Liberals and emotion

[Swift]

Why is it that liberals generally, not all, but most justify their stance by emotion AND get very emotional when you say something that goes against their stance?

For instance, I was talking with a middle aged woman earlier this week and she was saying that "Bush spent up all our money" and used that as a justification as people not being able to buy a new car. I'm very serious. So I asked her "How is it Bush's fault?" She said the economy is doing really badly. I asked her why are we just coming off one of the biggest spikes in recent history? I then asked her who was a "good" president in her opinion, she said recently, Clinton. I asked why. She said, "Because everyone was happy" That's just stupid. She then became rather excited and wasn't willing to discuss it any longer.

This is just one example of liberal people responding to simple questions, including my parents. It seems to be more among minorities then "white" people.

So, why is this? Why do the liberals tend to go for the heartstrings and not the facts? What's the deal?

 

[Danoff]

They don't call them "bleeding hearts" for nothing. There are only two things that can guide a person through life, your brain, or your emotions. Emotions are a dangerous thing because they contain no outward information, only information about your own state of mind. You cannot use emotion to derive an analysis of a situation... but people try it all the time.

Basically people rely on emotions because they're not smart enough to figure out that they shouldn't. When you run into a person who relies on emotions rather than his brain, you're talking to someone who is much closer to early man than modern man. You're basically talking to one who belongs to the dumber portion of society.

What's the square root of 354098? Quick, what answer feels right?
Use your emotions to figure out whether to raise that bet.
Use your emotions to figure out whether theft is ok.

It's nonsense.

 

[Kylehnat]

Swift, don't confuse liberalism with idiocy. Stupidity transcends political leanings. I've heard so-called conservatives make similiarly moronic comments.

 

[Swift]

Swift, don't confuse liberalism with idiocy. Stupidity transcends political leanings. I've heard so-called conservatives make similiarly moronic comments.

Granted. However, this seems to form the basis of their argument. "Happy", "good", "Better" are words that they use consistantly. It's this kind of mentality that I'm talking about.

 

[Delirious]

Meh, I like being independent, but I lean toward the conservative side for the morals they believe in (if we get rid of those morals, there goes moral equality...abortion being an example I believe in).

I like Bush, but I don't always agree with him, but I'd rather have Bush for a president than Kerry.

Lesser of two evils, I suppose.

 

[Wolfe]

Actually, I'd rather have people base everything on emotions than a little black book that was written many, many years ago....but that's probably just because I'm an agnostic atheist.

Still, that's the reason why I tend to agree with liberals, although I consider myself an independent. That crazy little book makes "conservatives" do some very drastic things, things that I very often disagree with.

 

[Omnis]

Lol at your acquaintence, Swift. Bill Clinton was the best president because everyone was happy... HAHAHA. Some agree that Bill Clinton is probably the worst president of recent history, but he is definitely the most overrated one. He neglected foreign policy and pretty much set the next president up for a hard time, should anything go wrong. It did with 9/11.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Why do the liberals tend to go for the heartstrings and not the facts? What's the deal?

After reading over 2,000 posts in C vs E thread i find this quite funny your asking this.

 

[niky]

Ditto.

Swift, don't confuse liberalism with idiocy. Stupidity transcends political leanings. I've heard so-called conservatives make similiarly moronic comments.

and double-ditto.

-----

I basically hear idiocy on both sides. C'mon now, what about all the arguments in the "Iraq" thread? And every time I say or write something that sounds the least bit "liberal", some neo-con or crank comes down on me as an "un-patriotic liberal" who wants "Americans to die"... blah blah blah.

I'm sick of hearing or reading of it on both sides, and I wouldn't point fingers at the person's political bent as being the source of it. To me, it seems that any extreme view seems to hold a magnetic attraction for people who don't like to think for themselves or who seem incapable of it. And that includes everything from Christian Fundamentalism (not Christianity itself, mind you) to Islamic fundamentalism, or from Eco-terrorism (Greenpeace and SUV-burners) to the Industrial right. Ultra-liberals and neo-cons? Meh. Just as bad as the uber-Hawks and the commies. Same "kill em' all" rhetoric, different sides.

 

[ledhed]

conservatives play with emotions , maybe even more than liberals...see Terry Shiavo and abortion and gay marriage ...willie Horton ..etc. and etc. ad nauseum .

 

[Famine]

conservatives play with emotions , maybe even more than liberals...see Terry Shiavo and abortion and gay marriage ...willie Horton ..etc. and etc. ad nauseum .

Well quite. You don't have to have any particular set of political leanings to have arrived at them through feeling.

Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children?!

 

[ledhed]

So why does this thread exist ?

 

[niky]

Because Bush spent everyone's money, so people can't buy a new car... apparently. That woman needs a swift (no pun intended) kick to the nuts.

 

[Small_Fryz]

That woman needs a swift kick to the nuts.

!!!

 

[Gabkicks]

Swift, don't confuse liberalism with idiocy. Stupidity transcends political leanings. I've heard so-called conservatives make similiarly moronic comments.

ditto

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Actually, I'd rather have people base everything on emotions than a little black book that was written many, many years ago....but that's probably just because I'm an agnostic atheist.

Still, that's the reason why I tend to agree with liberals, although I consider myself an independent. That crazy little book makes "conservatives" do some very drastic things, things that I very often disagree with.

I concur

 

[niky]

@Small_Fryz: that was entirely intentional. She is nuts.

 

[Swift]

Actually, I'd rather have people base everything on emotions than a little black book that was written many, many years ago....but that's probably just because I'm an agnostic atheist.

Still, that's the reason why I tend to agree with liberals, although I consider myself an independent. That crazy little book makes "conservatives" do some very drastic things, things that I very often disagree with.

You don't need a bible to have a set of morals/rights that are justifiable.

Let me ask you something, if you feel a certain just fine about a subject, say abortion. Then you loose a potential child to a miscarriage and it changes the way you "feel" about abortion, does it then make abortion wrong?

 

[Wolfe]

You don't need a bible to have a set of morals/rights that are justifiable.

Agreed. No offense to anyone of any religious faiths, but I'm more comfortable with people learning morals/rights from their life experience, rather than basing everything off of an ancient text and being afraid to do or say anything that goes against it.

Of course, not all religious people are that way. The whole concept of learning morals and rights from a religious text is like a cookie cutter -- the cookie cutter sets down the basic shape, but no two cookies are ever exactly the same.

Nonetheless, there are some things in the "cookie cutter shapes" of various religions that I strongly disagree with, and others that mislead people into doing some very stupid things. Anti-abortionists would be an example of the former, and the Westboro Church would be an extreme example of the latter.

Let me ask you something, if you feel a certain just fine about a subject, say abortion. Then you loose a potential child to a miscarriage and it changes the way you "feel" about abortion, does it then make abortion wrong?

Sorry Swift, but could you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Sorry Swift, but could you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask.

You feel fine about abortion and dont think its an issue. But then you loose a child to miss-carrige, which then changes your perception on abortion. Now you hate abortion. Does this mean abortion is now wrong?

 

[Wolfe]

I guess I don't understand how a miscarriage could make someone hate abortion. A miscarriage is a natural and (once its started) unavoidable occurance. An abortion is an active decision to remove the fetus and "abort" the pregnancy unnaturally.

Of course, the fact that I'm male might have something to do with my inability to understand what it is that you're getting at. In any case, I'll try to answer your question as best as I can:

If you've changed your opinion on the morality of abortion, than you've changed your opinion, and that's that. No biggie there. If you change it so that you believe that abortion is wrong, then I will disagree with you, and if you make an active effort to prevent other women from being able to have abortions, I will really, really dislike you. However, changing your stance on abortion was your decision to make, and I have no right to say that you can't have an opinion that differs from mine.

To answer the question in a different way, yes, that means abortion is wrong..............to you. If you hate abortion, that doesn't mean everyone around you is going to magically change their opinions and agree with you. They might, but they don't have to. See, that's what I like about a morality system that isn't based on religion. It's generally much more flexible, you can make your own decisions about what is right and wrong, and yes, you can change your stance on subjects of morality based on things you experience throughout your life.


Now, let's turn the question around:
What if the woman who miscarriaged was a devout Christian who believed abortion was wrong? What if, after the miscarriage, she felt a feeling of relief, knowing the responsibility of taking care of the child had now been lifted, and thought that it wasn't such a bad experience? How easy do you think it would be for her to change her mind on abortion, and go against what she was taught?

 

[ledhed]

I guess I don't understand how a miscarriage could make someone hate abortion. A miscarriage is a natural and (once its started) unavoidable occurance. An abortion is an active decision to remove the fetus and "abort" the pregnancy unnaturally.

Of course, the fact that I'm male might have something to do with my inability to understand what it is that you're getting at. In any case, I'll try to answer your question as best as I can:

If you've changed your opinion on the morality of abortion, than you've changed your opinion, and that's that. No biggie there. If you change it so that you believe that abortion is wrong, then I will disagree with you, and if you make an active effort to prevent other women from being able to have abortions, I will really, really dislike you. However, changing your stance on abortion was your decision to make, and I have no right to say that you can't have an opinion that differs from mine.

To answer the question in a different way, yes, that means abortion is wrong..............to you. If you hate abortion, that doesn't mean everyone around you is going to magically change their opinions and agree with you. They might, but they don't have to. See, that's what I like about a morality system that isn't based on religion. It's generally much more flexible, you can make your own decisions about what is right and wrong, and yes, you can change your stance on subjects of morality based on things you experience throughout your life.


Now, let's turn the question around:
What if the woman who miscarriaged was a devout Christian who believed abortion was wrong? What if, after the miscarriage, she felt a feeling of relief, knowing the responsibility of taking care of the child had now been lifted, and thought that it wasn't such a bad experience? How easy do you think it would be for her to change her mind on abortion, and go against what she was taught?

If you were a women who has been pregnant and or a mother ...you wouldnt need to understand you would just " know " .

I can empathise but I cant know..being male and never having carried a life within me . But losing that life..through miscarage or other means is a true disaster for most women..the trauma is not measurable by normal male standards .

I still believe its up to a women to decide what will happen with her body..to a point..like before a fetus is " aware ' and has brain activity and can be considered a person..IMO . IMO that gives enough time to decide . Unless of course a danger to the moms life is presented by carrying to term.


But having two children and having been present at both cesarean births...

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

But the results werent bad...

hey babe I saw your liver !


How many of you can say that to your wife ?

 

[Swift]

I guess I don't understand how a miscarriage could make someone hate abortion. A miscarriage is a natural and (once its started) unavoidable occurance. An abortion is an active decision to remove the fetus and "abort" the pregnancy unnaturally.

Of course, the fact that I'm male might have something to do with my inability to understand what it is that you're getting at. In any case, I'll try to answer your question as best as I can:

If you've changed your opinion on the morality of abortion, than you've changed your opinion, and that's that. No biggie there. If you change it so that you believe that abortion is wrong, then I will disagree with you, and if you make an active effort to prevent other women from being able to have abortions, I will really, really dislike you. However, changing your stance on abortion was your decision to make, and I have no right to say that you can't have an opinion that differs from mine.

To answer the question in a different way, yes, that means abortion is wrong..............to you. If you hate abortion, that doesn't mean everyone around you is going to magically change their opinions and agree with you. They might, but they don't have to. See, that's what I like about a morality system that isn't based on religion. It's generally much more flexible, you can make your own decisions about what is right and wrong, and yes, you can change your stance on subjects of morality based on things you experience throughout your life.


Now, let's turn the question around:
What if the woman who miscarriaged was a devout Christian who believed abortion was wrong? What if, after the miscarriage, she felt a feeling of relief, knowing the responsibility of taking care of the child had now been lifted, and thought that it wasn't such a bad experience? How easy do you think it would be for her to change her mind on abortion, and go against what she was taught?

You're completly missing the point. My example was NOT a discussion on abortion. But on how feelings can effect what a person feels is right and wrong. You say we should go with feelings. My point is you CAN'T go with feelings because feelings can change on a daily basis.

So your basis on law and politics need to come from principles not feelings. Another example: A person is not too concerned about what we need to do about mandatory terms for child sexual predators. Then, their child is a victim. Suddenly, the offender needs to be put in jail forever and a day.

See what I'm getting at here?

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow this went way off-topic.

I will tryt to answer the original question as much as possible, because I understand what Swift is getting at. My brother pools the sympathy card all the time talking about how his wife's sister married a no-good lazy bum who refuses to try and find a job and that they have two kids and it is a perfect example of why we need welfare, minimum wage, etc. We can't let the kids starve, right? Of course when I ask why I should pay for him to sit on his butt my brother turns it into me being selfish and making it all about me because I should feel pity on those poor kids instead of being so cold hearted.

I do see it going both ways though. I had my dad's girlfriend argue that it should be a law that everyone gets Sundays off so that they can go to church and have at least one family dinner together at home. We have lost our sense of family in this country. I asked her if we could make her not work, or work, at certain times to meet other religious views and she said no because hers was all about family and church. She just couldn't see the connection.

Thsi tends to be people that find themselves getting tied up in what THEY think is right based on what THEY feel. They won't read up on the law or try and understand the rights of this country in order to come to a decision. They just want it their way in order to be happy.

No one ever said you had a right to be happy.

I don't understand why some people are like this. I keep my emotion for family time and social time. If I miss my parenst then I will decide to visit them the next chance I get or I decide when to surprise my wife with a gift when I'm feeling affectionate. But at work or when discussing politics it is all straight forward to me and I don't attempt to feel my way to the answer. Sometimes my political decisions would actually hurt me personally if anyone ever listened to me, but the knowledge that I support something that could be negative for me personally is a sign that I am being intellectually honest with myself.

If you think that changing the world to make yourself or your special interest happy is the best way for teh world to work then you are being morally dishonest with yourself and being very selfish all at the same time.

 

[Wolfe]

You're completly missing the point. My example was NOT a discussion on abortion. But on how feelings can effect what a person feels is right and wrong. You say we should go with feelings. My point is you CAN'T go with feelings because feelings can change on a daily basis.

So your basis on law and politics need to come from principles not feelings. Another example: A person is not too concerned about what we need to do about mandatory terms for child sexual predators. Then, their child is a victim. Suddenly, the offender needs to be put in jail forever and a day.

See what I'm getting at here?

Yes, now I understand what you're getting at.

I agree with you when you say that decisions in law and politics should come from principles, rather than spur-of-the-moment feelings. However, I also think that those principles should be based on what you think -- or feel, if you will -- is right and wrong, rather than what an ancient civilization thought was right or wrong many, many years ago.

Why? Because sometimes you need to change your view on a certain subject. Feelings can change. Ancient texts don't.

 

[Swift]

Why? Because sometimes you need to change your view on a certain subject. Feelings can change. Ancient texts don't.

2 things with that.

1. Why do you keep bringing up the bible when I haven't?
2. Why should principles of right and wrong change? People still did wrong things even though they knew it was wrong.

 

[Wolfe]

2 things with that.

1. Why do you keep bringing up the bible when I haven't?
2. Why should principles of right and wrong change? People still did wrong things even though they knew it was wrong.

1. Because that was the point of my first post in this thread, the post that you originally responded to.

2. Not everything is black and white. Not to mention the fact that advances in technology and science keep on bringing up new questions of principle and morality.

 

[Swift]

1. Because that was the point of my first post in this thread, the post that you originally responded to.

Hmmm, but I didn't mention the bible in my original post at all.

2. Not everything is black and white. Not to mention the fact that advances in technology and science keep on bringing up new questions of principle and morality.

Actually, I do think everything is black and white. Just that some people's white is others black. How do advances in technology change morality? I actually kinda know where you will go with that, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

 

[Thundercat]

Actually, I do think everything is black and white. Just that some people's white is others black. How do advances in technology change morality? I actually kinda know where you will go with that, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Just passing through . . . I'll let Wolf 14 answer your question, but I'll throw a few items out there for you:
1. Development of Latex Condoms . . . Birthcontrol Pills . . . Morning after drug
2. Industrial Revolution . . . Machinery. . . child-labor . . . sweat shops
3. Photography . . . Prtinting-press . . . Playboy magazine . . . Hustler magazine
4. The Cottongin
5. Muskets . . . repeating rifles . . . Manifest destiny
6. Atomic power
7. Hybrid vehicles

There's at least a million more . . . You just have to look . . . Sounds like you already thought about it and have your answer though . . .

 

[Swift]

Just passing through . . . I'll let Wolf 14 answer your question, but I'll throw a few items out there for you:
1. Development of Latex Condoms . . . Birthcontrol Pills . . . Morning after drug

How does that change the morality of abortion/sex? It just changes the consequenses of said actions.

2. Industrial Revolution . . . Machinery. . . child-labor . . . sweat shops

You think children didn't work until the industrial age?

3. Photography . . . Prtinting-press . . . Playboy magazine . . . Hustler magazine

Again, how does a publication change whether or not it's moral to look at naked people? This is a right of free speech and expression. I may or may not like it, but it doesn't infringe on my rights so I shouldn't get upset.

4. The Cottongin

Huh?

5. Muskets . . . repeating rifles . . . Manifest destiny
6. Atomic power

Took warfare that has existed from the dawn of man to the logical extension

7. Hybrid vehicles

-don't work as people like to believe they do.

So, can you show me a place where suddenly morality was altered because of a new technology? Even the internet didn't really change morality. It simply gave people new avenues to do what they wanted to do.

This is why you have to base laws on priniples and not feelings/personal experience.