WARNING! DEBATE! Are political beliefs based on emotion?

[tonyswife]

My political beliefs are not based on emotion. I sometimes have to argue with myself to overcome the natural tendency to draw conclusions based on emotion. I am a Libertarian, BTW.

More to the point, politicians try to make us make decisions based on emotions. They play the race card, the gender card, the lie, contort statistics and they claim it's all "for the children" , etc... But, we as a nation are accountable, we cast the votes. It's our responsibility to look beyond their spin and seek the truth.

 

[wvrevy]

Of course they are.....If we had no emotions involved, then solving the homeless problem in this country would be easy: just kill them off. Same goes for most other problems.

Personally, I always find it funny when a neocon tries to play it off like liberals are just bleeding hearts that don't have a thought in their head. It amuses me simply because, if they were half as "intellectual" as they thought they were, they'd realize that helping the lowest in society pull themselves up will, in the long run, greatly benefit the entire society as a whole.

But it's fun to watch them prattle on about how "smart" they are, anyway

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Isn't it a requirement that in a civilized society we use compassion to make our decisions, therefore using emotions?

I also like to stay as well informed as I can. I read the papers and watch lots of news.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Personally, I always find it funny when a neocon tries to play it off like liberals are just bleeding hearts that don't have a thought in their head.

Do you mean like you did in the following?

It amuses me simply because, if they were half as "intellectual" as they thought they were, they'd realize that helping the lowest in society pull themselves up will, in the long run, greatly benefit the entire society as a whole.

It seems like there are too many people on both ends of the political spectrum that don't realize that just because someone disagrees with them doesn't mean that the person doesn't understand what is being discussed. I disagree with you on just about every political issue there is, but that doesn't mean that either one of us is too stupid to understand the issues at hand, it just means that we have different goals and priorities, as well as different ways of reaching those goals.

Take the "lowest in society" that you are forever prattling on about. Just like you, I want to see them succeed. The difference is that I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to make that happen, whereas you do.

 

[katerkat]

Some of mine are, some of mine aren't. Abortion, I fully admit, is pure emotion with me. Others, such as taxation and welfare, are based on economics classes. Still others, such as affirmative action, education, welfare again, drugs and crime, are based on life experiences. (And no, before you even ask, I didn't/don't do drugs and haven't commited a crime...other than speeding. )

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
It seems like there are too many people on both ends of the political spectrum that don't realize that just because someone disagrees with them doesn't mean that the person doesn't understand what is being discussed. I disagree with you on just about every political issue there is, but that doesn't mean that either one of us is too stupid to understand the issues at hand, it just means that we have different goals and priorities, as well as different ways of reaching those goals.

And I don't mean to imply that you ARE incapable of thinking through any particular issue. Actually, I was referring to posts earlier in this thread talking about "liberals" (how long 'till THAT word is banned by the filters...the way it's used by some, it's got to be just filthy ) But my point was that liberals are CONSTANTLY being labled as "bleeding hearts" that do not think with their heads but rather with their emotions, and that's obviously not the case.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Take the "lowest in society" that you are forever prattling on about. Just like you, I want to see them succeed. The difference is that I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to make that happen, whereas you do.

I believe it is government's responsibility to help guide the progress of our society, yes. That does include helping those unfortunate enough to need help, rather than cutting them loose to starve on the streets. I arrive at that conclusion by the same logic I stated before: that a society can be no greater than the least of it's citizens. That does not mean nobody can be allowed to advance. What it means is that those that fall behind SHOULD get help from the rest of society...and that means the government (unless you're willing to bet thousands of lives on the "goodwill" of the average American...lol).

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my view of things...just don't try to pretend that I haven't put any thought into my stance, because it's not true.....

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Lanshark
I think our political beliefs are derived from our environment and life experiences. Emotions certainly play into it especially in areas surrounding our perceptions of what is just and was is unjust ...

Very nicely stated Lanshark. That's what I believe too.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by wvrevy


Personally, I always find it funny when a neocon tries to play it off like liberals are just bleeding hearts that don't have a thought in their head. It amuses me simply because, if they were half as "intellectual" as they thought they were, they'd realize that helping the lowest in society pull themselves up will, in the long run, greatly benefit the entire society as a whole.

Personally I find it amusing when liberals try to pretend that without welfare, there would be no charity. I find it amusing when liberals try to pretend that when a conservative wants to cut welfare it means that they want children to starve.

There was charity long before there was welfare and liberals are not the only ones who donate time and money to private organizations to help needy people. There is no doubt that helping people who are struggling (interesting how you called them the "lowest") brings up society as a whole. The government does a piss poor job of helping though. Often times a helping hand becomes a crutch and then we are helping no one but enabling.

It's fun to listen to them prattle about how compassioante they are.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Well said, tonyswife.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Personally I find it amusing when liberals try to pretend that without welfare, there would be no charity. I find it amusing when liberals try to pretend that when a conservative wants to cut welfare it means that they want children to starve.

There was charity long before there was welfare and liberals are not the only ones who donate time and money to private organizations to help needy people. There is no doubt that helping people who are struggling (interesting how you called them the "lowest") brings up society as a whole. The government does a piss poor job of helping though. Often times a helping hand becomes a crutch and then we are helping no one but enabling.

It's fun to listen to them prattle about how compassioante they are.

I also find it amusing that conservatives that are always whining about how much the government wants to take their money are always so positive that charity will come to the rescue when people need help, but maybe that's just me....

As for the "lowest" comment...People on 'skid row' aren't exactly the brightest and shiniest, now are they ? It wasn't a term used to denegrate them but to show that they need help lifting themselves up.........but why bother with accuracy when you can score a cheap political point, right ?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I also find it amusing that conservatives that are always whining about how much the government wants to take their money are always so positive that charity will come to the rescue when people need help, but maybe that's just me....

Americans are very generous. But I can see how that doesn't fit in with the typical dim view of America that liberals have. But that's just me.

As for the "lowest" comment...People on 'skid row' aren't exactly the brightest and shiniest, now are they ?

Some are and some are not.

It wasn't a term used to denegrate them but to show that they need help lifting themselves up.........

Well I personally find it degrading to insist that so many people are so incapable that they need the government to be their mommy and daddy.

but why bother with accuracy when you can score a cheap political point, right ?

I was going to ask you the same thing.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Americans are very generous. But I can see how that doesn't fit in with the typical dim view of America that liberals have. But that's just me.

Yes, it is. I don't have a dim view of America...I do doubt VERY highly that the group of people whining about the government taking their money is going to run out and give it to charity if suddenly the government stopped doing so, but I'm sure that is just me, right

Originally posted by tonyswife
Well I personally find it degrading to insist that so many people are so incapable that they need the government to be their mommy and daddy.

If they were capable of doing it without help, do you think they'd be in that position ? Sometimes, even the MOST capable will be forced into situations in which they need help. What I find degrading is people like you that seem to think that they are nothing but free-loaders and bums that don't WANT to help themselves.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, it is. I don't have a dim view of America...I do doubt VERY highly that the group of people whining about the government taking their money is going to run out and give it to charity if suddenly the government stopped doing so, but I'm sure that is just me, right

Well it's not just you, but just because so people agree with you doesn't make you right.

If they were capable of doing it without help, do you think they'd be in that position ?

Who said they don't need help?

Sometimes, even the MOST capable will be forced into situations in which they need help.

That is true.

What I find degrading is people like you that seem to think that they are nothing but free-loaders and bums that don't WANT to help themselves.

Excuse me?? People "like me"?? And WHAT exactly is it that you think you know about me? I'll tell you what you know about me, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

I challenge you, I DARE you to back that that insuting crap you just said about me. I have NEVER said that they are "bums" or "free-loaders" that don't want to help themselves. YOU said they were the "lowest" I merely said that the government does a piss poor job of managing the welfare system and that there are better ways to help people in need.


You can't back up your arguement so you turn it into an attack on my character, of which you know nothing? Give me a break.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Who said they don't need help?

Well, YOU did, actually:

Well I personally find it degrading to insist that so many people are so incapable that they need the government to be their mommy and daddy.

Sound familiar ?

Originally posted by tonyswife
Excuse me?? People "like me"?? And WHAT exactly is it that you think you know about me? I'll tell you what you know about me, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

I challenge you, I DARE you to back that that insuting crap you just said about me. I have NEVER said that they are "bums" or "free-loaders" that don't want to help themselves. YOU said they were the "lowest" I merely said that the government does a piss poor job of managing the welfare system and that there are better ways to help people in need.

You can't back up your arguement so you turn it into an attack on my character, of which you know nothing? Give me a break.

I used the phrase "people like you" to mean exactly that...people who believe as you do that the government should not help people in need. I've found through MANY years of this debate that most of the time it comes down to people arguing that the people needing help should just get off their lazy butts and help themselves (implying that they haven't tried to do exactly that). They seem to be more upset that the government is using their money to help "freeloaders and bums" than helping those that genuinely need it.

Again, that's been my experience with people (including at least one on this very thread) arguing your side of the debate. If that was incorrect, I apologize (though it was hardly a "personal attack" )

 

[caitycaity]

But I can see how that doesn't fit in with the typical dim view of America that liberals have.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Well, YOU did, actually:

Sound familiar ?

Yes, it does. That does not mean that turining a helping hand into a crutch is a good idea. The government programs tend to do just that.

I used the phrase "people like you" to mean exactly that...people who believe as you do that the government should not help people in need.

Actually it is my belief that our over-bloated government is incapable of providing meaninful assitance to those in need.

I've found through MANY years of this debate that most of the time it comes down to people arguing that the people needing help should just get off their lazy butts and help themselves (implying that they haven't tried to do exactly that). They seem to be more upset that the government is using their money to help "freeloaders and bums" than helping those that genuinely need it.

Well take that debate to someone who actually has said that and believes that and leave me out of it.

Again, that's been my experience with people (including at least one on this very thread) arguing your side of the debate.

My side of the debate? You haven't even addressed "my side" of the debate. Instead you have assumed quite a bit about my positions, cast me in with a bunch of people I don't concur with and gone off on a tangent.

If that was incorrect, I apologize (though it was hardly a "personal attack" )

Excuse me, you put words in my mouth that do not belong there in an attempt to cast doubt on my character. What would you call it? Merely a faulty assumption?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Yes, it does. That does not mean that turining a helping hand into a crutch is a good idea. The government programs tend to do just that.


Merely a faulty assumption?

Yes. You're correct. That is a faulty assumption.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Yes, it does. That does not mean that turining a helping hand into a crutch is a good idea. The government programs tend to do just that.

Actually it is my belief that our over-bloated government is incapable of providing meaninful assitance to those in need.

Wonderful. Of course, your belief would be wrong, but hey, that's never stopped any other republicans I know, so why should you be different ? (If you don't believe government assistance can provide "meaningful" relief, I'd suggest you talk to a single mother that without WIC couldn't buy milk, let alone support herself and her baby...but I guess that's not "meaningful" enough ?) Of COURSE there is fat in the system...there is in the charity world as well. That doesn't mean that the goal itself is unworthy.

Originally posted by tonyswife
My side of the debate? You haven't even addressed "my side" of the debate. Instead you have assumed quite a bit about my positions, cast me in with a bunch of people I don't concur with and gone off on a tangent.

Excuse me, you put words in my mouth that do not belong there in an attempt to cast doubt on my character. What would you call it? Merely a faulty assumption?

Yes, I would call it just that: a faulty assumption on my part. I didn't put words in your mouth (I wasn't quoting you) and I wasn't trying to "cast doubt on your character". At least, not any more-so than you were with your "dim view" comment a while back, but that's ok, right ?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Yes. You're correct. That is a faulty assumption.

No, it's not. Why is the welfare reform from the Clinton years failing? Because the system does not help people get back up on their feet. It merely keeps them afloat a dependant forever. A meaningful program would assist people with legitimate needs in learning to become self-reliant. Our current system keeps people down, it sucks.

 

[jrydberg]

your belief would be wrong