By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 21 December 2010
Edit Thread
Baalzamon said:
HappySqurriel said:
GameOver22 said:

Do you have any data on that claim or is it just a personal observation? The big difference between Republicans and Democrats comes down to the proper role of the state in relation to citizens. If you really look at most issues, they originate with the problem of government power. The big question is, "What roles can the government perform better than its citizens?" The fundamental ideals of both parties are not arrived at through emotional arguments. It comes about largely because of a different conception of how society functions. In other words, you could say they ground their arguments with different claims. Now on moral issues, emotional arguments are more prevalent, but this is true for both Republicans and Democrats.

It is just a personal observation ...

With that in mind, how many positions are taken by progressive individuals which don't resort to appealing to people's emotions by claiming someone (or a group) is being victimized? Can you name a political position of the left which at its core isn't an emotional argument?

@Happysquirrel: I think your explanation of the difference between the two is about as spot on as it can get.

@Gameover: In the broad aspect of it, yes, it has to do with how society functions.  But what exactly does that mean other than liberals thinking society functions best if an appeal to emotion is used and conservatives think society functions best if an appeal to logic is made.

You can read my previous response to Happysquirrel, but I do not think liberals think society functions best if an appeal to emotion is made. However, this was not really my main point. Both the Democrats and Republicans are going to ground their arguments with claims about how society functions or should function, and their policies are going to derive from or at least be consistent with these initial claims. These initial claims are not argued for by emotion or logic. These claims are just taken as self-evident truths, and these truths ground their policy stances.

After this point is reached, I do not see anything to make me say one party is more emotional or logical than the other. As I mentioned in my response to Happysquirrel, the fact that an argument is based on discrimination or victimization is not necessarily an emotional argument. It can still be based on a principle. Furthermore, even if someone makes an emotional claim, they can still provide a logical argument to support this claim.