Law Professor To Students: If You Say 'I Feel' Rather Than 'I Think,' You Must Cluck Like A Chicken

[Speaker to Animals]

I feel this thread is headed in a ridiculous direction.

Well, you just posted in it...

[SuburbanFarmer]

I feel is a great way to do it when you are trying to reach women in general. Talk in terms of feelings and social impact.

Your feelings mean shit to women, you have said it over, and over again. So why should this be any different? Especially with the SJW women oozing out of the moras now?

That's not what I said. To convince them, you often need to use emotive language. It's true that many of them, especially of those who are convinced through pathos and social pressures, couldn't care less about your feelings, but when you try to speak to such women in terms of cold reason, I think you sound to them like the teachers in Peanuts. You shouldn't use emotive language to get them to empathize with you. You use the language to create an emotional weight to your premises.

You are autistic and I would not attempt that with you, because it's the complete opposite situation. I wouldn't doubt that emotive language sounds like "ra ra wa ra wa wa wa" to you in the same way that cold reason sounds to emotional people.

I am not saying emotion and reason are mutually exclusive, most of us operate in between, but it has been shown that the more emotion one has, the less reason, and vice versa. If you are serious about persuading people rather than just shit posting/talking (admittedly, I prefer just shit posting), then you really must account for these differences in people.

I suspect most good attorneys would mix it up to cover the three forms of persuasion (logic, ethics, emotion) in an effort to reach the entire jury. If he leaves out emotion, then he could very well lose the case.

I am mainly talking about criminal law here. I doubt pathos helps in something like contract law.

Go read some of Clarence Darrow's arguments. Pathos was cranked to 11 at times.

There's a lot of truth to this. Makes one wonder what you could get away with, simply by making non-sensical emotional appeals to females.

[The Conservative]

I feel this thread is headed in a ridiculous direction.

I feel you don't grasp the situation well enough to make that statement, and since my feelings matter more than yours, I'm right.

[DBTrek]

If only we had a lawyer or two to chime in on this.

[The Conservative]

If only we had a lawyer or two to chime in on this.

I took classes to be one, that should be enough

[BjornP]

I believe we even have three of them. Dunno if any of them them ever taught law, though.

[DBTrek]

I believe we even have three of them. Dunno if any of them them ever taught law, though.

... when The Conservative picks up on sarcasm that you miss.
Damn Bjorn, already broke out the holiday mead and wicker reindeer over in Daneland, eh?

[The Conservative]

I believe we even have three of them. Dunno if any of them them ever taught law, though.

... when The Conservative picks up on sarcasm that you miss.
Damn Bjorn, already broke out the holiday mead and wicker reindeer over in Daneland, eh?

Don't think he ever stopped.

[clubgop]

I agree with that criticism personally, but while that's a fair view to have as both a public and private person, it should not form a basis for policing or punishing the expressed views of progressive views on judicially relevant topics of discussion during his lectures.

Once again, disagree it is a logical fallacy, a good professor will find a way to weed those out.

[BjornP]

I believe we even have three of them. Dunno if any of them them ever taught law, though.

... when The Conservative picks up on sarcasm that you miss.
Damn Bjorn, already broke out the holiday mead and wicker reindeer over in Daneland, eh?

Seriously? Ought I really to have put "even" in bold, added a after "three of them", and a winky-smiley after the last sentence followed by a rimshot sound effect for you to "pick up on" that my reply was also meant in a similar jokey fashion?