Emotional policy

A trend I have noticed is using an extremely specific example to "debunk" a high macro level policy/concept. I have a liberal bias but I definitely see it go both ways.

A couple of examples that come to mind.

When talking about restricting access of individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm multiple times I heard reference to what if a little old lady in rural Oklahoma were accidentally placed on that list. She should be able to purchase a gun for her safety and she shouldn't be stopped due to accidentally being placed on the list.

When referring to a ban on muslim immigration reference will be made to a particular individual not to statistics for general population based statistics.

I find this interesting because they connect with people on an emotional level which is fine one on one but in terms of policy seems like a poor way of making decisions. Thoughts?

 

People is dumb.

 

My thoughts are that @Sokolov will probably have a lot to say on the topic

I think there are some layers to this however.

One: Is the emotive argument the source of the policy, or just a means to try and implement the policy? Is it even relevant to the actual reason that the person(s) want to implement the policy?

Two: How reliable is the relevant data? For example, while it's true that the majority of Muslim (and others from the region) refugees entering the EU (and the UK, now that they aren't going to be the same group apparently) are not criminals, want to escape, etc...

It seems based on what I've heard so far that the incidence of crime among that group is also higher. Part of that is the natural issue of disenfranchised people, but there is a greater percentage of people within that demographic which outwardly express hatred or contempt for others in their host nations. Likewise for people promoting or condoning crimes or violent actions. Again, this isn't a majority, but it is an increase relative to the status quo of the host nations.

Without an effective filter to only let the "good" people in, some have suggested to refuse all of it, using specific examples... but it could be that they are also considering the numbers and statistics even if they don't "look convincing" relative to individual stories.

*shrug*

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Personally, while I'd rather have a better "filter" I think the entire problem is largely overblown (and in some cases self-fulfilling) and that criminals should be treated as criminals regardless of demographic. With, I suppose, the added option of deportation for immigrants if it's necessary (but if they are refugees that's not always a good option for a number of reasons, including human rights).


But the point is that emotive arguments, or statistical arguments for that matter, aren't always the source of the desired policy change/reinforcement, but rather a means to an end.

Emotive arguments make better short clips which often suit modern media, while data and statistics require a certain level of intellectual foundation to exist for people to even understand them. (I also think such a foundation can be relatively easily built even with mostly casual interaction, but that's a different topic, sort of.)

 

Hey, I made this exact same post earlier today (less fancy words, but the same examples and the clear disconnect between the two)

 

less fancy words though...

 

I blame non-native speaker

 

Appeal to emotions is where the political term "bleeding heart" came from I believe. I agree it is a poor way of making decisions but unfortunately that's how a lot of immigrant rights groups and politicians advertise to govt. and voters to get their policy passed. America has become the great charity foundation of the world as we are supporting half of the immigrant population with some kind of welfare. What many voters view as their compassion towards the downtrodden foreigner is abused by politicians in order to gain access to a larger demographic of voters in the refugee population being imported to America. Emotional appeal=suckers to be exploited by politicians. My favorite example of an emotional president who's policies reflected his bleeding heart was Jimmy Carter who did nothing to stop the mass immigration in 1980. I bring to the floor the "Mariel Boatlift" incident that lasted from April-October of 1980. Thousands of Cubans disgusted with communism and Fidel Castro stormed the Peruvian embassy seeking political asylum until Castro said "GTFO". Cuban boat owners in Florida rushed to the rescue to help their countryman. Jimmy Carter and most of the other sheeple americans just loved the euphoric emotional feeling of watching these Cuban refugees being united with their families and so nothing was done to control or stop it. HOWEVER Carter was also unable to stop Castro sending over thousands of criminals released from prisons, and psychopaths released from Cuban insane asylums along with the other Cuban refugees. What resulted from 1980-1983 in the United States was a crime wave of epic proportions along with a number Cuban intelligence agents spying on America.


P.S. Brian De Palma was inspired to created the ultra violent movie "Scarface" as a result of the crimewave created by the "Mariel Boatlift" mass immigration of psychos and criminals. Thanks Jimmy Carter "Scarface" would not be possible without your emotional weakness for Cuban refugees.

 

Astamir, are you denying the Mariel Boatlift occurring? I remember reading about it in the news. It did happen. No one will ever know how many 'undesirables' were a part of it. Was it hundreds? Thousands? Who really knows? Certainly a nation the size of Cuba could have thousands. You don't know that it didn't happen anymore than profhulk knows that it did happen at that level. I would consider it dictator malpractice not to get rid of undesirables and slip in spies as a part of it.

Now getting back to the thread topic, the 'no fly, no gun' idea is an emotional satisfying concept. The problem is making the policy that doesn't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' or cause damaging side effects. The problem is you are denying a person their 2nd Amendment right based on a suspicion. Also what is the process of determining the list?

Earlier this week Andrew Napalitano had an excellent column on this.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...nment-why-no-fly-no-buy-means-no-freedom.html

Frankly if someone is that potentially dangerous to be properly put on such a list, they should be arrested and charged.

 

His job is not to help others understand or discuss why? Astamir's job as an elite Canadian hipster filled with immense knowledge on economics and politics is to troll the living sht out of anyone that has an opinion contrary to his uber elite worldview which can do no wrong. He must demonize every single American with a conservative view by calling them mongoloids and fundamental gun toting Christian terrorists. The axis of Astamir/Burn Pyro/Geressen must triumph over all other silly ignorant conservative idiots for dissenting opinions are wrong and the opposition must burn in hell

 

you can't see past your ignorance because you've lived in your ignorance all your life

if you'd know how other countries worked, countries that aren't cuba or Iran, perhaps you could see why the overal conservative American viewpoints are absolutely ridiculous at times. Maybe not, maybe you're too far gone already, who knows. Older people don't change opinions easily.

But what you're playing victim about now, is the same you do to muslims/foreigners/liberals/whoever. You're willing to demonize all of the muslim world, but you everything you do must be perfect.

Big mouth, little heart

 

Not true. I understand the mass immigration of the 125,000 Cubans during the "Mariel Boatlift" increased the local florida workforce by 7% 1980-1983. The amount of crime that occurred along with that mass immigration out weighs the benefit to the economy those Cuban refugees brought to the state of Florida in my opinion. Taking into account there was also a prison riot in Atlanta in 1983 when they wanted to send these Cuban criminals back to Cuba which resulted in multiple deaths. All in all I think the "Mariel Boatlift" cost more trouble than it was worth and I think Jimmy Carter and other politicians were making decisions based on how they felt rather than using common sense. I mean isn't this an example of what Gaverion talked about in his opening post about people making decisions based on emotion? Instead of refuting what I said you all demonize me because I sound xenophobic and my narrative doesen't fit your beautiful socialist utopia for the millennium. Stay on topic. "Emotional Policy".

 

I think maybe a lot of that is because of the specific circumstances of the mariel boatlift.

Also lol the people who fled from a communist country rioted to stop themselves being sent back to that country? wow who could have seen that coming? (literally everyone)

 

I use the "Mariel Boatlift" as an example because it shows how a typical "bleeding heart" democrat like Jimmy Carter reacted to seeing thousands of illegal refugees flung into boats by the magnanimous Fidel Castro. I believe the words of Jimmy Carter were "Let us have an open heart open arms policy" to the 125,000 mariel Cubans reuniting with their families in Florida. Example of emotional policy going wrong. It was estimated that 16,000-20,000 of these refugees were the prison inmate/asylum population secretly packed in with the rest of the mariel 125,000 Cuban refugees. To a competent president using common sense this kind of bullshit pulled by Castro would have been seen as an act of war.

 

Wanker

You made it off topic, then crawled right back out of the discussion when you got roasted and had no way out without looking like a fool. I'll be happy in a good 40 years from now when all you all ***s are done voting, when Fox News is gone out of business and when we'll be able to get some real policies in place, without people disregarding facts left and right, seeing conspiracy theories everywhere, but most of all, I'll be happy that a bunch of arrogant retards that revel in their own ignorance as if it were something to be proud off will be gone by then.

 

You are an excellent example of someone reacting emotionally. I fear for the future should you ever placed in a position of government.

 

true, but using the example given to argue against helping the many refugees in situations now is also making decisions fueled by emotions.

 

So I was actually more interested in the phenomenon of mass policy decisions based on anecdotal proofs. Another example, when it comes to the European refugee crisis last year there was a picture of a child who washed up on the shore dead. It was seen as a deal changer at the time.


I also feel that it's worth noting that a moral choice and an emotional choice while often confused are very different.