Emotions are a fact, they don't care about how you feel about their existence. You're not a Vulcan either.
Emotional intelligence is still intelligence. In fact it is the intelligence that gets things done, wins wars, and generates progress from what I can see throughout history. Sometime it can be manipulated, yes. Which is what I believe people see you as doing when you come here 'just asking questions' which are answered in the main article, and then try and shift it around by making disingenuous assertions about the emotions people are or are not feeling when in discussions with you.
As shown in the thread above, I answered your question with a quote from the article and you acted like it was something you only just saw. How good at research can you be if I literally have to quote the article you're commenting on to answer the question you're asking?
Now, you could have ignorance about how "Make [Noun] Great Again" is a slogan of the right wing, and that is certainly something I could have made clearer in the article with its connections with the modern right wing in America for the average reader.
But forgive me if I believe this ignorance you are presenting is disingenuous as much as your allegations on emotions of other commentators. To keep the theme going, I end with a simple question: Doesn't it seem a bit odd that someone who's throwing the word "Thrasymachus" around doesn't know pretty basic modern political prose in the U.S. and its ties to the modern right wing?
Emotions are a fact, they don't care about how you feel about their existence. You're not a Vulcan either.
Emotional intelligence is still intelligence. In fact it is the intelligence that gets things done, wins wars, and generates progress from what I can see throughout history. Sometime it can be manipulated, yes. Which is what I believe people see you as doing when you come here 'just asking questions' which are answered in the main article, and then try and shift it around by making disingenuous assertions about the emotions people are or are not feeling when in discussions with you.
As shown in the thread above, I answered your question with a quote from the article and you acted like it was something you only just saw. How good at research can you be if I literally have to quote the article you're commenting on to answer the question you're asking?
Now, you could have ignorance about how "Make [Noun] Great Again" is a slogan of the right wing, and that is certainly something I could have made clearer in the article with its connections with the modern right wing in America for the average reader.
But forgive me if I believe this ignorance you are presenting is disingenuous as much as your allegations on emotions of other commentators. To keep the theme going, I end with a simple question: Doesn't it seem a bit odd that someone who's throwing the word "Thrasymachus" around doesn't know pretty basic modern political prose in the U.S. and its ties to the modern right wing?