• 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
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

That's cultural pluralism, not multiculturalism.
 
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.

The things you describe here are mostly based on religion. The problem is religion not culture, which I see as two separate things. It would be a lot better world if people gave up their emotional dependence on religion. The funny part is those people with that emotional dependence are usually quick to call the beliefs of others emotional.
 
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.

Its the same with any global warming debate. The debate is more driven by fears of regulation and by any level of science or facts.
 
The things you describe here are mostly based on religion. The problem is religion not culture, which I see as two separate things. It would be a lot better world if people gave up their emotional dependence on religion. The funny part is those people with that emotional dependence are usually quick to call the beliefs of others emotional.


Not remotely. For instance, Imperial Rome was based on conquest, slavery, and the exploitation of non-Roman populations for Rome's benefit. Rome was also rather callous (by modern standards) about life in general, especially the lives of non-romans. This was all about wealth and power, and the involvement of religion, to any significant degree, was merely justification-after-the-fact.

Arabic tribal culture includes elements of oppression of females, honor slayings of females, as well as violent revenge independent of religious beliefs.

Friends of mine who have lived in certain places in South America have told me about many negative cultural aspects of certain SA nations... endemic petty theft, rampant bribery and corruption among officialdom, widespread spousal abuse, severe income inequity leading to arrogance from the rich and apathy and unproductiveness from the poor.... none of which is directly attributable to religion.

In many cases, cultures or governments do what they WANT to do anyway, then abuse/misinterpret religion as a means of excusing/justifiying their actions..
 
Not remotely. For instance, Imperial Rome was based on conquest, slavery, and the exploitation of non-Roman populations for Rome's benefit. Rome was also rather callous (by modern standards) about life in general, especially the lives of non-romans. This was all about wealth and power, and the involvement of religion, to any significant degree, was merely justification-after-the-fact.

Arabic tribal culture includes elements of oppression of females, honor slayings of females, as well as violent revenge independent of religious beliefs.

Friends of mine who have lived in certain places in South America have told me about many negative cultural aspects of certain SA nations... endemic petty theft, rampant bribery and corruption among officialdom, widespread spousal abuse, severe income inequity leading to arrogance from the rich and apathy and unproductiveness from the poor.... none of which is directly attributable to religion.

In many cases, cultures or governments do what they WANT to do anyway, then abuse/misinterpret religion as a means of excusing/justifiying their actions..

You missed a big part of the point I was trying to get across. You stated that there was some truth to liberals being more emotional, and yet you are religious, which is the ultimate emotional dependence, not just ignoring any logic or facts, but actively avoiding them.
 
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.
1. We already have a common language. The majority of Americans speak English and the majority of immigrants want to learn English. It's the language of success and (dominant) culture here, so people learn it. If you are referring to an official language, I don't want that and I don't think we need that for national identity.

2. I don't entirely agree with you that American culture is based on liberty and opportunity for all. For most of our history, American culture has been based on liberty and opportunity for some. I think we've been steadily moving towards the ideal of liberity and opportunity for all, but I think it's ironic to fault other cultures for not valuing things that we haven't valued for much of our history and that a lot of Americans still don't value today. I also think it's inaccurate to say that such cultures would create serious conflict since they would actually blend in with certain aspects of American culture depending on who they want to prevent from getting liberty and opportunity.

3. My perspective on multiculturalism is that all cultures, barring the obviously psychotic ones, should be welcomed and then whether or not they fit in here will be "organically" decided.
 
You missed a big part of the point I was trying to get across. You stated that there was some truth to liberals being more emotional, and yet you are religious, which is the ultimate emotional dependence, not just ignoring any logic or facts, but actively avoiding them.


That's a matter of opinion, dear. You call it an emotional dependency based on active avoidance of logic and facts... I call it recognizing and accepting that there is truth beyond the material world.
 
1. We already have a common language. The majority of Americans speak English and the majority of immigrants want to learn English. It's the language of success and (dominant) culture here, so people learn it. If you are referring to an official language, I don't want that and I don't think we need that for national identity.

.


I'll bear that in mind the next 15 times that I run into someone who lives and works here but doesn't speak English.... that will take until probably.... Tuesday.
 
That's a matter of opinion, dear. You call it an emotional dependency based on active avoidance of logic and facts... I call it recognizing and accepting that there is truth beyond the material world.

You can call it what you will, but what you "recognize" is not logical, nor is it verifiable, and it is based on emotion.
 
I'll bear that in mind the next 15 times that I run into someone who lives and works here but doesn't speak English.... that will take until probably.... Tuesday.

Want to learn != already learned
 
You missed a big part of the point I was trying to get across. You stated that there was some truth to liberals being more emotional, and yet you are religious, which is the ultimate emotional dependence, not just ignoring any logic or facts, but actively avoiding them.

To some extent, indeed, however, some are more intellectual faiths than others. *fuels up the old debate about the "mind" or the "heart" in Christianity*
 
Want to learn != already learned


More like "been here five years and haven't made the slightest apparent effort" in many cases. I speak more Espanol than half those I'm talking about speak English, and I don't live in a Latin nation!
 
You can call it what you will, but what you "recognize" is not logical, nor is it verifiable, and it is based on emotion.


We'll be derailing the thread if this keeps up, but I'll simply say that is based on much more than just emotion. Much more.
 
I'll bear that in mind the next 15 times that I run into someone who lives and works here but doesn't speak English.... that will take until probably.... Tuesday.
I'm trying to figure out how you think this has any relevance for what I said.
 
More like "been here five years and haven't made the slightest apparent effort" in many cases. I speak more Espanol than half those I'm talking about speak English, and I don't live in a Latin nation!

It would take me longer than that to be proficient in another language. How many languages are you proficient at?
 
I don't think liberals hate cold people, and I don't think that conservatives hate touchy feely people; however, IMO believe that liberals are emotional usually from an idealist perspective while conservatives are emotional from a realist perspective. We need a balance of both of these. I side with the realist point of view more...
 
It would take me longer than that to be proficient in another language. How many languages are you proficient at?

If you were immersed in a culture where X was the dominant language, the language almost everyone spoke.... you think it would take you longer than five years to become reasonably proficient in it?

I doubt that. I took two years of Espanol in high school, about five hours a week 9 months a year, and at the end of that time I could hold a decent conversation in Spanish. I've gotten a bit rusty since due to lack of practice, but I haven't spent any siginficant time in nations where Espanol is the dominant language.

I speak English, a modest amount of Spanish, and a little Japanese. I am not truly fluent in anything but English, but I've had little reason to be and limited opportunity to practice. If I moved to another country where another language was spoken, one of my first priorities would be to become fluent in that language.
 
I don't think liberals hate cold people, and I don't think that conservatives hate touchy feely people; however, IMO believe that liberals are emotional usually from an idealist perspective while conservatives are emotional from a realist perspective. We need a balance of both of these. I side with the realist point of view more...

I wouldn't say one is more realistic than the other. I'd say they both want the best for America and want America to be the best but it's how we get to the best is where it differs. Economically, Conservatives typically align with a more "self" point-of-view while Liberals typically align with a "greater-good" point-of-view. Socially, the roles are reversed essentially.
 
I wouldn't say one is more realistic than the other. I'd say they both want the best for America and want America to be the best but it's how we get to the best is where it differs. Economically, Conservatives typically align with a more "self" point-of-view while Liberals typically align with a "greater-good" point-of-view. Socially, the roles are reversed essentially.

Very well said...
 
As a conservative, who semi-regularly reads these boards, I just wanted to let you know I got a good chuckle from that.

Just to clarify, since the OP felt the need to thank me, my laughter was due to the numerous emotional screeds one can read here, on a daily basis, from conservatives
 
I don't have a problem with a certain level of multiculturalism.

If you want to keep some traditions from your homeland alive within your family/community, that's fine. Celebrate Cinco de Mayo, go nuts over the World Cup, whatever. If you want your children to be billingual in your native tongue as well as English, fine. Cook your national cuisine, no problemo.

Where I think multiculturalism becomes a problem is when we try to view all cultures as equal, and refuse to define a certain set of core values as distinctly American values that ought to be universal across the nation.

For instance, we ought to have a common language, and it ought to be English because that's what most people here speak and it is our original common-tongue. If you and I are both American, but we are unable to communicate because neither of us speaks the other's language, THAT is a HUGE problem in achieving any sort of national unity or common identity.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what is the basic touchstone. People like different TV shows, different sports, different foods...yet we're all Americans.


A certain amount of multiculturalism is necessary, or you'd never be able to live near neighbors who who are fans of a different football team -or a different football. There is a point at which it gets to be overkill. I dont't have to like anything in your culture if I don't. I just have to let you do your thing.
 
A certain amount of multiculturalism is necessary, or you'd never be able to live near neighbors who who are fans of a different football team -or a different football. There is a point at which it gets to be overkill. I dont't have to like anything in your culture if I don't. I just have to let you do your thing.

That's just a form of cultural pluralism, which we had prior to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism's greatest impact in the United States is its notion of improving the status of minority cultures that had previously been ignored or outcast. In the US, we won't be fully implementing some of the more radical tenets of multiculturalism's proponents (mainly, cultural relativism), simply because we only needed multiculturalism to add an asterisk to our national identity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom