Is 'I feel' a good argument?

[TheresaMayIsATory]

"No philosopher should care how you feel about the existence of God, freedom, abortion or anything else, presented merely as your feelings. Your feelings have no claim to universality and do not automatically transfer to your audience. You might feel that God exists but that is no reason why anyone else should."

A.P.Martinich
Prof Philosophy
Uni Texas

This is an example of how weak the trans ideology argument is and you can quote the above to your MP (PPE) who should have some understanding of philosophy. It doesn't invalidate the feelings of others, it simply says their feelings have no application towards others. Trans ideology debating doesn't presenting a winning rational logical argument which is why #NoDebate.

It worked for Brexit...

And Shania Twain.

Shania is a woman.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL4UGSbeFg

Robert isn't a woman.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATvu5f9vE

The thing about ‘I feel’ is that it can’t be denied. A person is the only authoritative source about how they feel - you can’t argue that they don’t feel that way.

The thing about ‘I feel’ is that it can’t be denied. A person is the only authoritative source about how they feel - you can’t argue that they don’t feel that way.

"It doesn't invalidate the feelings of others, it simply says their feelings have no application towards others."

Shania -Robert

........

Similarly personal ‘identity’ or ‘identifying as’ is meaningless - it’s personal and invisible and you can’t make anti-discrimination laws on what is personal and invisible.

The bit that matters in law is the protection of expression of those invisible factors - an employee not getting fired for gender-non-conforming expression is something I wholeheartedly support (still outraged about the woman that had to wear heels to work!) but that doesn’t entitle male bodied people to spaces in female prisons etc etc.

It worked for Brexit...

How did the claiming of feelings work for Brexit?

Do you mean Little Englanders?

Xenophobia is a feeling that doesn't mean it should be imposed on others.

The prioritisation of feeling has become central to our culture. Think about whenever someone accomplishes some impressive, newsworthy achievement, like winning Young Musician if the Year, or breaking a sporting record. What is the very first thing they are asked by a reporter? Not, “how did you do it?”, “how did you prepare?”, etc. It’s always “how do you feel right now?”. As if the feelings are more valuable and tangible than the accomplishment itself.

It’s dangerous, and contributing to a profoundly irrational, anti-Enlightenment climate in all areas of public life.

I mean it was a triumph of feelings over facts.

Brexiteers: I feel things will be better.
Remaining: can you be specific?
Brexiteer: no
Evidence is over/the feels trump everything.

It’s similar to the way people are whipped into a frenzy about those poor babies who weren’t going to make it.

Science is secondary to feelings.

No. I feel is

I feel love. I feel happiness. I feel hungry. I feel hot. I feel cold.

But is also

I feel afraid of moths

I feel I am Elvis

I feel they are watching me

I feel scared

I feel hate

I feel that I want to kill myself

I feel I want to shoot loads of people with a machine gun

I feel I want to exterminate a particular race of people

Feelings are real but they do not necessarily form any basis for rational thought or action.

We need to be saying in the context of MH and not being 'normal' that it is normal to have feelings and understandable even to have bizarre or irrational ones in context of trauma or illness, but that does not mean we should always act on our feelings, nor does it mean they are heatlhy or help us to be healthy.

We are not just feelings. We can be rational beings too.

Significant numbers of teenagers feel.... and then they don't (go ahead with transition)

Significant numbers of adults had those feelings at one time. Then, they doubted those feelings and came to regret how the feelings had compelled them to change healthy bodies.

Feelings change. De-transitioners prove that.

And I wouldnt be relying on many MPs to recall any of their PPE if they did it.

I would stick to plain speak. We all feel like punching someone sometimes but is it right or allowable? Very rarely.

Would they allow a mentally ill person to enact all their feelings? Hopefuly not. Though some may simply allow them to die to save money.

But keep it to their thoughts about their own interests - if I feel that I am entitled to come and live in their 5 bed country house, am I entitled to do that? No... why not...

I'm writing in a hurry so apologies if I don't get this out correctly, but I think it's hard to divide the two.

Feelings definitely lead to actions, and they do have an internal sort of rationale ("feeling bad is bad, I will try to feel good instead").

Thoughts and logic aren't necessarily logical either (they're tied up in feelings of their own). The brain doesn't always tell us the truth. Facts get interpreted differently by different people.

Cold hard logic isn't necessarily a good thing for that matter (three people and screaming baby in boat escaping guards - do you smother the baby so three people escape? That sort of scenario.)

Conversation and trying for mutual understanding and compassion are the way to go, but how do you do that when there's no debate?

Feeling too much (or not enough) can smother empathy - there is simply no room for it or for other people.

As if the feelings are more valuable and tangible than the accomplishment itself.

To accurately discuss 'feelings' one doesn't have to have a lot of knowledge. Feelings can't be proved or disproved because they are subjective.

The youngest -almost- Billionaire Kylie Jenner, comes from a family who are big on feelings. They feel 'excited', 'anxious', 'depressed' and we all know CJ now feels 'authentic'.

They are distorting common definition of words for example they say they have anxiety not nervousness, also distorting what people discuss, the same way they distort the way a woman should look with contour and huge lips.

A popular phrase in evangelical Christian circles is "A person with a testimony is never at the mercy of someone with an argument".
It's essentially a conversion technique. Which is fine in a religious context, perhaps, although still somewhat foolish.

In a discussion about conflicting rights based in material reality, this approach is flat out frightening.

“YOUR ABUSIVE PARTNER DOESN’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIS ANGER; HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR ANGER.
One of the basic human rights he takes away from you is the right to be angry with him. No matter how badly he treats you, he believes that your voice shouldn’t rise and your blood shouldn’t boil. The privilege of rage is reserved for him alone. When your anger does jump out of you—as will happen to any abused woman from time to time—he is likely to try to jam it back down your throat as quickly as he can. Then he uses your anger against you to prove what an irrational person you are. Abuse can make you feel straitjacketed. You may develop physical or emotional reactions to swallowing your anger, such as depression, nightmares, emotional numbing, or eating and sleeping problems, which your partner may use as an excuse to belittle you further or make you feel crazy.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

“An abuser can seem emotionally needy. You can get caught in a trap of catering to him, trying to fill a bottomless pit. But he’s not so much needy as entitled, so no matter how much you give him, it will never be enough. He will just keep coming up with more demands because he believes his needs are your responsibility, until you feel drained down to nothing.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Re feelings:

“IN ONE IMPORTANT WAY, an abusive man works like a magician: His tricks largely rely on getting you to look off in the wrong direction, distracting your attention so that you won’t notice where the real action is. He draws you into focusing on the turbulent world of his feelings to keep your eyes turned away from the true cause of his abusiveness, which lies in how he thinks. He leads you into a convoluted maze, making your relationship with him a labyrinth of twists and turns. He wants you to puzzle over him, to try to figure him out, as though he were a wonderful but broken machine for which you need only to find and fix the malfunctioning parts to bring it roaring to its full potential. His desire, though he may not admit it even to himself, is that you wrack your brain in this way so that you won’t notice the patterns and logic of his behavior, the consciousness behind the craziness.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

What a nice quote!
If you feel something, that‘s fine for you. But from that alone, nothing else follows. There has to be some other additional reason/justification for me to act in accordance to your feelings. Give me that additional justification, then your feelings can impose obligations on me. If not, I might go about my business as I wish.

I am discussing 'feelings' in the context of an argument and they can't prop up a good or strong argument because they are subjective.

A popular phrase in evangelical Christian circles is "A person with a testimony is never at the mercy of someone with an argument".
It's essentially a conversion technique. Which is fine in a religious context, perhaps, although still somewhat foolish.

In a discussion about conflicting rights based in material reality, this approach is flat out frightening.

It can be true when discussing trans ideology, their testimony 'I feel like a woman' may be true and that is ok. What they don't explain is how their subjective personal feelings are the responsibility of everyone else. In everyday life feelings are useful when discussing a top, this is a wider political, legal and social debate that I want to discuss in a logical way because it will produce a local conclusion.

At a training course on mediation, I was told that using the words "I feel" help to take the sting out of accusations and things that are difficult to hear. So "I feel that you don't take my ideas seriously" is better received than "You don't take my ideas seriously"

Also, it's worth thinking about laws on issues like harassment that hinge on the victim's perception of (or feeling about) events as to whether a crime has been committed. These have explicitly prioritised the feelings of one person over the intention of another.

Just pondering

Thank you for that womanformallyknownaswoman

I think a lot of people these days have trouble expressing their feelings and anger and have no clue how to manage their emotions. We were once too uptight and repressed, now it all flows out unregulated, unprocessed, projecting and hyperbolic.

The new rageful demand is you will validate my emotions and deal with them because I can't.

I think this has always been done to women. Men not doing feelings in order to be proper men and projecting the feelings onto women and then taking out the rage they feel about themselves on the women.

This is some of the problem with men not liking women to be angry. The fear it because they can barely control their own rage and because they don't see the woman as a respected entity in her own right but an extension of themselves (narcissitically) it is like looking in a frightening mirror. But one that they can control and punish and exorcise their rage upon :(

Theresa I think that's my point. Feelings are not being used to prop up arguments, they are being used in place of arguments, and sometimes to shut arguments down.