Question

Why do some people believe that liberals only rely on emotion in arguments and not logic or facts?

Answer 1

Liberalism is based upon what makes you FEEL GOOD and it's the easiest type of political thought.. . Conservatism is based upon doing what is right even if you don't feel good about having to do it. It requires the use of logic rather than emotion when making important decisions.

Answer 2

Because liberals are dumb! Who needs them???. . . . dp

Answer 3

The same reason George W. Bush uses September 11th in every speech he gives: emotion gets the attention of the people way better than straight facts. And oh yeah, it's not JUST the liberals that are using only emotion. I distinctly recall the words "boring" used to describe Al Gore AND John Kerry and "emotion" doesn't seem to strike me as "boring." Maybe that's me though.

Answer 4

Have you got any specific point narrowed down, or do you prefer broad generalizations?

Answer 5

Ah,a conservative rant disguised as a question.Interesting.. . I've asked the EXACT SAME QUESTION about reactionary conservatives.. . Also,why this nationalism that the USA can do no wrong in foreign affairs,such as American servicemen killing civilians?. . I think the facts of the Bush administration are ignored by his biggest cheerleaders.

Answer 6

Facts? You want facts? Lets discuss 9/11 with facts only. No logic, no emotion. Ready?. ---------------------. PS:. . Alright, so you responded saying you like facts. Fine lets get started. I won't use circumstantial evidence but simply physical evidence. Lets start with the easy ones first.. . 1.) WTC 1 & 2: Countless videos have shown the way these building came down. The time it took for the top of the building to fall was in step with free fall time from the top of the building. If the progressive collapse or "pancaking" theory is correct then for 110 floors to come down should take approximately 96 seconds. Elementary physics. However these buildings dropped in about 10 seconds each. Free fall time from the top of these buildings: 9.2 seconds. Want to explain that fact to me?. . 2.) Same argument for WTC 7. Again time to collapse matches free fall time. Progressive collapse should have taken approximately 40 seconds. Care to explain that as well?. . 3) The only way the buildings could have come down that fast is if the lower floors started collapsing EVEN BEFORE the floor above it reaches it. Anybody care to explain?. . points 1, 2 and 3 can be further studied in source #1. . 4) Agreed the fires on WTC made the buildings made the columns weak and the thing started coming down. But why do we see in the videos that the part ABOVE the impact zone blow into powder? There is no force ABOVE the building so why didn't the top of the building come down nearly intact before hitting ground?. . 5) The top of WTC 2, when it started to collapse, rotated out of the base area of the building. What laws of physics caused it to rotate back?. . 6) The towers were coming down. The only force acting on it was GRAVITY which acts DOWNWARDS. In the numerous videos what explains the debris moving sideways and upwards?. . Just how many laws of physics do you expect someone to suspend in order to believe this bullshit?. . 7) Pentagon! A plane hit the building. And traveled approximately 235 feet through concrete to punch out of the third ring. Remember the number 235 feet. The WTC towers are square shaped with each side being 208 feet. So if a 757 punched through 235 feet of steel reinforced concrete, why didn't a 767 emerge from the opposite end of the WTC towers made of steel and glass (instead of concrete!) only 208 feet away. 767s are bigger heavier and at least the second one that struck WTC 2 was traveling faster (590 mph) than the plane that hit the Pentagon (530 mph). The first WTC impact was at 470 mph. In any case the 767s had more kinetic energy than the 757 that hit the Pentagon. why didn't the 767's simply pass through the 208 feet of the towers and emerge on the other side if a 757 traveling at a lower speed could go through 235 feet of concrete?. . 8) Stuff to be found in the fire in the WTC towers: jet fuel, plastic, paper, fabric -- all hydrocarbons.. ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame). Clearly the flame wasn't blue.. 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron . ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel. What melted the steel? Source #2 tries to explain this.. . There are many more points. Physics doesn't lie. These are simply facts that are incongruent with scientific truth. As I promised I didn't bring in circumstantial evidence. I am eager to see what/how you try to explain away physics. The conservatives accept the official explanation like the last truth on earth in the face of science. And you talk of liberals refusing to accept logic?

Answer 7

Hey was I told that I am better than everyone else when I asked a legimate question. I am a mere peasant in the general scheme of things. Liberals get offended when you ask a collective question. They are about that. Notice the double standards that they use when addressing plain folks. They care not about sensitivity but claim they care about the poor.This can't reconcile. Claim to be Christian yet don't practice it. Claim there a Plan for congress yet don't produce it. Say they are not moving Left yet hace a Huge leftist conclave in DC!

Answer 8

Why do conservatives love to make broad generalizations and stereotypical statements?

Answer 9

emotion sells, they "feel", where logic is non-feeling. Even when they use logic, they add and over-rule it with emotion and feelings. Liberals also face the issue that if they sit and look at all the facts, ther're arguments would fall apart and thay would ahve to agree on certain points, or prove things arn't as bad as they claim. Simply, logic would lose support, while pear emotion can sell.. . I can say that water boils at 212 Degrees which can easly be reached on a stove, but to sell water safty, I tell a story about a baby who was burned by boiling water while her Mom wasn't watching.

Answer 10

Your question would be a lot better if you could possibly give examples of the "logic/fact" we refuse to accept. It's a pretty broad generalization to say liberals, as a whole, do anything. Maybe you should use that logical brain God gave you to think of a better question.