[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, I think both liberalism and conservatism have elements of rationalism and emotionalism (wow, that is a lot of isms)[/quote]
Yeah. Fuck -isms.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, I think both liberalism and conservatism have elements of rationalism and emotionalism (wow, that is a lot of isms)
Yeah. Fuck -isms. [/quote]
I think they said it best:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, I think both liberalism and conservatism have elements of rationalism and emotionalism (wow, that is a lot of isms), and rightly they should. Not every political problem can be reduced to a problem of Reason, but nor should we abandon being rational when trying to solve public problems.
That said, what makes it interesting is that Liberals are often very emotional in their appeals to public policy - which is nothing novel on its face - but then run and tell anyone who will listen that it is they who are the great guardians of clear-headed rationalism while the Conservatives are knuckle-dragging mudheads who make policy through superstition.
Part of the problem is that rationalism can be cold and unsparing of people’s feelings in its methods and analysis, and Liberals don’t have much of a stomach for such frankness. Rationalism often demonstrates are harsh, uncompromising world that can have brutal results, and modern Liberals have little desire to take the world that way.
I don’t automatically think this is an awful thing to reject such coldness of rationalism, I just wish modern Liberals would admit to it instead of parading themselves as the great rationalists of the world.[/quote]
Everyone wants to be “rationalist” as long as they’re talking about someone else’s holy issue. As soon as their own is under consideration, it’s an affront to all that is good and decent in the world to let the math do the deciding.
I consider the PC debate (not mac vs wintel) to be a strong example in the US. People on the right constantly bitch and moan about being subject to the rules of political correctness until their religions or other pet causes are subject to the mildest aspersion or slight, then thems fightin words. On the left you have the reciprocal stance with their whole array of sacred cows but a general disregard for anything outside of them. As a result the two sides fight like five year olds leaving those in the middle who just want everyone to shut up SOL.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t automatically think this is an awful thing to reject such coldness of rationalism, I just wish modern Liberals would admit to it instead of parading themselves as the great rationalists of the world.[/quote]
Quite right. On one hand emotions are to be shunned becasue they are “the destroyer of truth” yet they can provide some of the best positive experiences one can have as a human. On the other hand, our ability to act on our rationality is what made it possible to acheive what we have as humans yet we must learn to “stomache” the sometimes “coldness of duty”.
To exist and survive we need both and we should just learn to accept our own humanness–even if it is percieved as a flaw by someone else.
Political creatures will always disagree because of their perceptions of emotional verses rational thought.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yeah, possibly…my conservative brother-in-law and I always butt heads in terms of politics. I am the one who would get angry (at his callously naive attitude) and just assumed he was incapable of what I think of as “positive” human emotion…a sociopath, in other words.
[/quote]
LOL. This statement does point back to thunderbolts suggestions.
Does having more “emotion” mean you are more human than the one who shows less?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t automatically think this is an awful thing to reject such coldness of rationalism, I just wish modern Liberals would admit to it instead of parading themselves as the great rationalists of the world.
Quite right. On one hand emotions are to be shunned becasue they are “the destroyer of truth” yet they can provide some of the best positive experiences one can have as a human. On the other hand, our ability to act on our rationality is what made it possible to acheive what we have as humans yet we must learn to “stomache” the sometimes “coldness of duty”.
To exist and survive we need both and we should just learn to accept our own humanness–even if it is percieved as a flaw by someone else.
Political creatures will always disagree because of their perceptions of emotional verses rational thought.[/quote]
Great post.
[quote]etaco wrote:
Everyone wants to be “rationalist” as long as they’re talking about someone else’s holy issue. As soon as their own is under consideration, it’s an affront to all that is good and decent in the world to let the math do the deciding.
I consider the PC debate (not mac vs wintel) to be a strong example in the US. People on the right constantly bitch and moan about being subject to the rules of political correctness until their religions or other pet causes are subject to the mildest aspersion or slight, then thems fightin words. On the left you have the reciprocal stance with their whole array of sacred cows but a general disregard for anything outside of them. As a result the two sides fight like five year olds leaving those in the middle who just want everyone to shut up SOL.[/quote]
You have nailed it.
-end thread-
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Why is it that it seems Liberals are driven by emotion, rather than calm reasoning?
I’m not bashing, (OK Maybe) but just curious. In an arguement/debate it seems to me that the Conservatives take a non-emotional stance toward policy and Libs are fully emotional.
[/quote]
You’re absolutely right. Saying that “the loony Left” are “traitors” and “moonbats” who “hate America” and “want the terrorists to win” is the pinnacle of “calm reasoning”.
Excellent point.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yeah, possibly…my conservative brother-in-law and I always butt heads in terms of politics. I am the one who would get angry (at his callously naive attitude) and just assumed he was incapable of what I think of as “positive” human emotion…a sociopath, in other words.
LOL. This statement does point back to thunderbolts suggestions.
Does having more “emotion” mean you are more human than the one who shows less?
[/quote]
No, just my perception of “humanness”. I agree there are many issues where my emotions do not cause me to become emotional–the outward display of emotion.
I am daily ripped on by my wife for being emotionless on issues such as her choice of shoe color that day, for example.
“Does this match? Why don’t you care?”
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Heck, Derek, you’ve started numerous threads in the past 3 weeks with emotionally volatile content and little commentary of your own. What is the purpose of that? if not to incite emotional response?
[/quote]
Plenty of emotion. Plenty of commentary to go along with it.
I use emotion as much as the next guy but there’s almost always logic and facts to back me up.
Feeling bad for illegal aliens is emotional. Understanding that they are ruining law-abiding society is both factual and logical. And yes, I get emotional over the irrational feel-good objections of the Left.
No, this should end it!
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why is it that it seems Liberals are driven by emotion, rather than calm reasoning?
I’m not bashing, (OK Maybe) but just curious. In an arguement/debate it seems to me that the Conservatives take a non-emotional stance toward policy and Libs are fully emotional.
You’re absolutely right. Saying that “the loony Left” are “traitors” and “moonbats” who “hate America” and “want the terrorists to win” is the pinnacle of “calm reasoning”.
Excellent point.
[/quote]
You just proved my point. I never said that, but it looks like you are all worked up now.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why is it that it seems Liberals are driven by emotion, rather than calm reasoning?
I’m not bashing, (OK Maybe) but just curious. In an arguement/debate it seems to me that the Conservatives take a non-emotional stance toward policy and Libs are fully emotional.
You’re absolutely right. Saying that “the loony Left” are “traitors” and “moonbats” who “hate America” and “want the terrorists to win” is the pinnacle of “calm reasoning”.
Excellent point.
[/quote]
Did you see the idiots in the anti-war demonstration? Those terms are accurate and unemotional.
Trickle down is reasoning?
I could just as easily say Liberals work off compassion and humanity, while conservatives work off of self-interest.
Its all bullshit.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why is it that it seems Liberals are driven by emotion, rather than calm reasoning?
I’m not bashing, (OK Maybe) but just curious. In an arguement/debate it seems to me that the Conservatives take a non-emotional stance toward policy and Libs are fully emotional.
You’re absolutely right. Saying that “the loony Left” are “traitors” and “moonbats” who “hate America” and “want the terrorists to win” is the pinnacle of “calm reasoning”.
Excellent point.
Did you see the idiots in the anti-war demonstration? Those terms are accurate and unemotional.[/quote]
Did you see the idiots at the anti-abortion demonstration?
This shit applies to both goddamn sides.
Oh, and disliking a war does NOT make you unamerican. And MOST of the people weren’t the crazy fuckers.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Did you see the idiots in the anti-war demonstration? Those terms are accurate and unemotional.[/quote]
Wrong. Calling someone an idiot because you disagree with their politics, is not ‘calm and rational’.
Yeah, I don’t mind doing it, but i’m not pretending to be above the fray, like you.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Trickle down is reasoning?
I could just as easily say Liberals work off compassion and humanity, while conservatives work off of self-interest.
Its all bullshit.
[/quote]
Yes, what you wrote IS total BS.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Did you see the idiots in the anti-war demonstration? Those terms are accurate and unemotional.
Wrong. Calling someone an idiot because you disagree with their politics, is not ‘calm and rational’.
Yeah, I don’t mind doing it, but i’m not pretending to be above the fray, like you.[/quote]
I call them idiots because they were idiots. Obviously you either haven’t seen the pictures of them or possibly you are one of them otherwise you would acknowledge they were idiots.
Regarding Beowulfs point, many anti-abortion protesters are idiots too.
I find most people that partake in such protest events these days are idiots.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Did you see the idiots in the anti-war demonstration? Those terms are accurate and unemotional.
Wrong. Calling someone an idiot because you disagree with their politics, is not ‘calm and rational’.
Yeah, I don’t mind doing it, but i’m not pretending to be above the fray, like you.
I call them idiots because they were idiots. Obviously you either haven’t seen the pictures of them or possibly you are one of them otherwise you would acknowledge they were idiots.
Regarding Beowulfs point, many anti-abortion protesters are idiots too.
I find most people that partake in such protest events these days are idiots.
[/quote]
So you made the generalization that liberals are emotional idiots from the anti-war protesters… how?
Like I said, both sides have there jackasses. The left has the super-Hippy-Douches, and the right has people like Pat Robertson.
They aren’t different. They’re driven by identical motives;
Self interest and what they believe is truly best for the people (in that order).
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Trickle down is reasoning?
I could just as easily say Liberals work off compassion and humanity, while conservatives work off of self-interest.
Its all bullshit.
Yes, what you wrote IS total BS.
[/quote]
Yes… yes it was. That’s exactly what my point was…
Are you not getting something here?