I agree that just because one is sad about a fact’s existence, the strength of the emotion will not alter reality to change that fact. Ex. Grandma has cancer, and while it’s natural to be sad, being sad won’t change it. I think that’s a healthy worldview.

At the same time, the emotional response does carry utility in arguments, but it shouldn’t be the primary means to finding solutions. I hope that wasn’t the message you received from my comment.

Continuing on the example of “grandma has cancer.” I’m a medical student who has witnessed numerous end-of-life conversations, and the emotional conflict most families struggle to grasp is the amount of suffering the patient endures. I know this is anecdotal, but the families who seem to struggle less are those who value either a cure to illness or palliative care (pain management, functional support like eating/sleeping, quality of life measures, etc.) Families and patients who identify the particular fear of suffering can make more sound/reasonable decisions.

Families who cannot firmly identify their fears or emotions will firmly grasp onto the plan of “no suffering = do every chemotherapy and surgery and radiation treatment possible.”

So I don’t advocate for the latter scenario at all. Guarding maladaptive emotions is not a productive way to reach good solutions, you are right. At the same time, in the sphere of public opinion, it is considered rude to identify other’s as emotional, but in reality this should be more tolerable. I mean, Snickers can say “you’re not you when you’re hungry” but if you or I said that in a heated debate, our cause would be lost.