• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Liberals Hate "Cold" People?

Mmm?

  • Yes, liberals are self-hating cold people.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
It was a general comment, and as I noted there are exceptions.

Chiefly, in debating liberals on issues relating to war, the military, gun control, and excessive social spending I find that I often run headfirst into emotion-based arguments that are impervious to reason.

Not to say that there aren't issues conservatives get emotional about. Patriotism is one that springs to mind.

Doubt it. Liberals are the first ones to invoke stats, science, education, etc. Remember, those are liberal arts, because they disagree with many of the EMOTIONAL tenets of conservatism and therefore are not excepted.
 
Doubt it. Liberals are the first ones to invoke stats, science, education, etc. Remember, those are liberal arts, because they disagree with many of the EMOTIONAL tenets of conservatism and therefore are not excepted.

Problem now is that both sides have their own stats on the same thing. It's freakin' scary.
 
Doubt it. Liberals are the first ones to invoke stats, science, education, etc. Remember, those are liberal arts, because they disagree with many of the EMOTIONAL tenets of conservatism and therefore are not excepted.

That hasn't been my experience. While both sides are prone to emotional reactions about certain specific topics, I have more commonly encountered liberals making arguments based on "appeal to emotion" in an absence of statistics or proof of concept, than the reverse.

But again, it depends somewhat on the issue. Conservatives have their hot-buttons just as liberals do, but usually about different things.
 
Both sides get emotional about things.

Conservatives? Talk about abortion, or gay marriage. Straight emotional response.

Liberals? Talk about war, or guns. Nuthin´but emotion.

Both sides do it, just on different subjects, and on some different levels.
 
One of the things liberals seem to have in common is a belief that people are naturally emotionally driven, and that anyone who isn't deserves to be suspected of guilt from the instant you meet them. If you're not active nor active in a compatible way, liberals really enjoy making a popular appeal to emotional misery, expecting those who feel differently to conform or be institutionalized.

I suspect this is why liberals support universal health care, welfare, environmental regulation, demographic equality, and labor reform. Ultimately, it's a psychological issue. Liberals just don't understand (or care) how different people can feel differently. They don't realize how everyone isn't born with fiery emotional gumption, and resist letting "cold" people take their time, planning out how to live their own lives.

It's like they deliberately want to sabotage cool minds in order to prevent them from getting ahead. That way, they become dependent on bureaucracy to fix their problems and help them assimilate into society. Besides, bureaucrats need jobs too. If it ain't broke, and you're a repairman, you need to break something in order to fix it.

This entire post is based on a false premise and is therefore irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I would have to disagree. I believe that some cultures are self-evidently superior to others. For instance, there's the culture of Afganistan under the Taliban, where schoolgirls were burned for daring to learn to read. There's are or have been cultures that were built on conquest and slavery, horrific exploitation of the masses by the rulers, denigration of women into virtual slavery, a general devaluation of life, disdain for education and science and progress, and so on.

Some cultures are better at promoting the greatest good for the greatest number; some suck at it. Some cultures tolerate and even promote constant petty thievery, quasi-random acts of severe violence, unbelieveably harsh punishments for relatively minor offenses, pandemic corruption, and institutional inequality.

In brief, some cultures are just plain ****ed up.

Others plainly and clearly promote productivity, prosperity, peace, honesty, ethics, virtue and benevolence far more so than most.

Another way of putting it is that some cultures are based on the best-possible solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma, and others are based on far less than optimal solutions.
1. I don't think all cultures are equal either and I also don't think many people believe that either which is why I believe this thread and your initial comment was based on a faulty premise: that multiculturalism, in any of it's noticeable forms, advocated the belief that ALL cultures are equal and in turn, worthy of integration into American society. This is why you don't see multicularists advocating that Taliban-like cultures should be welcomed here. So, we don't actually disagree on that point.

2. None of this changes the fact that when we evaluate the value of a certain culture, we are doing so from a particularly perspective. It may be "self-evident" that certain cultures are more economically productive (within the dominant economic system) and that others are more likely to ensure peace and survival. However, it's not "self-evident" that certain cultures are more preferable for human beings over others simply because human beings value different things and honor might trump survival for certain cultures. That is the one of the foundations of multiculturalism that I was talking about, the foundation that doesn't care if we have a common language or food or whatever.
 
The biggest difference, that I see, is that many on the left think that gov't should be able to demand "compassion" or "social justice" and that not having equality of outcome automatically indicates not having equality of opportunity. If I choose to help my neighbor in need, then that is charity, but if the gov't demands that I help your neighbor in need that is tyranny. The left NEVER agrees with this assertion.

The left sees ALL inequality of outcome or "need" as having been caused by, or as the direct result of, some mysterious outside force (that can never be quite defined or eliminated), well beyond the control of the "afflicted" individual. It matters not, to them, that the person is drunk, uneducated and poor because they made MANY bad choices in life, that is NEVER the "root cause", only the description of the "problem".

Thus the solution is NEVER to tell an irresponsible moron to get sober, get an education and get a job, it is always that public "help" is needed, and therefore deserved, to be provided by taking from those "more fortunate" folks (by gov't force) and given to that "victim", of course, with a generous amount skimmed off to support the "helpers" too.

Any that should DARE to object, to this nonsense, are said to be cold and mean.
 
Last edited:
Why do some people classify others solely by their supposed political lean?

Why does this thread even exist? What kind of a question is this? How am possibly supposed to answer this?
 
I'll disagree. Ever tried debating a Conservative on abortion? It's based almost exclusively on feeling. There is little scientific or philosophic evidence behind their claims. Also, I'd consider Conservatives more emotional when it impacts them as opposed to Liberals who are more emotional when it impacts others.

Or gay marriage, or "law and order". Again, this is a stupid, stupid thread.

Somebody, anybody, please; how's about a courtesy flush?
 
Why do some people classify others solely by their supposed political lean?

It's called pattern-recognition and it's how humans assess situations. Rather than considering that every situation might be different, we use experience to assess. Usually, that works, however, in the political arena, such as this thread, what we see is overgeneralizations that have little basis in reality. In politics, it's often a shortcut used by the most partisan who prefer to remain pigeon-holed in their lack of objectivity.

Why does this thread even exist? What kind of a question is this? How am possibly supposed to answer this?

You don't answer it since the thread is based on a false premise. What you do is point out the lack of accuracy and logic of the thread and move on.
 
Liberals do seem, in the general sense and with exceptions, to be more emotion-driven than conservatives or other ideologies.

As a conservative, who semi-regularly reads these boards, I just wanted to let you know I got a good chuckle from that.
 
Fair enough. Can I hang around and complain about it some more?

Nah. Move on. There are plenty of other threads that aren't so illogical where you can participate.
 
I'll disagree. Ever tried debating a Conservative on abortion? It's based almost exclusively on feeling. There is little scientific or philosophic evidence behind their claims. Also, I'd consider Conservatives more emotional when it impacts them as opposed to Liberals who are more emotional when it impacts others.

Woohoo, lets refute one vast generalization with another! I say next we start calling each other "barf-breath" and "dookie-brains"
 
Woohoo, lets refute one vast generalization with another! I say next we start calling each other "barf-breath" and "dookie-brains"

Of course they're generalizations. This whole thread is about generalizations. It's an "as a rule" thing. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Not every Liberal is a "bleeding heart" and not every Conservative is "emotional when it impacts them."
 
That is the one of the foundations of multiculturalism that I was talking about, the foundation that doesn't care if we have a common language or food or whatever.


This is where we run into some problems. Food is clearly a non-issue, but language is.

We NEED a common language. We're supposed to be all Americans, with a sense of common national identity. How much identity or sense of unity can you have with someone you cannot even talk with?

Another problem is that America is based on the Constitution, the rule of law, the rights of the individual, liberty and an opportunity for prosperity for all. If you have cultures taking root here that do not value these things, we are in for some serious conflict.
 
Liberals do seem, in the general sense and with exceptions, to be more emotion-driven than conservatives or other ideologies.


Emotion is not to be despised, though; it is one of the things that makes us human, along with intellect and opposable thumbs. Emotionless persons have many difficulties relating to others and to society. If humans were not sometimes motivated by emotions, by compassion, we could well end up with a very callous (if not brutal) society.

IMHO a balance is needed, but probably a balance that leans a bit more towards logic and reason than toward emotion.

Then again, I can show you conservative populism and we can see the emotion flow out of conservatism like a raging river.
 
you mean, like....why should Native Americans have to live with white Europeans?



I resemble that remark, (being some of both)...
 
I was accused of being racist in my "African American Heritage" poll despite not having a racist bone in my body.

Anyway, New York sucks. They indoctrinate students in multiculturalism from the time you're 4-5 years old.

I also attended a university with an extensive education program, and the next generation's teachers are very obviously reiterated in the same dogma, appealing to the garbage moral lessons they learned growing up.

It's so bad that if you're not a multiculturalist, then you're a racist.

No you where not. You had one post called the premise of your thread racist. You got accused of race baiting(you where in fact doing so). You where not accused of being racist. That is the cold, logical truth.

This thread is based on pure ignorance of what liberals think. It is simply you trying to put down those you disagree with, and doing it poorly.
 
It's called pattern-recognition and it's how humans assess situations. Rather than considering that every situation might be different, we use experience to assess. Usually, that works, however, in the political arena, such as this thread, what we see is overgeneralizations that have little basis in reality. In politics, it's often a shortcut used by the most partisan who prefer to remain pigeon-holed in their lack of objectivity.

Why do you liberals react so emotionally?
 
I resemble that remark, (being some of both)...

seriously, Europeans BROUGHT multi-culturalism to North America, South America, Australasia, Africa....and now they whine & moan about being "forced" to live with people who are different than them?????


seriously white folks, if you hate multiculturalism, blaim your ancestors for starting the whole thing in the first place
 
What we need is a working definition of the term "liberal."

Sometimes, it appears that the posts are describing a different species of hominid or something. "Liberals are warm and fuzzy, liberals like multiculturalism, liberals are this, are that"

What a lot of hooey.
 
Then again, I can show you conservative populism and we can see the emotion flow out of conservatism like a raging river.

Abortion is murder!

Gays are ruining marriage!

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
 
Back
Top Bottom