• 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
Fact based arguments are usually emotional. They assume that facts naturally reveal their importance.

Lolwut?
Value based argument are usually intuitive. Without stimulus, there's no activation, so you're only left with categorical judgment.

Values are based on emotional reactions to events, so I repeat: Lolwut?
 
Lolwut?


Values are based on emotional reactions to events, so I repeat: Lolwut?

Values are based on what's necessary for us to be important in the world. They don't have to do with our particular emotions at all.

1) Emotions aren't universal.

2) We don't choose our emotions.

Therefore, using emotions to derive values is unreliable.
 
Values are based on what's necessary for us to be important in the world. They don't have to do with our particular emotions at all.

1) Emotions aren't universal.

Neither are values.
2) We don't choose our emotions.

Therefore, using emotions to derive values is unreliable.

Neither do we choose our values.

Values are derived from emotional reaction of our own and those we observe of others to a given situation. If such a situation elicits a negative emotional reaction from us, we then decide we don't want such a situation as part of out value system. Whereas if it elicits a positive emotional reaction, we include it in our values.
 
Fact based arguments are usually emotional. They assume that facts naturally reveal their importance.

Value based argument are usually intuitive. Without stimulus, there's no activation, so you're only left with categorical judgment.

So basically you've eliminated all forms of argumentation on the grounds that they're are inadequate. Great. Let's just sit here and stare at each other in silence for a while.

I'm not sure many conservatives are actually conservative today. They can be transformed into civic national socialists very easily by pressing them on labor theory of value, hard work, and work ethic. I see this a lot in New York where conservatives are becoming increasingly tolerant of social liberalism just because they want to do business. They surrender to their emotions just to stay busy, and compromise on individual freedom of assembly if that means keeping the economy on a whole rolling.

As for your parents, I would guess your father's a liberal because he's surrendered to the system and doesn't believe he can stand on his own two feet. He's actually a conservative deep down, but pragmatism drives him otherwise.

Likewise, your mother's probably bossy and identifies with making other people work hard to get things done. If she could have more fun, she'd be a liberal any day of the week in order to enjoy her life without paying the cost. She's just too stubborn to realize that.

No True Scotsman fallacy ("they're not REAL conservatives, because all real conservatives are perfect!")

Your baseless psychoanalysis of my parents is pretty far off. My dad's actually the most independent and inventive person I've ever known and trust me, he's not a conservative. And what you said about my mother makes absolutely no sense and is internally contradictory, so I can't address it because, again, you're babbling incoherently.

Psychology isn't your thing. Don't quit your day job.

You are probably one of the most illogical, emotional debaters on this site. And you should really stop throwing rocks from within your own glass house.
 
Last edited:
Values are derived from emotional reaction of our own and those we observe of others to a given situation. If such a situation elicits a negative emotional reaction from us, we then decide we don't want such a situation as part of out value system. Whereas if it elicits a positive emotional reaction, we include it in our values.

Which of these are you talking about?

Hypothetical imperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categorical imperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
So basically you've eliminated all forms of argumentation on the grounds that they're are inadequate. Great. Let's just sit here and stare at each other in silence for a while.

Debate isn't supposed to take long. After it's finished, you're supposed to relate with who you're debating with and do something together.

No True Scotsman fallacy ("they're not REAL conservatives, because no real conservative could be illogical!")

...except I explained why because modern conservatives are obsessed with economics.

If you want a non-economic interpretation of conservatism, I'd suggest reading Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind. A book summary of it can be found here: http://www.alabamapolicy.org/pdf/kirkconservative.pdf

Your baseless psychoanalysis of my parents is pretty far off. My dad's actually a lot more independent and inventive than anyone I've ever known and trust me, he's not a conservative. And what you said about my mother makes absolutely no sense and is internally contradictory, so I can't address it because, again, you're babbling incoherently.

Really?

Why do your parents hold their beliefs then?
 
Debate isn't supposed to take long. After it's finished, you're supposed to relate with who you're debating with and do something together.

What does this have to do with the fact that you just eliminated all forms of argumentation from consideration?

And, who says? Not all issues are simple enough to solve in an afternoon, and if you think they are, you are in serious need of a basic education. And since when is there some obligatory post-debate outing?

...except I explained why because modern conservatives are obsessed with economics.

If you want a non-economic interpretation of conservatism, I'd suggest reading Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind. A book summary of it can be found here: http://www.alabamapolicy.org/pdf/kirkconservative.pdf

So you just admitted that you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Newsflash: "conservatism" means different things to different people. There are any number of ways to interpret its basic tenets, none of which are any more "correct" than any other.

Really?

Why do your parents hold their beliefs then?

You're assuming one must be dependent on the state in order to be a liberal? Since when? I'm not. Most liberals I know aren't. And I certainly know some conservates who are dependent on the state.

Why anyone holds the beliefs they do is almost always far more complex than the Tinker Toy version of psychology you just trotted out. My dad believes what he does, and my mother believes what she does, because it's what makes sense to them for an array of reasons which have taken place over their 60+ year life spans.

It's not as simple as "liberals are reliant on the state and conservatives like to make other people do their work for them." That is a childish, simplistic, irrational way to see the world. Which is pretty much what I expect from you, which is what makes your OP so ironic.
 
Last edited:
What does this have to do with the fact that you just eliminated all forms of argumentation from consideration?

Not to be a wise guy, but I don't think you're really looking at what you're writing here.

I'm eliminating forms on purpose. The point of debate is to focus on formulation, not particular forms themselves.

Debate focuses on how people bring forms into existence, not whether or not a particular form is beautiful.

And, who says? Not all issues are simple enough to solve in an afternoon, and if you think they are, you are in serious need of a basic education. And since when is there some obligatory post-debate outing?

Post-debate outings are when you experience forms. That way, you show appreciation to the other side for coming to a mutual understanding.

So you just admitted that you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Newsflash: "conservatism" means different things to different people. There are any number of ways to interpret its basic tenets, none of which are any more "correct" than any other.

Conservatism requires conserving something. The only way you can conserve something is if you have an idea in mind.

Economics is the means to that end, not the end itself. You can't have property without properness.

You're assuming one must be dependent on the state in order to be a liberal? Since when? I'm not. Most liberals I know aren't. And I certainly know some conservates who are dependent on the state.

Why anyone holds the beliefs they do is almost always far more complex than the Tinker Toy version of psychology you just trotted out. My dad believes what he does, and my mother believes what she does, because it's what makes sense to them for an array of reasons which have taken place over their 60+ year life spans.

It's not as simple as "liberals are reliant on the state and conservatives like to make other people do their work for them." That is a childish, simplistic, irrational way to see the world. Which is pretty much what I expect from you, which is what makes your OP so ironic.

The State is just a mechanism. It institutionally conforms everyone rather than letting people organically define their own culture.

Whether someone depends on welfare or not doesn't matter. Liberals take pride in education, infrastructure, health care, social work, and pensions as State programs.

There are many conservatives who depend on the State, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy from being incapacitated by, and addicted, to it.

You might want to read this segment from my link:

With The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton established himself as one of the most influential expositors of the U.S. Constitution. His political principles, says Kirk, were simple: he was suspicious of local or popular impulses and believed security from a leveling influence lay in a firm national authority. America would not have a unitary central government, so he settled for a federal one, energetically advocating for it with his contributions to “The Federalist” and other pamphlets. According to Kirk, though, his idealism had its flaws. It apparently never occurred to Hamilton that a centralized government could be a leveling and innovating government, nor did he bet on the social changes brought about by the industrialization of the North that he desired. Hamilton was a practical man of great ability, but those abilities, Kirk tells us, “had for their substratum a set of traditional assumptions almost naïve; and he rarely speculated upon what compound might result from mixing his prejudices with the elixir of American industrial vigor.”

Hamilton did not anticipate the stubbornness of the state and local governments in resisting the centralization of power. He thought his program for a strong national government would eventually eliminate these obstacles “by provoking a civil war which did more than all of Jefferson’s speculations to dissipate the tranquil eighteenth-century aristocratic society that really was Hamilton’s aspiration.” Kirk sees Hamilton as well-intentioned but inadequate to the task he set for himself. He was a man of particulars, who never penetrated far beneath the political surface to the “mysteries of veneration and presumption.”
 
Last edited:
Not to be a wise guy,

Oh trust me, I would never accuse you of that.

but I don't think you're really looking at what you're writing here.

I'm eliminating forms on purpose. The point of debate is to focus on formulation, not particular forms themselves.

Debate focuses on how people bring forms into existence, not whether or not a particular form is beautiful.

What does this babble have to do with using logic and facts in argumentation? Oh yeah, nothing.

Post-debate outings are when you experience forms. That way, you show appreciation to the other side for coming to a mutual understanding.

Uh, ok. You can perform whatever meaningless rituals you like I guess. But that sort of begs the question why you're debating on the internet.

Conservatism requires conserving something. The only way you can conserve something is if you have an idea in mind.

Economics is the means to that end, not the end itself. You can't have property without properness.

More senseless babble. Conserving something has nothing to do with anything you just said. What you just said wasn't even meaningful in the English language.

I know philosophy professors who would be shooting themselves in the head right about now, if they were reading your posts.

The State is just a mechanism. It institutionally conforms everyone rather than letting people organically define their own culture.

Whether someone depends on welfare or not doesn't matter. Liberals take pride in education, infrastructure, health care, social work, and pensions as State programs.

There are many conservatives who depend on the State, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy from being incapacitated by, and addicted, to it.

You might want to read this segment from my link:

Ok. So you're able to quote people far more literate than you, and post things they have written that are in no way related to the subject, any of your prior posts, or anything I said. Beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Oh trust me, I would never accuse you of that.

What do you mean? Are you saying I'm not witty, or that you think I'm a wise guy all the time?

What does this babble have to do with using logic and facts in argumentation? Oh yeah, nothing.

Using logic is formulation.

Are you familiar with set theory? Literally, logic is drawing categories to show how we organize our perspectives and judgments.

Uh, ok. You can perform whatever meaningless rituals you like I guess. But that sort of begs the question why you're debating on the internet.

More senseless babble. Conserving something has nothing to do with ideas. In fact, it's sort of the opposite of that. How can you conserve a new idea?

Ok. So you're able to quote people far more literate than you, and post things they have written that are in no way related to the subject, any of your prior posts, or anything I said. Beautiful.

Why are you mocking me?
 
What do you mean? Are you saying I'm not witty, or that you think I'm a wise guy all the time?

Oh my goodness, Dak.

Using logic is formulation.

Are you familiar with set theory? Literally, logic is drawing categories to show how we organize our perspectives and judgments.

Yes, but you obviously don't. Set theory is a branch of mathematics. Applying it to a discussion such of this is unwieldy and ridiculous.

Why are you mocking me?

Oh my goodness, Dak.
 
Yes, but you obviously don't. Set theory is a branch of mathematics. Applying it to a discussion such of this is unwieldy and ridiculous.

It's more than that. Set theory is used in comp sci to evaluate linguistics.

Oh my goodness, Dak.

Guess you're having another one of those funny heart attacks again.
 
It's more than that. Set theory is used in comp sci to evaluate linguistics.

Perhaps so, but it's still a ridiculous way to approach more abstract or real world debates, and the fact that you don't understand that explains a lot about the way you debate. It's like using string theory to explain how a light bulb works. Perhaps it's possible, but what a god-awful way to go about it. And it's made worse by the fact that you can't, because you don't understand the concepts well enough to even explain the concepts themselves, let alone apply them to something totally outside their intended purpose.

Guess you're having another one of those funny heart attacks again.

:doh
 
Last edited:
Perhaps so, but it's still a ridiculous way to approach more abstract or real world debates, and the fact that you don't understand that explains a lot about the way you debate. It's like using string theory to explain how a light bulb works. I'm sure one could, but what a god-awful way to go about it. And it's made worse by the fact that you can't, because you don't understand the concepts well enough to even explain the concepts themselves, let alone apply them to something ridiculous.

I'm not familiar with a less unbiased approach than considering how people compose categories.

Anything else depends on humor, and that depends on political correctness. If you come from a politically incorrect background, then society relegates you to a second class debater.


Well it's not my fault you can't control yourself!

Is it?
 
I'm not familiar with a less unbiased approach than considering how people compose categories.

Anything else depends on humor, and that depends on political correctness. If you come from a politically incorrect background, then society relegates you to a second class debater.

Then what you're saying is you're not familiar with the real world. I'm not surprised.

Oh, I don't know about that. Some of the very best debaters on the intellectual stage are some of the least politically correct. Stop blaming your own performance on everyone else, Dak.

Well it's not my fault you can't control yourself!

Is it?

You just make it so easy.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't you agree that "hate" is an unneeded word? If you label all liberals as hating "cold" people, you're going to deserve some ire.

This is obviously a bait thread, because if it weren't it wouldn't have four options that try to make liberals look bad. Do you know what a qualifier is? Maybe you should start using them.

That said I'll agree that there are some liberals who are overly emotional and demonize those who don't submit to their emotional beliefs. One needs only look at the Sex and Sexuality forum for good examples.

There's not much else to say. You created a bait thread that's clearly unfair. It's likely no good discussion will come from it.
 
Reasonability in that sense is emotional. It depends on what you believe is an adequate lifestyle which depends on your utility preferences.

Again, reasonablity and emotion are two different things. An unemotional cop on a call knows what's reasonable and what's illegal. The same goes for the liberal set: it doesnt take an emotional reaction to know what's right and wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom