One side always accuses the other of having too much of it; and by merely alleging it, you immediately denigrate the opponent’s relevance, weight and substantive import of the argument engaged in. It is a tactic often used in debate — of alleging that the other side has engaged in an “emotional” argument.
Human beings are not mere automatons built with computer chips and Spock-like demeanors. The Stoic, of course, has trained himself to deny that side of humanity; likewise, the Hindu priest, the Zen Buddhist, the warrior-brute. Civilization itself has, in more modern times, declared that the emotional side is psychologically healthy to exhibit; and concurrently, there exists and has arisen a countermovement which believes that the pendulum has swung too far and that “real men” (whatever they are) need to reestablish themselves.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition necessitates filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is a relevant place for the emotional side. Yes, legal argumentation is important. Yes, a logical, sequential exposition of one’s case is needed. But in describing the impact of one’s medical condition, there is clearly a relevant place for the emotional side.
Robert R. McGill, Lawyer