Whoopie Was Right!

[ClayBarham]

In a recent Bill O’Reilly interview of Whoopie Goldberg, Whoopie defined the true difference between a Liberal and a traditionalist American. She told O’Reilly he differed with her because he “thinks,” whereas she “feels” about issues. That is the difference! In our earliest years, we emote and feel about the world around us. As we grow, our reasoning faculty develops and we mature to adulthood using more reason than emotion, or so it should be. We expect mature individuals to think things out, using their logic and reason to understand their world. We are supposed to fortify our reason with a sound education. Our schools today do not fortify reason, nor even support it. Reasoning and thinking is something individuals do, whereas community members “feel” about things. Whoopie, like all liberals, are immature “feelers” who emote their way through life. Conservative Americans generally rely on reason, thinking and reality to order their lives.

[Jaaaman]

Reasoning and thinking is something individuals do, whereas community members “feel” about things. Whoopie, like all liberals, are immature “feelers” who emote their way through life. Conservative Americans generally rely on reason, thinking and reality to order their lives.


That says it all right there! :P

[Saigio]

I'm confused here.
O'Reily thinks? Did I miss something?

[preservanation]

Yes!
How can one disagree or argue with feelings? Totally subjective.
Thus, they tend to rely on the media and propaganda filled with emotion, sympathies, word-play and semantics in order to spread their message rather than rely critical thought and honest debate.

Why do you think the fairness doctrin is making such a strong resurgence? The libs are trying to do the same thing here, through legislation, that Chavez is doing by force in Venezuela, eliminating contrary media and ideas.

[NortheastCynic]

Someone explain to me the logic behind not allowing two consenting adults to engage in sexual activities for money? While you're doing that, someone explain to me the logic behind preventing to men from being given the same legal rights as a man and a woman?

I'd agree that true, small government conservatives [Goldwater types] generally use logic and more specifically the Constitution to guide their ideology, I also believe that social conservatives/religious rightists do not.

-NC

[Labrocca]

Good post other than that I am gonna stay out of this one for now. :)

[ViolaLee]

There's this thing called a moral compass. Some of us have it, others don't. When you are listening to your moral compass, you are feeling.

If you don't have a moral compass, I guess you have to think hard about an issue to decide if it's right or wrong. Perhaps you think about how you will prosper by the decision. Without a moral compass, the world would be very selfish, greedy, stingy.....without liberals there would be no civil rights, freedom of speech, tolerance...

[Labrocca]

What does your "moral compass" tell you about abortion?

[ViolaLee]

What does your "moral compass" tell you about abortion?
It tells me it's wrong. I would never have one. But I believe in freedom of choice. I think there are already too many laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I believe in birth control and adoption. I advocate sex education to lower the abortion rate as was happening under the Clinton admin. I think teaching abstinance only, as Bush advocates, is very stupid and causes more babies to be aborted.

[Labrocca]

Without a moral compass, the world would be very selfish, greedy, stingy.....without liberals there would be no civil rights, freedom of speech, tolerance...

So basically you want to use the moral compass only when it suits your agenda?

Do we govern using LOGIC or EMOTION?

Torturing terrorists to gain information is logical imho.

[Buck Laser]

What does your "moral compass" tell you about abortion?
It tells me it's wrong. I would never have one. But I believe in freedom of choice. I think there are already too many laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I believe in birth control and adoption. I advocate sex education to lower the abortion rate as was happening under the Clinton admin. I think teaching abstinance only, as Bush advocates, is very stupid and causes more babies to be aborted.

Excellent answer, Viola!

I've been thinking about Clay Barham's post, and how he denigrates anything but rationality as a basis for forming a political philosophy, but I think you've nailed the moral compass idea. It isn't a rational thing, though reason must inevitably play a part.

Barham does demonstrate an important fact about rationality, however--that it's entirely possible to build a rational framework around totally fallacious assumptions. In his case, it's the cloud-cuckoo idea that the Puritans somehow shaped the American philosophy.

Another aspect of Barham's mistake is that he makes a totally false separation of human intelligence and emotion. Such a separation is a relic of the 19th century, and has no place in today's models of thinking. There really is no such thing as a rational decision entirely divorced from emotion, feelings, and the chemical activity in the brain that consitutes thought. Certainly reason has a role in many of the decisions that must be made at national levels. But political philosophies are as much determined by emotion as they are by reason. Barham knows that, but he doesn't want to admit it: if you want evidence of that, simply go back and see his sarcastic responses when I've questioned the relevance of his view before.

[Buck Laser]

Without a moral compass, the world would be very selfish, greedy, stingy.....without liberals there would be no civil rights, freedom of speech, tolerance...

So basically you want to use the moral compass only when it suits your agenda?

Do we govern using LOGIC or EMOTION?

Torturing terrorists to gain information is logical imho.

That doesn't get around the fact that it's wrong and contrary to US policy--until Bush brought in that asshole, Gonzales.

[Labrocca]

That's my point Buck. You can't say that illogical or unemotional laws can't exist. It's a balance imho.

Certainly though it would be dangerous to rely on a moral compass for laws because then abortion would be illegal. And yet if we dismissed the moral compass then things like torture would be legal.


We use our emotions and moral compass as FACTORS to decide things...we also use logic.

[Drocket]

Torturing terrorists to gain information is logical imho.

Actually, it's not. For one thing, torture almost never gains real information. Torture almost always gets you the information you want to hear, not the truth. Part of the information the Bush administration used to justify their claims of Iraq WMDs was information extracted under torture, and not too surprisingly it turned out to be nothing more than what the torturers wanted to hear. The idea that torture is useful is pure fiction.

Beyond that, torture breeds bad feelings. It doesn't matter how 'logical' you may think torture is, once you start down that path, the rest of the world is going to lose it's trust in you. It creates anger and resentment, the results of which will often be worse than the benefits of any information you may gain (assuming you manage to get any real information in the first place.)

Torture is not only immoral, it's just plain stupid as a policy.

[Buck Laser]

That's my point Buck. You can't say that illogical or unemotional laws can't exist. It's a balance imho.

Certainly though it would be dangerous to rely on a moral compass for laws because then abortion would be illegal. And yet if we dismissed the moral compass then things like torture would be legal.


We use our emotions and moral compass as FACTORS to decide things...we also use logic.

Actually, abortion wouldn't necessarily be illegal. There are too many cases where mitigating circumstances require a deviation from the moral rule. In the case of abortion, I would always and everywhere put the life of the mother as a greater priority than the life of the child. But in a Catholic hospital, the child's life would be favored if a decision must be made. I cannot accept that standard, even though I understand very well how the Catholic church comes to that conclusion.

[ViolaLee]

Consider Buck Laser's argument as mine as well. I agree with everything you said Buck and I can't add a thing. Cheers.

[preservanation]

Drocket:Torture is not only immoral, it's just plain stupid as a policy.

If we are attacked and we all lose friends and family because America did not do what was necessary to protect us, who will you blame? The UN, ACLU, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn, Dems in Congress, etc...?
No, I think it will be Bush. Bring on the impeachment hearings!

This is not a game and should not be treated as such.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But ( I ), *The Great CWN*, am a thinker as well.
2. I would love to feel, Islam isn't out to destroy this Nation, and all Non-Muslim Nations.
3. But it would just be a passing feeling, not the truth or logical.
4. I would love to feel that a baby in the womb wasn't a person, but the reality is, *We all start out the same way, as a few cells, then grow up from that.*
5. Making the begining of my existence, and in my thought process now, as important as my ending when I'm an old man prepared to die.
6. Its up to us to defend out thoughts, and the way we think, and use logic, if we as Nation survive.
7. Otherwise, we feel we're safe from Islam, and we all die, from useless attacks.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[ViolaLee]

Consider Buck Laser's argument as mine as well. I agree with everything you said Buck and I can't add a thing. Cheers.
And Drocket's too.

[ViolaLee]

Drocket:Torture is not only immoral, it's just plain stupid as a policy.

If we are attacked and we all lose friends and family because America did not do what was necessary to protect us, who will you blame? The UN, ACLU, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn, Dems in Congress, etc...?
No, I think it will be Bush. Bring on the impeachment hearings!

This is not a game and should not be treated as such.
It's not a game, that's correct. And our covert agents and undercover FBI sting ops and intelligence from people in the field and watchful eyes of our citizens is what is catching the terrorists in the USA before they can strike.

Torturing Iraqis and prisoners that have been in Gitmo for 6 years isn't keeping America safe. Tortured people say whatever you want them to say to make you stop torturing them. It's a fact.

Use common sense people.

[Drocket]

If we are attacked and we all lose friends and family...
So, is fear-mongering all you got to defend unproductive and immoral actions?

This is not a game and should not be treated as such.
It's not a movie, either, so stop trying to make government policy based on what you saw in a second-rate action flick.

[preservanation]

If we are attacked and we all lose friends and family...
So, is fear-mongering all you got to defend unproductive and immoral actions?I suppose Churchhill a was a fear monger and Chamberlain was the voice of reason.
I dare say you might change your position on coercerve interogation as your being led to the showers, or the rusty blade of a knife, held by a 12 yr old radicalized Muslim in this instance.

It's not a movie, either, so stop trying to make government policy based on what you saw in a second-rate action flick.
I'm sorry, I do not know of what you speak.

Let the people who's job it is to protect you, do their job without all the nattering.

[ClayBarham]

Yep, we must preserve the rights of the mother to decide if the child should live or die, and soon, it will be up until the child passes the terrible twos, when it is not convenient for it to live....and that is rational??? And, whosoever says torture doesn't work is simply regurgitating the propaganda of the left and those who don't want torture to work, and that too is rational???? I venture to say that, anyone taking that stand who has a vile kidnapper of their child or spouse tied to a chair will take the emotional position to torture until the kidnapped one is recovered, will do do and justify it rationally. As to their being a difference between subjective and objective "mentality," you must be right that it is something dragged up from the past superstitions, even though, as a psychologist, I always found the distinctions practical and rational.

[Buck Laser]

Yep, we must preserve the rights of the mother to decide if the child should live or die, and soon, it will be up until the child passes the terrible twos, when it is not convenient for it to live....and that is rational??? And, whosoever says torture doesn't work is simply regurgitating the propaganda of the left and those who don't want torture to work, and that too is rational???? I venture to say that, anyone taking that stand who has a vile kidnapper of their child or spouse tied to a chair will take the emotional position to torture until the kidnapped one is recovered, will do do and justify it rationally. As to their being a difference between subjective and objective "mentality," you must be right that it is something dragged up from the past superstitions, even though, as a psychologist, I always found the distinctions practical and rational.


Barham, you're nuts, aren't you?

[preservanation]

Whatcha mean? He's a Psychologist. Must be smart.

[ClayBarham]

Nuts? Of course. Isn't everyone who believes in individual freedom and morality nuts? Isn't everyone who sees the difference between America and the rest of the rule of the few over the many world considered nuts? Isn't everyone who prefers liberty to socialist tyranny nuts? I think so, and I freely admit to being that kind of nuts. And no, psychologists are not smarter than cave men. They just ask the right questions.

[Buck Laser]

Nuts? Of course. Isn't everyone who believes in individual freedom and morality nuts? Isn't everyone who sees the difference between America and the rest of the rule of the few over the many world considered nuts? Isn't everyone who prefers liberty to socialist tyranny nuts? I think so, and I freely admit to being that kind of nuts. And no, psychologists are not smarter than cave men. They just ask the right questions.


Uh, Clay? You were ranting about emotion vs reason. Now you're into freedom and morality. My judgment stands. You're unhinged. Sorry!

[Buck Laser]

Whatcha mean? He's a Psychologist. Must be smart.

Oh, yeah, smart. But being crazy doesn't mean you're stupid. Necessarily, that is. Anyway, I think his degree is in sociology, and I've always figured sociologists were a little light in their loafers.

[NortheastCynic]

Wow, this thread's all over the place. The reason why the original post was wrong is because no one ideology has a monopoly on reason/logic. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.

-NC

[preservanation]

ClayBarham: And no, psychologists are not smarter than cave men. They just ask the right questions. Good answer:), but cavemen? Why did you choose that particular group of Homo sapiens?

[preservanation]

Wow, this thread's all over the place. The reason why the original post was wrong is because no one ideology has a monopoly on reason/logic. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.

-NC

Whoopie was wrong, that has already been established.

[quiet man]

In a recent Bill O’Reilly interview of Whoopie Goldberg, Whoopie defined the true difference between a Liberal and a traditionalist American. She told O’Reilly he differed with her because he “thinks,” whereas she “feels” about issues. That is the difference! In our earliest years, we emote and feel about the world around us. As we grow, our reasoning faculty develops and we mature to adulthood using more reason than emotion, or so it should be. We expect mature individuals to think things out, using their logic and reason to understand their world. We are supposed to fortify our reason with a sound education. Our schools today do not fortify reason, nor even support it. Reasoning and thinking is something individuals do, whereas community members “feel” about things. Whoopie, like all liberals, are immature “feelers” who emote their way through life. Conservative Americans generally rely on reason, thinking and reality to order their lives.

the difference is that he expresses himself as what he thinks instead of what he feels. whoopie expresses her self as her feelings on any particular subject as how she feels. guess that makes them both right!

[Buck Laser]

the difference is that he expresses himself as what he thinks instead of what he feels. whoopie expresses her self as her feelings on any particular subject as how she feels. guess that makes them both right!

I have to start by saying that I don't listen to O'Reilly. The only time I ever heard him was when he was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross on NPR about three years ago. He was an utter asshole, and got up and walked off the show. I just have a hard time seeing him as a rational man. Can someone help on this--convince me that O'Reilly is something other than bluster and bombast?

[Labrocca]

convince me that O'Reilly is something other than bluster and bombast?

Can't do that...it's really his job as a political commentator.

[underdawg]

As a liberal I can only speak for myself, but there are four things that I use to determine my moral compass.

1. Individual freedom to choose how to live your own life should never be taken away, and its limitation only happens when that freedom inhibits the personal freedoms of others.

2. The Golden Rule, that says do unto others as you would have others to do unto you.

3. Tolerance of those different than yourself.

4. Protect that which gives you life. Whether that be family, the environment, air , land water and the other life forms that we are interdependent upon.

I see the right as being mostly intolerant of those different than themselves, and tend to judge everyone else according to Christian interpretation of sin.

The Golden Rule for the right seems to be replaced by "Do to others before they do it to you."

I think the right only sees freedom in terms of financial freedom instead of personal freedom.

And as far as the environment goes, I think that the part in Genesis where God says man is to have dominion over all the earth, means that he has every right to exploit and destroy the world as his every whim. Because every Christian knows that Jesus is coming soon to destroy the world, so why save it.

I don't think that liberals just feel and conservatives just think. I just think that liberals and conservatives have different views of the world.

[ClayBarham]

Gee, Underdawg, you sound like a conservative. What you said about your beliefs fit most conservatives, so you don't like them? May I suggest you visit ClaysAmerica.com and tell me what you disbelieve about what is said there? Could it be possible that we believe alike and support people who do not believe as we? There is a rational way to view the world. Most of the "feeling" ways are those of immature children who have not grown enough to use their rational minds, or have been so indoctrinated at school to believe only the compassionate feeling mind works, kind of like parents who spoil their children because it feels better. They are the liberals who do not think through issues, but "feel" through them and believe that others must take care of those in need, but don't touch their money and property in doing it. Let me know your thoughts on the site.
Clay