19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Emotional gambling (view source)
Revision as of 16:14, September 3, 2008
, 16:14, September 3, 2008→Riots
:::::: I think the sports analogy is superb, as the outcome is meaningless, thereby highlighting the role played by the [[emotional gambling]]. I'm less keen about the political example, because there the outcome is meaningful and some of the concern or reactions may have nothing to do with "gambling".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I think the sports analogy is superb, as the outcome is meaningless, thereby highlighting the role played by the [[emotional gambling]]. I'm less keen about the political example, because there the outcome is meaningful and some of the concern or reactions may have nothing to do with "gambling".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
==liberal vs conservative==
I don't want to edit war on this but I'm not buying this statement:
:While conservatives tend to only become emotionally invested in their causes and candidates, liberals tend to emotionally gamble. For instance, liberals emotionally gamble on the success or failure of Barack Obama.
:Evidence of this emotional gambling is seen in the "win at all costs" attitude of the RNC protesters who attacked, among others, a bus full of cub scouts.
First of all, since the definition of Emotional gambling according to this article is investing one's emotions in an uncertain outcome, by stating that conservatives are emotionally invested in McCain and his causes, they are by definition emotionally gambling, the same way as liberals are. They're doing exactly the same thing. I guess the reference to the protesters is supposed to show that liberals are ''more'' emotionally invested, but that doesn't seem too convincing either. If you're arguing that liberals are more emotionally invested, you're only arguing the matter of degree, not that one side gambles and the other doesn't. Next, the "win at all costs" is hardly an accurate description, as even if they do support Obama (which is arguable, if they are ''true'' anarchists they support no candidate, if they the lunatic fringe of the left, they'll likely support a fringe candidate) their actions are clearly doing nothing to help him win. Finally, a few dozen radicals cannot be said to represent the millions of Obama supporters in the country. If they are, what about the guys who allegedly planned to kill Obama in Denver? ''That'' is certainly "win at all costs". Oh, also, was the cub scout story ever confirmed? All I saw was the report of one person on a blog. I'm certainly not saying it didn't happen, but has anyone else conformed it? There should have been hundred of witnesses. People can and do make things up at times, as we've all seen. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 12:14, 3 September 2008 (EDT)