Between emotions and control, which would you choose?

This is a very difficult question that i come into conflict with very often. what good would it do u to have emotion with no one to share it with. thats what i ultimately ask myself.
I try to keep in mind that when i make it through truely emotional situations i can benafit the people around me with the wisdom i get from them. its very hard to choose sometimes though because most people would choose to feel no pain for his fellow man. and why would you feel pain for somone when they wouldn't do it for you.
I say emotion because i dont go through those experiences for my own pleasure, i do it to benafit the people around me, in hope that they will remember and have strength to go through it also. it creates a stronger happier community in my eyes.
Do not take... but recieve, is the best advice i can give

Emotions...to feel nothing, wouldn't be living at all.

Control. I spend half my days trying to keep my emotions at bay and it is exhausting. Sometimes I just want to be alone so I won't have to struggle. I would love to have my emotions under control, but I am getting to the point to where I just want control.

I'd like to keep the mix of the two. Being capable of feeling strong emotions, while being able to control them- that's me.. and the best of both worlds really. I like being stable.

I'd choose emotions. I believe emotion is the one characteristic that we often associate with being human and many times we associate emotion with life itself. Without emotion, how could we experience love, hate, pride, sympathy, sadness, happiness and many other things that we can not see but can feel? Of course, with control instead of emotion, there may not be war, violence, etc. and this is maybe good for humanity as a whole...maybe even nature, but is this good for the individual? In a way, I view this post as asking whether a person wants to be human or a robot/computer..

Emotion without any doubt even though mine are over sensitive and not controlled.
I think emotion gives people depth and makes people interesting.

Emotions are the force which drives us. Rational decisions become meaningless without an emotional framework.

I mean that our supposedly rational decisions are aimed at increasing happiness for ourselves and others, and happiness is an emotion.

Our distant ancestors had limited capacity for rational thought, and they survived just fine. Sometimes I think we're in danger of becoming too rational, and forgetting what life is really all about.

I would chose to feel nothing... I have felt every emotion as deep as I would like to feel it. I am so tired of feeling... it only makes it easier to get hurt! SO I would gladly give it all up and feel nothing!

How about totally in control of my emotions? yes, I think I like that better!

Obviously most people would prefer a healthy balance.
If we didn't feel physical pain we may cut off our own limbs to suit the moment, only to later realize the folly in such a decision. Emotions can likewise give us a sense of direction at times when the seeming rational is either wrong or not properly understood. Ultimately however I seek an objective pupose over personal pleasure. Allowing myself to be controlled by emotions is no more noble than being controlled by the sensations of drug addiction.

I prefer the middle path - emotions and logic in a cooperative balance.

In this, I can't help but be influenced by the Star Trek character of Spock, whom I just finished a story about yesterday. One thing he said in Star Trek VI struck me about the supposed superiority of logic, coming from a being who was pulled by both sides of the equation:

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom ... not the end."

Definitely the latter. Really, I am someone who isn't affected by emotions. If I was any other way, I'd probably be dead. People who are not affected substantially by their emotions are the crisis managers, the folks who at all stages manage to keep a level head and keep going and making rational decisions regardless of what's going on around them. Very little surprises them. Ok, so I can sometimes seem detached, but I don't see the problem with that. Extreme emotion causes irrational behavior. People run into burning buildings against the orders of the authorities and die because of it. Would you rather be a blubbering emotional heap, or be in control of the situation.
A personal anecdote, a little over a year ago, my high school debate team was away at a tournament when one of the students on the trip died suddenly. One of my coaches, a very emotional man, ran up and down the halls of the hotel at 6AM on a Saturday screaming, asking if anyone was a doctor while the other coach took control, made sure all of the other students were alright and stayed out of the way while he orchestrated the entire situation. He called 911, had the student's medical forms when the EMTs arrived, spoke to the police, consoled the other students, and arranged for their withdrawl and early departure from the tournament to return home. He was also in contact with the school so they could call the parents. While all of this was going on, the first coach was an emotional wreck. If it was your child's life at risk, who would you rather have?
My point is that there is a time and place for everything. Emotions, too have their time and place, but I would much rather be detached from my emotions than risk being dysfunctional when I am needed.

I've experienced both, and I have to say that I prefer a healthy balance between them. I'm still trying to find that "Golden Mean"...

Control. I have always been a little emotionally detached, feeling nothing when others do, but also overly emotionally unstable, feeling things for no reason and having no way to control them. Control is the better of the two, I've seen both sides.