Fred99:
Go back and read your posts in this thread (as I just did).
Many of your comments seem to suggest that there's a "both sides" to a legitimate debate, that "both sides" use the same techniques to discredit each other's position, or that people get "personal" when confronted by a fascist.
If being "emotive" is to reject fascism without feeling any need for discussion of its "virtues" - then yeah - I'm guilty as charged.
I don't attempt to classify debate into legitimate and not. There is unequivocally a debate. My view is that weak arguments can/will be shot down. So let them be heard and let the firing commence.
My values on this matter probably aren't very different to yours - I dislike racism, fascism, sexism ect . I'm just not bothered by people with a different value set being able to speak.
I don't see the value of attacking even fascists personally. You won't convince them to change that way. By attacking someone personally, you entrench them and their supporters. You may even win them more supporters.
I'm happy to attack views and arguments but personal attacks seem pointless. It may make me feel good momentarily. But ... by attacking anyone in that way, I breach my own value set winning then?
I don't think it's emotional to reject fascism etc. It's easy to construct an argument that it's eventually harmful to all involved.
It does seem emotional to engage in personal attacks - even on people whose views you despise.