Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fishnmagician

Facts Versus Emotions

Rate this topic

55 posts in this topic

how do you arrive at your positions?

 

Personally I think I arrive at positions intuitively and with emotion,

but then check to see if facts support this position.

I try NOT to ever engage in a conversation or debate armed only with emotions.

 

I often feel that those on the other side of the aisle on this board are dominated primarily by emotion, which often makes for futile conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you arrive at your positions?

 

Personally I think I arrive at positions intuitively and with emotion,

but then check to see if facts support this position.

I try NOT to ever engage in a conversation or debate armed only with emotions.

 

I often feel that those on the other side of the aisle on this board are dominated primarily by emotion, which often makes for futile conversations.

 

Depends on the topic. I freely admit I get emotional about military issues. I try to back my positions with as many facts as I can (I don't always have time to "google" stuff and do the cut and paste thing, or quote the famous and the obscure or come up with exact numbers), but I admit that the military is an emotional topic for me. I apologize to no one for this.

 

My turn, do you look only for the "facts" that support your position and dismiss the rest? By this, I mean, have you ever started a thread with the premise, "You know I used to think this, but after checking the "facts" I found out I was wrong. What do you guys think?". Maybe you have, you've been on the board longer than I, I'm just asking, and not trying to be sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a set of core beliefs. I apply those to situations that how I make my decisions. If oyu understand my core beliefs you would be able to know my position most of the time without asking.

 

As for emotion funny you say that FnM, in my mind liberals are dominated by emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You know I used to think this, but after checking the "facts" I found out I was wrong. What do you guys think?".

 

 

I can't imagine that I ever have. Starting a thread about an idea which I believe to WRONG doesn't sound like something I would do, I'd rather discuss and defend things I believe to be RIGHT.

 

The military issue is an interesting one.

I tend to be fact based in my discussions of the Military, but have been accused of bashing the military for Emotional reasons.

 

I believe we owe it to the military to ONLY put them into battle for a just cause.

I believe we owe it to the military to do EVERYTHING we can to ensure they are properly supplied.

I believe we owe it to the military to have a healthy debate on strategy and tactics in cases like Iraq where we have committed them to a war zone, but have a questionable war plan that seems inneffective and is doubtful to lead to a successful outcome.

 

So,

I only want them used when necessary, I want to give them all they need, and I want to ensure they have a reasonable chance for success.

 

yet I am told I that debating the war plan "hurts their feelings" (isn't that really what moral issues are?) and that therefore I don't support the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Core beliefs"... that's something johnwade asked me about when I was asking him about libertarians. Is it a libertarian thing? Does it mean an unwavering inability or unwillingness to change one's position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for emotion funny you say that FnM, in my mind liberals are dominated by emotion.

 

 

which is EXACTLY the reason I started this thread John,

It's an often used accusation......

 

Yet to me it seems to be the opposite.

 

When I criticize Bush over FACTS, I am told that I hate him.

 

When I say that Bush's policies in Iraq have been disasterous and ensure failure, I support it wish FACTS. When RJ made an accusation that the Dems were responsible for the failures, it was supported only by emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that the Democrats and Conservatives on this site tend to rely on facts. The members of Team Republican and the lunatic fringe of the left operate solely on emotion. And the libertarians use fantasy as their basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chuckles I dont think its a libertarinan thing. Ive had these beleifs for alot longer than ive been a libertarian. Flexibility is fine, but in the end you have to beleive something or your just blowing in the wind.

 

FnM the reason RJ uses emotion in his blaming the dems for the failures is he is apartisan and the fact just dont support blaming the dems for everything. sure the dems have some blame, but they were not the ones making the decisions or setting the policy that led to the messes. I really think bush beleives (as do most of the kool aide drinkers) that his plans would be a total sucess but there was subversion by the dems that led to failure. scary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Core beliefs"... that's something johnwade asked me about when I was asking him about libertarians. Is it a libertarian thing? Does it mean an unwavering inability or unwillingness to change one's position?

 

 

What I have noticed is that Libertarians have dishonest debate. They construct their logic based on desired outcomes. They are against the Government doing just about anything but military and security functions. But they know these positions are unpopular. So they created tangental debates with desired outcomes. They don't want to eliminate the public school system, but they will introduce debates onto side issues with the intent to gut the system and make it fail. Vouchers, No Child left behind type testing programs.

 

It's WHY they seem to address every debate NOT by the facts at hand, but on the results generated by the conclusion. Global warming MIGHT have an economic impact as we adjust our actions and means of production. THEREFORE to admit the science leads to results they don't like. So they join the fight to deny it's existence. johnwade will openly lay these cards on the table...... He has demanded to know the solution, before he will admit the existence of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's fair to say that the Democrats and Conservatives on this site tend to rely on facts. The members of Team Republican and the lunatic fringe of the left operate solely on emotion. And the libertarians use fantasy as their basis.

 

 

lol try a fact it might agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What . They construct their logic based on desired outcomes. .

 

 

ummmm news flash.....all politcal debate is shaped by this.......the fact you dont agree with libertarian philopshy shouldnt cloud your judgement on this topic.

 

As for public school...im for shhutting them down entirely. But ill settle for vouchers as a stop gap if we have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FnM the reason RJ uses emotion in his blaming the dems for the failures is he is apartisan and the fact just dont support blaming the dems for everything.

 

 

which is the point of my thread John. I am called a liberal, I don't know if I am one or not.

But I don't believe that I engage in debates in this forum armed only with emotions. In fact those who are considered liberal on this site ALL seem to be factually grounded, Dude, Jonesy, Ibn, TJ all seem to construct fact based arguments. AND REAL FACTS they don't simply use a cut and paste Editorial to justify their positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ummmm news flash.....all politcal debate is shaped by this.......the fact you dont agree with libertarian philopshy shouldnt cloud your judgement on this topic..

 

 

I will get into many debates WITHOUT having a desired outcome.

 

I can discuss the reality of Climate change without trying to sell the answer.

 

I can discuss WHY Bush's plan for Iraq stinks on ice, without having advocating an alternative plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

intersting you feel people who argue based on facts all agree with you.

 

I agree the C&P crowd are hacks. Ive said that for years, I dont care what some columnist said, im interested in your point of view. I totally discount anyone who pushed an agenda using C&P. Its lazy and really doenst add much to the discourse. thats myopinion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will get into many debates WITHOUT having a desired outcome.

 

I can discuss the reality of Climate change without trying to sell the answer.

 

I can discuss WHY Bush's plan for Iraq stinks on ice, without having advocating an alternative plan.

 

 

discussing the reality of an issue is fine. but if you dont offer a solution then whats the point? ok the sky is blue its a fact, but if its supposed to be red, what is the solution? politics are about solutions, at least in myopinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.