Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Feb 7, 2014.
Let the Logic Wars begin!
My question Emmitto is what planet does this guy live on?
Well, speaking logically (ahem), I'd say he's from the same planet that produces those brushes that are broad enough to paint millions of people with at once. Monolithiopia, maybe?
Alternate answer, which I think I deserve some credit for not using (this doesn't count!): Maybe he came from Uranus.
I suspect his argument is largely one that others on both sides of the political spectrum have at least partially made before.
My take on his argument is that it seems to say, in essence, that liberals have a tendency to get academic and try to be "right" and seek what they view as the optimal outcome, and in doing so assume that people have the capacity to understand why they think the facts support it being a good idea. The right, on the other hand, argues with passion, they get very fired up about everything and have an emotional certainty that they are right, whether there is any meaningful empirical support or not for whether what they're arguing is correct or not.
Need proof he's at least partly right? Look no further than the discussions on this very board - every single day you see one of our conservative posters make a quite impassioned plea about some issue or another, promptly have someone tell them that the facts don't really support what he's saying, then brush it aside and proceed facts-be-damned on the back of an internalized certainty.
And it works, an emotional argument, particularly if it appeals to something that people care about to start with, can have more appeal than a professorial one.
So exploring your hypothesis, what about the phenomenon in which during the impassioned plea, someone will chime in with support and accuse the opposition of basing everything on emotion?
I'm not willing to come up to bat for him too strongly, haven't thought this through this much, haha.
Limiting the interpretation of his argument to the criticism that, more so than the Right, the Left has a tendency to let themselves get bogged down in facts and get overly academic to the degree that the average person may tend to tune out their arguments, I would probably agree with him on that facet.
I think the "you're just arguing from passion and not from facts" criticism gets leveled - often times fairly - at persons from both sides, but the "professorial" criticism does seem to be one that applies nearly exclusively to the left.
Agreed. Although on these boards, the "emotion card" is pretty exclusive. It goes something like this:
If my memory serves me correctly that one came from ET.
Good call Hall! Not bullseye, but close enough.
Tyler: [sarcastically] Hey, Elliot, where's your goblin?
Michael: Shut up.
Steve: Did he come back?
Pretty Young Girl: Hi, Elliot.
Greg: Well, did he?
Elliot: Yeah, he came back, but he's not a goblin. He's a spaceman.
Steve: Ooh, as in extra-terrestrial!
Tyler: Where is he from, Uranus? Get it? Your anus?
Greg: He doesn't get it, Ty.
Tyler: Get it, your anus?
Greg: He doesn't get it.
Elliot: You're so immature!
Liberals on this board are certainly more logical than conservatives.
Certainly quite an amusing statement.
I meant ET, as in the movie. Not that ET said it. Couldn't recall the name of the kid and it has been a long time since I saw it but it seems they were getting on or off the school bus. Something like that.
Now just don't ask me what I did yesterday.
Progressivism is the politics of emotion. As for logic... you can't be a habitual user and still buy into state-collectivist politics and economics, just can't, not when they are the most disproven and violent failures in the history of applied philosophy.
I don't buy into the notion that one side is necessarily more emotional than the other, but I would agree that liberals--particularly liberal academic types--can certainly get bogged down in facts and can often be quite pedantic about it too when it's emotions that appeal to people. And really, I don't think we humans can ever fully separate one from the other, though I know as as a trained researcher, part of the process is to limit as much as humanly possible emotions affecting analysis.
What the Progressives want is slavery to the government... with little to no Liberty nor Freedom? That seems logical to me....
i'll take progressivism over plutocracy anytime.
Liberal rarely argue facts, just emotion. It's a character flaw.
What about lefty passions regarding global warming, the war on poverty, unemployment extension, war on women, amnesty for illegals, gun control, Obamacare unpopularity, IRS scandal, Benghazi, NSA tapping reporting phones and email accounts, President Pinochio's lies? These are all issues the left is extremely passionate about to the extent that lies are brushed aside apparently because the "end justifies the means".
Most liberals I've dealt with are anything but logical. They are idiotic. They "feel" rather than think. You can show them #s and figures regarding budgets and bankruptcy and their eyes glaze over as they pivot to greenhouse gasses and birth control payment responsibilities. As a matter of fact, I can't think of one liberal I know that is logical about anything other than their neighbors paying their way. Personal responsibility? Naw. Collective Responsiblity? Absolutely.
I am thoroughly convinced that Bill Whittle (the guy on the left from the video in the OP) is more in touch with what is going on politically in this country than any other conservative in the media. He's really that good. If there is any conservative out there that truly understands the liberal mindset it is Bill Whittle. The way that he describes collectivism as a religious experience for progressives is spot on. Collectivism is an ideology that progressives believe will bring heaven on earth. It is the hope that progressives strive for, and progressives will cling to that hope even when faced with mountains of evidence that is contrary to that hope.
Conservatives tend to be more logical IMO because conservatism is not a utopian political ideology. Conservatism has been shaped by many Christian influences. What this means is conservatives recognize the fallen world that we live in. The world we live in is corrupt. The people are corrupt, and most importantly our political leaders are corrupt. Therefore we find it appropriate that the political powers that be shouldn't be all that powerful given their propensity to corruption. Not all conservatives are Christians, but for those of us who are we have a hope for the injustices that we see in the world. Our hope is in Jesus Christ, and not some faux messiah politician and his political ideology.
We believe that Jesus cared for the poor and oppressed in his society. Jesus did not need to use the vessel of Caesar's power to care for the poor and the oppressed and neither do we. We believe that the church practiced communalism and not communism. Communalism is voluntary generosity to others within the believing community. Communism is involuntary servitude to others under the threat of state force.
We believe that the kingdom of heaven is not income equality because Jesus likened the kingdom of heaven to a master who gave different amounts of talents to each of his servants according to their abilities (Matthew 25:14-30). Each of these servants produced more or less wealth according to their respective abilities. The one who produced nothing was not subsidized by those who made more than him. The one who produced nothing had everything taken from him and it was given to the one who produced the most.
We do not believe that wealth is fixed within a society. Wealth can be created and it can be destroyed. I, for example, do not think it is greedy for a tutor to charge $50/hr. A good math tutor can help someone understand math, which has tremendous value in our society today. Understanding math has value, and value is represented by money. That is why we are willing to pay for an education in our society. That value, which is represented by wages, was not stolen from someone else. So what happened? By effectively explaining a new concept that previously was not understood the math tutor created wealth out of thin air. Since society becomes wealthier through math tutoring the tutor deserves compensation for the wealth that was created through tutoring services.
We believe that a man deserves to keep the wealth that he created. We believe a society is most productive when the most productive members of that society are able to keep their wealth in order to produce more wealth. It is counterproductive to a society's interest to use force to extract the assets of the productive (those who create more wealth for society than others) in order to give those assets to the less productive. For the master did not take from the man who had 10 talents in order to give to the man who had 1 talent.
We believe that income inequality exists because some people create more wealth for a society than others. We do recognize that some people are born into wealth, and we also recognize that some people are born into poverty, which is still among the richest 10% of the people in the world if you are poor in America. We believe it to be severely unjust when poverty is defined in such a way by collectivists that those who are in poverty and those who are not in poverty can both be found in the line at Best Buy.
We believe the political class to be less productive than our country's entrepreneurs. We notice a huge difference between government services and services offered in the private sector. For example, think about how long you wait in the line at the DMV or the courthouse and compare that to the lines that you wait in for private sector services. The difference in the quality of service that you experience has to do with the fact that businessmen are better at providing goods and services than government bureaucrats. Every penny you take away from an entrepreneur is a penny that is inefficiently consumed by the ever expanding and ever more demanding leviathan that is the Federal government.
Even though government is extremely inefficient we recognize that it provides certain services that are necessary like roads, national defense, and education. We are not anarchists. We just recognize that for every 1 government service that is a necessity there are probably about 10 services that are unnecessary, inefficient, and wasteful. We believe that it is best to not feed leviathan unless it is absolutely necessary.
There you go dangole. I hope that is logical enough for you...lol.