Emotions or Facts?

[I think not]

Re: RE: Emotions or Facts?

no no no ITN ... not ANOTHER Bush thread ...
aaaaruuughghghghgh ... it's making me tear my hair out!

Please ... emotions vs facts ... give us non political types a rest!

Ok ... that was emotional.

Sorry, I didn't see your post till after I posted mine and by then it was too late.

 

[Cosmo]

:thumbup: Thank ya ITN!

 

[Reverend Blair]

Okay, let's use a non-Iraq example. Let's try not to mention Bush.

The facts support global warming theory. The emotional response is that it cannot be happening because it will affect both our quality of life and the ability of the established wealthy people and/or nations to earn money. Therefore the facts are ignored or, worse yet, replaced with failed and non-factual voodoo.

Is it wrong to get fired up at the denial of global warming deniers continuing to destroy our environment and putting our well-being at risk in response to their emotional denial of the facts.

The facts support the draining of Devil's Lake into the Red River watershed as being environmentally foolhardy at best. We know that there are plants and animals in Devils Lake that are foreign to the Red River system. We know Devil's Lake is highly saline. We know Devil's Lake is polluted with agricultural and industrial toxins.

The North Dakota government, operating on nothing more than the emotions generated by their land being flooded, tell us not to get emotional that they are willing to risk destroying the Red River system because when we look at their purposeful ignorance of the facts we get pissed off.

 

[ElPolaco]

The last time I got emotional in a political conversation was during a talk with a right wing evangelical Christian. I think it become that way for both of us since I'm a devout Christian, but also a left-wing pacifist. It passed from the political into the spiritual because we both claimed to profess belief in the same Saviour. He saw Him as sort of a sadistic war demon out and I saw Him as a loving Prince of Peace. Our emotions got in the way of objectively examining a concept such as the Thomistic "just war" belief.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Emotions or Facts?

The last time I got emotional in a political conversation was during a talk with a right wing evangelical Christian. I think it become that way for both of us since I'm a devout Christian, but also a left-wing pacifist. It passed from the political into the spiritual because we both claimed to profess belief in the same Saviour. He saw Him as sort of a sadistic war demon out and I saw Him as a loving Prince of Peace. Our emotions got in the way of objectively examining a concept such as the Thomistic "just war" belief.

It's almost impossible to discuss spirituality with Evangelicals.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

A wise man once said: "If you can take the emotion out of any situation, then and only then can you look at it logically". Powerful words that can be difficult to implement in one's own life. It's very hard to be honest with yourself at times. We are becoming an "Irrational People." That's to say we can rationalize almost anything if we lose site of the facts while gripping tight to the emotion or feeling. So then...is it possible for seemingly rational, intelligent, caring people...people of any walk of life to be blinded by their opinions...or their hatred? It happens all the time. Ask yourself if your politics and your opinions are based on emotion or facts!

Great post!!! ...

I believe the majority of people in our society are currently slaves to their own emotions. They are unaware of it however, that's why propaganda is designed to trigger an emotional response. If we all knew when we were making decisions based on emotions, then propaganda wouldn't exist.

It seems to me, and this is just my perception, that those who's opinions differ drastically from those of the majority most of the time, are the ones that tend to think more logically and less emotionally.

Of course, certain things will get anyone emotional, but where some people simply get agitated but continue to think logically, others let it dominate their decision making process.

 

[I think not]

A wise man once said: "If you can take the emotion out of any situation, then and only then can you look at it logically". Powerful words that can be difficult to implement in one's own life. It's very hard to be honest with yourself at times. We are becoming an "Irrational People." That's to say we can rationalize almost anything if we lose site of the facts while gripping tight to the emotion or feeling. So then...is it possible for seemingly rational, intelligent, caring people...people of any walk of life to be blinded by their opinions...or their hatred? It happens all the time. Ask yourself if your politics and your opinions are based on emotion or facts!

Great post!!! ...

I believe the majority of people in our society are currently slaves to their own emotions. They are unaware of it however, that's why propaganda is designed to trigger an emotional response. If we all knew when we were making decisions based on emotions, then propaganda wouldn't exist.

It seems to me, and this is just my perception, that those who's opinions differ drastically from those of the majority most of the time, are the ones that tend to think more logically and less emotionally.

Of course, certain things will get anyone emotional, but where some people simply get agitated but continue to think logically, others let it dominate their decision making process.

Right on the money Torture. 8) You got exactly what I was trying to convey.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

A wise man once said: "If you can take the emotion out of any situation, then and only then can you look at it logically". Powerful words that can be difficult to implement in one's own life. It's very hard to be honest with yourself at times. We are becoming an "Irrational People." That's to say we can rationalize almost anything if we lose site of the facts while gripping tight to the emotion or feeling. So then...is it possible for seemingly rational, intelligent, caring people...people of any walk of life to be blinded by their opinions...or their hatred? It happens all the time. Ask yourself if your politics and your opinions are based on emotion or facts!

interesting concept. ......and one many are well aware of.....

Many professions require separating "emotions" from facts. Medicine is one of them. If one got emotional each time a patient was diagnosed with a debilitationg disease,condition....one could not do the job effectively......and might as well take down their shingle and try another profession.

If a surgeon got "emotional" each time he operated and found a massive cancerous growth, a devestating brain tumor.....again....he could not do the job.

The issue is that all people are human beings , have emotions , just learn to "handle " them differently. Humans are not robots.

War is KNOWN to be devestating . Those are the facts. History has shown EVIDENCE of what WAR can do. Yet, the (fill in your own expletive) in the Whitehouse actually PROMOTED war. Ok.....was his decision "emotional" or was his decision rational.

(sorry Cosmos......about bringing up the "emotion laden" war.) Every war is saturated with emotion., grief, loss, devestation.

Let's do a for instance: Let's say he started this war on his version of logic. (qualifier here is HIS version) as there were insufficient FACTS to justify an invasion. That would make him a cold psychopath, who has other motives in mind......and it follows that he could LIE with such ease about something so devestating.

It also follows that he might be psychopathic enough to not feel any regret for his actions. According to how he continues to "justify" his actions......this is very likely the case. Psychopathic personalities lie , believe their own lies...and don't then think they are lying when they want something. In their pathological minds "they" are the centre of the universe and the universe is there for their taking. Psychopaths play word games with others. they are extremely manipulative. One could say that human emotions ,-particularly compassion are not built into their wiring.

The military has been programmed to be "unemotional"......and this is one way they can do, what they are asked to do. Yet...even they suffer from post related stress syndromes .

It is a more complex issue than simply "logic vs emotion".

Now.......if the two invasions were started on "revenge".....then it is emotional from the onset. This is most likely why leaders tap into the emotions of a population, stir it up, then ALL objectivity is lost. So .......maybe the theme of this might consider: objective data/ subjective data. .......and subjective responses.

quite thought provoking....

 

[I think not]

Thanks Ocaen, but I think the essence of the thread went a tad over your head. This isn't about how Bush decided to go to war, this is about facts being presented and interpreted by the populace.

For example. The justification for war were the WMD's, none have been found to date. If at some future point they will be found, many have already stated they will have been planted to find.

So how are these people reacting? On pre-conceptions and emotions, not facts because nothing has been presented yet. But in their minds, its already a fact.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Thanks Ocaen, but I think the essence of the thread went a tad over your head. This isn't about how Bush decided to go to war, this is about facts being presented and interpreted by the populace.

For example. The justification for war were the WMD's, none have been found to date. If at some future point they will be found, many have already stated they will have been planted to find.

So how are these people reacting? On pre-conceptions and emotions, not facts because nothing has been presented yet. But in their minds, its already a fact.

the items I mention.......are mere examples of logic vs emtion.

I do think that emotions come into play ......as more information is leaked. Now, if some have made an assumption in their own minds and are acting emotionally to this assumption. that can be expected in a society that puts such importance on secrecy.

Mind you......one has to consider this. Those that support certain actions/decisions...... will immediately use " no facts" to warrant an opposing opinion. And this might well be the case.---as facts are not forthcoming.

How are they reacting.?? and on what basis??? Seems they are drawing conclusions from the information available. Then there is the factor of insufficient data that "leans" a certain way.......and conclusions can be drawn.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

For example. The justification for war were the WMD's, none have been found to date. If at some future point they will be found, many have already stated they will have been planted to find

this is predictable human behavior. Ok.....why would they come to this conclusion (planted WMD) in the first place??? Lack of trust in the ones that have lied so much to date. Serious skepticism about the lengths the USG (for eg) would go to "defend " their lies. (misinformation)

Most know, it is not beyond the US(G) to do something like that and then spin it into a sensational item.

When a gov't /person loses this much credibility .......of course people become suspicious of anything that follows. (and rightly so)

now.....is suspicion an "emotional response".........or a cautious personal defense against being fooled continuously.?

 

[I think not]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

 

[Said1]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

the facts...but again.........as said indicates: the devil is in the detail..... :wink:

 

[I think not]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

The primary reason is that he already had WMD's.

 

[I think not]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

the facts...

Then if thats the case, how did he lie about WMD's since you are acknowledging Saddam Hussein possessed them?

 

[Said1]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

The primary reason is that he already had WMD's.

Depends on how you look at it. Off topic anyway.

 

[I think not]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

The primary reason is that he already had WMD's.

Depends on how you look at it. Off topic anyway.

No No, not off topic at all, thats part of the point. Perceptions.

 

[Said1]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

I thought the primary reason was to make sure he didn't have any? The devil is in the details isn't it.

The primary reason is that he already had WMD's.

Depends on how you look at it. Off topic anyway.

No No, not off topic at all, thats part of the point. Perceptions.

Yes, perceptions. I perceive the war to be about other things and do not dwell on the WMD issue.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I'll give you an example of what you say Ocean.

Fact: The President of the US said, Saddam Hussein has WMD's and the primary reason for going to war.

Fact: No WMD's have been found to date.

Fact: The President stated that WMD's may have been smuggled out of Iraq (I am saying that he said it is fact, not what he says)

Fact: The left-wing says WMD's smuggled out of Iraq is another neo-con lie

Fact: The UN confirms WMD's have been smuggled out of Iraq.

So what will prevail here? Your emotions or facts?

the facts...

Then if thats the case, how did he lie about WMD's since you are acknowledging Saddam Hussein possessed them?

the qualifier is : the detail and how this was presented. We do NOT have enough facts.............but curious to see, how this can continue to be twisted. There was no question about :WHEN Did he have them?? Furthermore no one specified what type he was supposed to have. No one specified where they were transplanted to. Too much evasiveness. A lawyer would sure have fun with this.........and this is probably why it was formatted this way. So the question remains.....did he LIE????or did he just spin the information to make it lean a certain way ? Don't think this is as black and white as some would like it to be. Insufficient accurate information.........insufficient facts. But as a rule......FACTS........supported by VALID evidence must take center stage. Yes, SH had them..........at one time. So the time frame is manipulated with a black white question.