poles are flipsides of the same coin. Thirdly, categorisations of thought, such as 'inductive reasoning', 'deductive reasoning', 'folk knowledge/psychology' etc. are post-hoc rationalisations, specific to Western culture - descriptions of things that the human mind already does.

'Rational' and 'Irrational' positions tend to depend on the speaker's emotional attachment to one concept or the other. Theres a book that's big in business circles - it says: the best decisions are those that come from the gut. It's very popular because it appeals to people's senses and interests because it lets them thing that experience and analysis is irrelevant. Maybe if you're George W Bush. The book actually says there's no substitute for buckets of experience, analysis - going with gut decisions is entirely based on having enough experience to identify and analyse familar patterns learned over years and years of work.

At base, we're scared sh*tless of dying, living in pain, we seek meaning and pleasure.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Then you're probably not talking about conscience or you’re deluding yourself about the role that reason plays with it.

If it is the former, you need to understand what you’re really discussing. If the latter, you should differentiate between reason and emotive or false reason - after all, even a lynch mob will have reason to behave in a certain manner. Typically it will be inductive - seeking to prove a conclusion that has been jumped to by emotion or gut reaction, rather than attempting to deduce the conclusion. Unfortunately, it tends to be a very superficial reason that never stands up to any even slightly serious examination.

see this is what I don't like about people who always go on about being rational, aren't emotions quite rational in a mulitude of situations?

and still think the conscience and emotion are two differnet things, (even if they are connected)

DadaKopf

How are they different? Not disagreeing with you, but what sets them apart? Or, to put it another way, how are they related?

And, going back to that Corinthian quote, it's nearly the same as saying that thinking which causes discomfort or pleasure is false, so, basically, it's better to live a life of careful nothingness, as if it's better for people to avoid thinking to hard.

Thinking hurts.

Interesting approaches to this are cognitive dissonance theories - an interesting version I read was an analysis into political party allegiance and voting trends.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

An horrific example of this is the sort of killing made possible by the rationalising ideologies of rommunism, fascism, realism etc.

Rommunism? Typo?

Firstly, it conceals the fact that people can and do hold contradictory viewpoints simultaneously.

So what?

Secondly, is not 'feeling good' and 'feeling bad' about something a physical manifestation of a cognitive process/outcome of cognitive analysis and understanding? In this case, the poles are flipsides of the same coin.

Not at all - ‘gut feelings’ are seldom, if ever, the result of cognitive analysis and understanding. They’re almost always a result of either biological or social imprinting.

Thirdly, categorisations of thought, such as 'inductive reasoning', 'deductive reasoning', 'folk knowledge/psychology' etc. are post-hoc rationalisations, specific to Western culture - descriptions of things that the human mind already does.

Such rationalisations are not specific to Western culture - other cultures are more than capable of doing the same.

Theres a book that's big in business circles - it says: the best decisions are those that come from the gut. It's very popular because it appeals to people's senses and interests because it lets them thing that experience and analysis is irrelevant.

No one is denying that ‘gut feeling’ is more practical in a range of situations. No one would suggest that rather than use your own ‘gut feeling’, you should use empirical analysis on whether you should wait for that next car to pass or cross the road instead. However that is a practical rather than philosophical consideration and ‘gut feelings’ have their limits.

lostexpectation wrote:

see this is what I don't like about people who always go on about being rational, aren't emotions quite rational in a mulitude of situations?

Certainly, but that does not mean that you can extend that to assume that they are always rational - as I already pointed out, prejudice or envy could equally be called rational, by your logic.

Ultimately we can deduce why many instincts are ‘rational’. We can say that fear is an excellent defence mechanism against us continually getting into dangerous situations. However, we can also say that fear did not evolve with modern Society in mind (or at least has not yet caught up), and many of the things that exist in modern Society are not rationally things that we should fear.

Tribalism is another excellent example, in that prehistoric xenophobia protected us from other groups taking our resources. However, tribalism will also engender hostility where there is no danger. This is where we have to realise that there are limitations to ‘gut feelings’ and it is the capacity to overcome our instincts and reason that has made us what we are.

and still think the conscience and emotion are two differnet things, (even if they are connected)

Because you say or feel so? I get the impression that you’re simply going to stick to that based upon principle and nothing else.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Certainly, but that does not mean that you can extend that to assume that they are always rational - as I already pointed out, prejudice or envy could equally be called rational, by your logic.

so is there such a thing as conscience and what use is it?

Im was suggesting it way too easy to dismisive acts of conscience as being brought on being merely emotion. And thats what people do, as an attack of that act, not because they have analysed the situtaion and deemed it irrational even by their standards.

you seemed to assume that the acts or speech that sparked my thread were irrational

DadaKopf

Rommunism? Typo?

I think you know that I was referring to Romulan ideology?

Not at all - ‘gut feelings’ are seldom, if ever, the result of cognitive analysis and understanding. They’re almost always a result of either biological or social imprinting.

I don't think/feel that that distinction is valid at all. Humans are integrated neuropsychological entities. 'Gut feelings' and cognition are part of the same system and inseparable. Speaking anecdotally, if I'm writing a research paper, I'm rationalising, but I also get a 'buzz' thinking certain concepts. It's an extremely complex process, with other factors involved, but it's all interconnected.

You can't imagine the body away from the mind.

Such rationalisations are not specific to Western culture - other cultures are more than capable of doing the same.

You misunderstand. The pedigree of 'inductive reasoning', scientific methodology etc are culturally specific forms of a general tendency in other cultures around the world to understand the same phenomena/concerns. Differences can even be seen across the atlantic - between the American school of analytical philosophy of mind and continental phenomenology, and British materialism. Cultural artefacts.

Ultimately we can deduce why many instincts are ‘rational’. We can say that fear is an excellent defence mechanism against us continually getting into dangerous situations. However, we can also say that fear did not evolve with modern Society in mind (or at least has not yet caught up), and many of the things that exist in modern Society are not rationally things that we should fear.

Ha, many contemporary analyses of political culture and ideology contend that 'modern Society' (why the capital 'S'?) is all about fear/anxiety about the basic human realities of life. Post-structural psychoanalytical analyses (like Slavoj Zizek) say that 'modern society' is all driven by emotion, or, the fear of the excesses of it, so even rationalisation is an emotionally-driven response - emotion is interwoven into all political institutions. The argument is the state (and ideologies of rationality) is a 'fetish' to take us away from reality, not to discover it. And that's rational, I suppose.

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

so is there such a thing as conscience and what use is it?

Conscience is most likely the product of social imprinting. If you are brought up in an environment that pushes the idea that an act is bad or evil, then in adulthood you will feel guilt if you commit that act. Depending upon your immediate background, culture and point in history, you can have wildly differing views of right and wrong - and by extension what will prey upon your conscience and what will not.

As to its use, conscience and morality are social constructs. The basic tenets protecting life and property exist in all Societies, regardless of how small or varied they are.

However, morality does change and evolves, which means that it cannot be absolute (unless you take the view that our morality is right and everyone else’s is and was wrong). Thus to take conscience at face value alone exposes us to the possibility that it is no longer relevant, unless we examine and test the reason behind why our consciences are behaving that way.

Im was suggesting it way too easy to dismisive acts of conscience as being brought on being merely emotion. And thats what people do, as an attack of that act, not because they have analysed the situtaion and deemed it irrational even by their standards.

Conscience is emotive, simple as that. The reason behind that emotion may well not be, however it may also not be valid or even relevant either. So saying that you have a ‘gut feeling’ on something is no proof or argument of anything, any more than my saying that I believe in Santa Claus, simply because I do.

you seemed to assumed whatever situations sparked my thread that the acts or speech were irrational

Could you rephrase that?

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Conscience is emotive, simple as that. The reason behind that emotion may well not be, however it may also not be valid or even relevant either. So saying that you have a ‘gut feeling’ on something is no proof or argument of anything, any more than my saying that I believe in Santa Claus, simply because I do.

I think acting on conscience implies that you have thought about it, and that people use it as cheap way to dismiss actions, and try to hold up rationality as the be all and end all.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I think you know that I was referring to Romulan ideology?

Err... mmm... indeed...

I don't think/feel that that distinction is valid at all. Humans are integrated neuropsychological entities. 'Gut feelings' and cognition are part of the same system and inseparable. Speaking anecdotally, if I'm writing a research paper, I'm rationalising, but I also get a 'buzz' thinking certain concepts. It's an extremely complex process, with other factors involved, but it's all interconnected.

You can't imagine the body away from the mind.

Fair enough, but that they are related does not imply the same thing though.

You misunderstand. The pedigree of 'inductive reasoning', scientific methodology etc are culturally specific forms of a general tendency in other cultures around the world to understand the same phenomena/concerns. Differences can even be seen across the atlantic - between the American school of analytical philosophy of mind and continental phenomenology, and British materialism. Cultural artefacts.

However rationalisation is a psychological, not philosophical phenomenon.

Ha, many contemporary analyses of political culture and ideology contend that 'modern Society' (why the capital 'S'?) is all about fear/anxiety about the basic human realities of life. Post-structural psychoanalytical analyses (like Slavoj Zizek) say that 'modern society' is all driven by emotion, or, the fear of the excesses of it, so even rationalisation is an emotionally-driven response - emotion is interwoven into all political institutions. The argument is the state (and ideologies of rationality) is a 'fetish' to take us away from reality, not to discover it. And that's rational, I suppose.

Sounds more like postmodernist ****, TBH - but sure, why not?

lostexpectation wrote:

I think acting on conscience implies that you have thought about it, and that people use it as cheap way to dismiss actions, and try to hold up rationality as the be all and end all.

Acting on conscience implies quite the opposite. Otherwise you would not have any moral qualms before thinking about it, which is not true because we tend to ‘learn’ our morality prior to the age when we can question it - or as the Jesuits say “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Acting on conscience implies quite the opposite. Otherwise you would not have any moral qualms before thinking about it, which is not true because we tend to ‘learn’ our morality prior to the age when we can question it - or as the Jesuits say “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.

so...

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

so...

So you're wrong. I don't really know how more plainly to explain it. If you misunderstand any part of what I said, pelase cite it and I'll expand.

lostexpectation

You're wrong is the wrong form of answer to my thought...

where does rationality and emotion intersect? and intelligence etc

saw it on the business section thursday infact, a business lobby group has been set up to lobby for nuclear energy in ireland and a quote form them was 'that the arguements against nuclear were emotional', now let's not get into a discussion about nuclear power.

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

You're wrong is the wrong form of answer to my thought...

Not at all, you made your arguments and I rebutted them. Your final “so” was pretty irrelevant on an argumentative note - either you’re wrong, and must accept what I’ve argued, or you’re not - and if not you need to be able to argue why. And “so” is not arguing why.

saw it on the business section thursday infact, a business lobby group has been set up to lobby for nuclear energy in ireland and a quote form them was 'that the arguements against nuclear were emotional', now let's not get into a discussion about nuclear power.

Many of the arguments typically against nuclear power are simply emotional. That’s not to say that that there are not rational arguments against it, only that the hysterical tend to have the louder voice on the opposition, often drowning out the less vocal but reasoned opposition arguments.

InFront

Logic, fact and reason should be the three consistent features of any debate. Emotion is what comes about from the arguments put forward within these parameters.
Emotion itself really has no part to play in a valid argument, especially over something like nuclear energy, whose economic and safety questions are both extremely important and shouldn't be clouded by fear or ambition.
Emotion is a by-product of any debate. It adds nothing to the argument, except to sway ill informed public opinion.

Trying to win opinion using emotion is a clever ploy, but is the stuff of traditionally sensationalist tabloid newspapers and marketing graduates.

On the other hand, you will always find people who use the accusation of their opposition being 'emotional' to discredit their argument and portray them as immature or otherwise unprofessional. This is a common feature of political debate, and is a pretty clever piece of propoganda in your favour, if used correctly.
If not, and the 'emotional' argument can be factually proven, it just makes the person making such an accusation appear as being irresponsible and excessively self-confident or presumtuous.

The Shell to Sea campaign, in my opinion, going on the facts that i have read on the case, is one which is being argued with emotion rather than facts, and is appealing to the local's sense of fear. Not that anyone, Im sure, wants to relight that particular smoking cinder, its just the first very emotive case that comes to mind.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

However rationalisation is a psychological, not philosophical phenomenon.

These terms are discourses that attempt to explain 'whatever goes on in the mind/body'. Rationalisation is a theory (e.g. totally defunct 'rational actor' models of agency), psychology is a family of theories, philosophy is like a church of disciplines.

The Corinthian wrote:

Sounds more like postmodernist ****, TBH - but sure, why not?

Zizek and some others are skeptical of 'postmodernism', but these ideas come more from Freudian psychoanalysis, particularly Lacan's theories (structural psychoanalysis).

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

These terms are discourses that attempt to explain 'whatever goes on in the mind/body'. Rationalisation is a theory (e.g. totally defunct 'rational actor' models of agency), psychology is a family of theories, philosophy is like a church of disciplines.

And your point is?

Zizek and some others are skeptical of 'postmodernism', but these ideas come more from Freudian psychoanalysis, particularly Lacan's theories (structural psychoanalysis).

He might be sceptical of postmodernism, but he still smells of it.

lostexpectation

InFront wrote:

Logic, fact and reason should be the three consistent features of any debate. Emotion is what comes about from the arguments put forward within these parameters.
Emotion itself really has no part to play in a valid argument, especially over something like nuclear energy, whose economic and safety questions are both extremely important and shouldn't be clouded by fear or ambition.
Emotion is a by-product of any debate. It adds nothing to the argument, except to sway ill informed public opinion.

Trying to win opinion using emotion is a clever ploy, but is the stuff of traditionally sensationalist tabloid newspapers and marketing graduates.

On the other hand, you will always find people who use the accusation of their opposition being 'emotional' to discredit their argument and portray them as immature or otherwise unprofessional. This is a common feature of political debate, and is a pretty clever piece of propoganda in your favour, if used correctly.
If not, and the 'emotional' argument can be factually proven, it just makes the person making such an accusation appear as being irresponsible and excessively self-confident or presumtuous.

The people making the valid arguement have emotions.

well I started off talking about conscience, being discredited as emotional.
It would seem to be by people who argue that the only thing that exists is logic and facts and don't believe in things like conscience principals, which as I think dadakopf is trying to point out are just as much theories as rationality and logic.

Many of the arguments typically against nuclear power are simply emotional. That’s not to say that that there are not rational arguments against it, only that the hysterical tend to have the louder voice on the opposition, often drowning out the less vocal but reasoned opposition arguments.

and there is no emotion involved in the pro-nuclear debate?

slowdown corinthian what is that I'm wrong about?

its just the first very emotive case that comes to mind.

and how much do you know about the rossport case? I find there arguements are based on facts and experience.

again

metrovelvet

Lost Expectation -

The motive behind disqualifying emotion is to sweep away any reminders that we are animalistic since reason is traditionally thought to be what separates us from the beasts. When people say "you're being unreasonable, you're being emotional" its another way of saying "your talking like an animal." Grunt, unga bunga. You seem to know as much about this as a monkey or at least your opinion on it counts as much, since well, what do feelings amount to?

It's time to restore reason to the catologue which exists in the emotional spectrum and not preserve it as it is, extracted and elect, after all doesnt conscience seek a conclusion which will make us feel better?

lostexpectation

metrovelvet wrote:

Lost Expectation -

The motive behind disqualifying emotion is to sweep away any reminders that we are animalistic since reason is traditionally thought to be what separates us from the beasts. When people say "you're being unreasonable, you're being emotional" its another way of saying "your talking like an animal." Grunt, unga bunga. You seem to know as much about this as a monkey or at least your opinion on it counts as much, since well, what do feelings amount to?

It's time to restore reason to the catologue which exists in the emotional spectrum and not preserve it as it is, extracted and elect, after all doesnt conscience seek a conclusion which will make us feel better?

ok thats part of it, do animals have emotions?

reason is a good word,although one could accuse someone of being unreasonable and be just as wrong...I've seen it used by a government minister this week to discredit people and partly in 'We can't reason with them, I'm the reasonable one'.

conscience isn't a emotion though.

if conscience is only sparked by guilt isn't it a thoroughly useful thing, a functional check and balance for our effect on others.

Perhaps worries about nuclear are instinctive... the instinctive recognition of what human mismanagement can make happen.

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

Logic, fact and reason should be the three consistent features of any debate.

I’m not disagreeing with you here, but I find it ironic that you would say this here and suggest we should simply kill all paedophiles in another thread.

lostexpectation wrote:

The people making the valid arguement have emotions.

Silly statement. Of course they have valid emotions, everyone does. Doesn’t imply one should act upon them.

well I started off talking about conscience, being discredited as emotional.
It would seem to be by people who argue that the only thing that exists is logic and facts and don't believe in things like conscience principals, which as I think dadakopf is trying to point out are just as much theories as rationality and logic.

Dadakopf points out a lot of the wackier theories here.

and there is no emotion involved in the pro-nuclear debate?

There probably is, but not much when compared to the anti-nuclear side.

slowdown corinthian what is that I'm wrong about?

It was a challenge for you to actually back up your arguments and not a statement.

reason is a good word,although one could accuse someone of being unreasonable and be just as wrong...I've seen it used by a government minister this week to discredit people and partly in 'We can't reason with them, I'm the reasonable one'.

That is correct - simply saying that your opposition is irrational or illogical does not mean your own position is right.

However, it does mean that their argument is wrong. That is to say, even if your irrational opposition’s conclusion is true, the means by which they are arriving to it are flawed, if not outright crap. For your logical argument to be true you would have to also propose your side rationally, as discrediting your opposition is not enough.

Nonetheless, it does not change the fact that an irrational argument cannot prove a rational truth.

conscience isn't a emotion though.

No, but it is emotionally based.

if conscience is only sparked by guilt isn't it a thoroughly useful thing, a functional check and balance for our effect on others.

No one is denying that conscience plays a practical role (and this has already been said), only that when we debate we will use the underlying reasons behind conscience rather than conscience at face value.

Perhaps worries about nuclear are instinctive... the instinctive recognition of what human mismanagement can make happen.

Again, and I’ve raised this point repeatedly, not all emotions and instincts are positive. The instinct towards tribalism is possibly the best example of this.

metrovelvet wrote:

The motive behind disqualifying emotion is to sweep away any reminders that we are animalistic since reason is traditionally thought to be what separates us from the beasts. When people say "you're being unreasonable, you're being emotional" its another way of saying "your talking like an animal." Grunt, unga bunga. You seem to know as much about this as a monkey or at least your opinion on it counts as much, since well, what do feelings amount to?

Actually it’s because we’ve found logic and reason to be far more accurate tools of decision making than emotion or instinct. It’s a simple case of results.

It's time to restore reason to the catologue which exists in the emotional spectrum and not preserve it as it is, extracted and elect, after all doesnt conscience seek a conclusion which will make us feel better?

Simplistic. The hysteria that surrounded the witch trials of Europe and North America a few centuries ago was an excellent example of what can occur when what we define as conscience and emotion takes precedence over reason. Should we reintroduce that?

Sgt. Sensible

DadaKopf wrote:

At base, we're scared sh*tless of dying, living in pain, we seek meaning and pleasure.

And try to avoid pain.

Great post.

Doh, I missed where you mentioned pain. Ehhh carry on.

Jackie laughlin

Labelling is quite a common way of dismissing someone's argument without addressing it. "Emotional, political, ideological, conservative, left-wing, intellectual, clever" are just some of the more common words used to dismiss someone's point of view or their otherwise valid or sound argument.

Everyone making an argument has a duty to do their best for the argument. Presentation is therefore important. I certainly don't want to hear from someone with a deformed notion of rationality which excludes passionate argument. I don't want to hear very often from people who don't hold a point of view and do not try to convince me.

There is a tendency today, as we are dominated by a "managerial" or "administrative" approach to politics, to assume that argument must lie within an accepted consensus and that we must not feel strongly about any values or indeed that we perhaps should not hold political values at all.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Labelling is quite a common way of dismissing someone's argument without addressing it. "Emotional, political, ideological, conservative, left-wing, intellectual, clever" are just some of the more common words used to dismiss someone's point of view or their otherwise valid or sound argument.

Why is it a sound argument, other than it is your opinion that it is?

I certainly don't want to hear from someone with a deformed notion of rationality which excludes passionate argument.

Here we go again :rolleyes:

There is a tendency today, as we are dominated by a "managerial" or "administrative" approach to politics, to assume that argument must lie within an accepted consensus and that we must not feel strongly about any values or indeed that we perhaps should not hold political values at all.

Given the disasters that the great emotive ideologies of the twentieth century have afforded us, you can hardly blame that point of view.

InFront

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not disagreeing with you here, but I find it ironic that you would say this here and suggest we should simply kill all paedophiles in another thread.

I have been reading over this thread and came upon this comment. Your attempt at argument is awful, and I think you should be more attentive in your reading.

I did not say that we should 'simply kill' all paedophiles. That suggestion was completely irrelevant.

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

I did not say that we should 'simply kill' all paedophiles. That suggestion was completely irrelevant.

Quite right, you suggested castration too:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51763269&postcount=16

That makes you sound much more rational... :rolleyes:

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Why is it a sound argument, other than it is your opinion that it is?

Here we go again :rolleyes:

Given the disasters that the great emotive ideologies of the twentieth century have afforded us, you can hardly blame that point of view.

Couldn't it be said that some of these idealogies were clinical, based on removing emotion and empathy and this was the crux of the dangerousness to them. Or perhaps replacing one emotion from another.

Which means the pro-nuclear side has as much emotion as the anti, just different ones.