This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - 🍁 Aria 🔮
Pages: 1 ... 239240241 242243 ... 352
7201
« on: October 03, 2015, 08:54:36 PM »
phenolic-tier.
the fuck does that even mean
Tarry/Dark/Heavy taste. As a chemical term, Phenols are similar to alcohol but have a different compound.
7202
« on: October 03, 2015, 08:49:53 PM »
let's get a mod to edit the OP with the actual original quote instead
yeah
There isn't much to discuss about the original quote unless you want to talk about French history and politics.
7203
« on: October 03, 2015, 08:48:45 PM »
Beer sucks, vodka is okay, whiskey is phenolic-tier.
7204
« on: October 03, 2015, 08:44:17 PM »
That statement was made in the mid-1800s by a French Prime minister on the topic of the French Republican Party, which is the right-wing of liberalism. Oh, and he was a French Republican too, the thing that he's supposedly looking down on by your view.
It isn't liberals making fun of conservatives, or vice versa. It's a general statement about the political spectrum of his party. The quote in the OP is taken ridiculously out of context to suit a particular political ideology.
7205
« on: October 03, 2015, 07:33:06 PM »
Let's jam?
Give me a funky bass line
I think it's time to blow this scene.
7206
« on: October 03, 2015, 07:29:05 PM »
Let's jam?
7207
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:32:43 PM »
I name my birds after characters from Friends and/or Smokey and the Bandit.
You have a better way to do it, faggot?
I know a little kid who calls all ravens and crows nigger birds.
I wonder where he picked that idea up from?
7208
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:28:43 PM »
I name my birds after characters from Friends and/or Smokey and the Bandit.
You have a better way to do it, faggot?
7209
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:26:50 PM »
I've never seen a bad Gyllenhaal movie before. He's the rare actor where I know that I will, beyond a doubt, enjoy a movie just by looking at the titlecard.
7210
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:24:56 PM »
SAA or nothing, faggot.
7211
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:05:20 PM »
Doing homework when I wanted to watch my favorite cartoons.
7212
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:59:42 PM »
dragon age origins is better
I love DA:O
But it's nowhere near the best game of all time lol. It's Baldur's Gate with an even more generic story.
Kys for having bad taste
Forget "best game ever", what did it do better than Baldur's Gate? The story is worse. Mechanically, it's the same thing. The only difference is isometric gameplay vs third-person. You can't even say characters are written better: they're likeable, yes, but definitely not better written.
7213
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:57:01 PM »
oh
7214
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:53:51 PM »
"Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head." Or, not conservatives are smarter than liberals, but the republicans of his time are smarter than those who aren't. Going by his exact words.
Yeah, still stupid.
It could be also be interpreted to mean that not challenging your held views, and evolving your perceptions, over the course of a decade is partial to selective bias. The guy was a 19th centuey French Prime Minister from what I've been looking over, so it's actually quite likely that his statement actually has absolutely nothing to do with the American party system at all. In which case, all discussion in this thread stems from a maladapted statement in more than one way. Which, yes, especially includes myself.
7215
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:46:57 PM »
dragon age origins is better
I love DA:O But it's nowhere near the best game of all time lol. It's Baldur's Gate with an even more generic story.
7216
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:42:36 PM »
In terms of how PSU has adapted the quote, I'll concede that it is quite biased toward one end of the spectrum.
But I still would say that the original quote is quite fair.
7217
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:26:18 PM »
No, it means traditional. The root word "conserve" means to protect, preserve, or sustain--to keep something the way it is. If we lived in a socialist society, it would be stupid to call capitalists "conservatives" because that would imply that capitalism is being preserved, which it wouldn't be. Linguistically, just going by the words themselves, it doesn't make sense.
It's like saying if someone is facing you, their right hand is actually their left hand, just because it's on your left. Conservative values are those which preserve personal autonomy. Liberal values are those which provide freedoms or rights to the people, which entails greater government influence. Again, not everybody. Definitely not everybody. So many people drop out of college early or don't even go at all. Ridiculous generalization. It is a general statement. You use generalizations for general statements. You don't say, "It happens 60% of the time in most cases" unless you just walked out of Anchorman. You might say, "FPS games suck", but still hold the belief that Half-Life 2 is good. It only works because it's general. I'd say it's more than implication. Even ignoring the implication, the quote still sucks ass, because it's such a colossal generalization. Generalizations don't make very good quotes. I've never said whether it should be something that you should always keep in mind. The question in the OP is whether you agree with the statement. Being that it is a general statement, it is agreeable.
7218
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:55:09 PM »
Reservoir Dogs, but any movie with Christoph Waltz is amazing.
7219
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:45:43 PM »
Age also only accounts for a tiny portion of why people lean conservative or liberal (within their generation); education, childhood development, socioeconomic status, and gender are much more deciding in terms of ideology.
Don't forget people's capacity for logic and reason, which is what I like to think a lot of my ideas are based off of. Which is what I was saying initially with my first post in this thread--the quote is negligent towards independent thought. That's why I think it's stupid.
The capacity for independent thought would fall under education; a person of higher education would have a greater capacity to form and use logic to establish a rhetoric.
Well, there you go, then. Point is, the quote sucks because it doesn't account for any of those variables.
Education being the most important one, in my opinion.
Not necessarily. The original statement (the one that should be discussed, if I may say so) uses the ages of 20 and 30. By the time you are 20, you would have a high school education and a small amount of college. By 30, you would have completed both. In that specific comparison, "older" is equivalent to greater education. The only stance that would alone be effected by age is possibly economic stances, for entirely personal reasons relating to taxes on income. The statement is good, it's just been contorted to try and support a specific ideology (mostly in relation to who said it). The entire problem with this translation is the implication that Democrat (conservative platform of the time) is outright superior to the alternative.
7220
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:41:20 PM »
Again, that doesn't make sense, but... okay.
Conservative means to restrict. In the case of socialism vs capitalism, Socialism entails less government restriction (liberalism), which means more government control and regulation. Capitalism (in a general statment) entails more restriction in government in relation to economic regulation (conservatism). In relation to social policy it means the same. Conservative means less government influence in society; liberal means more government influence. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be a liberal act by any status quo because it includes greater government involvement (in the case of civil rights, extending government protections to include more of the population).
7221
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:35:54 PM »
In terms of government, conservative always equates to restrictions.
7222
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:34:58 PM »
Uh, "socialism" and "conservative" are two economic terms that are essentially antonyms. Socialism entails a great amount of government oversight and control, whereas conservative entails greater restrictions on government. Reread what I said. You talk about how the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" shift over time. If we're going by the bare bones definitions ot the terms, liberals want change, and conservatives do not. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo.
If the status quo were socialism, I'd be a conservative. I'd want to conserve that system.
So I'm just saying--if that's how you interpret the quote, I guess that's your interpretation--I think it's a bit of a stretch.
I have to specify that to social institutions. In terms of economic policy, Socialism is and always will be liberal.
7223
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:33:11 PM »
Age also only accounts for a tiny portion of why people lean conservative or liberal (within their generation); education, childhood development, socioeconomic status, and gender are much more deciding in terms of ideology.
Don't forget people's capacity for logic and reason, which is what I like to think a lot of my ideas are based off of. Which is what I was saying initially with my first post in this thread--the quote is negligent towards independent thought. That's why I think it's stupid.
The capacity for independent thought would fall under education; a person of higher education would have a greater capacity to form and use logic to establish a rhetoric.
7224
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:31:32 PM »
No the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" have shifted over time. Conservative and liberal have always meant the same thing just as their names entail. Conservative = conservative amount of government or less government and liberal = liberal amount of government or more government.
They have changed in reference to views on social issues, though.
7225
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:21:42 PM »
Which is specifically why I said to let the statement stand away from who is saying it in this moment. I was.
I mean, sure, if we could somehow maintain a socialist society in America, I'd be a conservative, because I like socialism, and I think I'd be comfortable in that society. And capitalists would be liberals, because they'd want to change and go back to the capitalist system. That would be a liberal standpoint.
I still think it's a bit of a stretch to say that's what the quote is saying, though. And I'm looking at the phrase by itself.
Uh, "socialism" and "conservative" are two economic terms that are essentially antonyms. Socialism entails a great amount of government oversight and control, whereas conservative entails greater restrictions on government.
7226
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:18:15 PM »
Age also only accounts for a tiny portion of why people lean conservative or liberal (within their generation); education, childhood development, socioeconomic status, and gender are much more deciding in terms of ideology.
7227
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:15:34 PM »
I never said that liberals grow up to become conservatives. I said that people become more conservative as they age, especially in reference to economic stances. Yeah, I know. I'm still skeptical, considering that there are a lot of old guys in the world who are indeed very liberal. Your sources indicate that these really are just generalizations. And I don't usually have a problem with generalizations--only when people try to pass them off as wisdom.
For example--I really don't ever see myself reconciling with capitalism. You'd have to somehow convince me that poor people aren't actually poor and that exploitation never happens.
Which is specifically why I said to let the statement stand away from who is saying it in this moment. It is a general statement, backed by a general trend toward greater standards of liberalism in each successive generation. If you compare Gen X to Baby Boomers, Gen X are very liberal by comparison, as you're comparing successive generations in a way that is relative to the period in which they developed.
7228
« on: October 03, 2015, 04:12:30 PM »
I've come to realize by now that "If you don't conform to my rigid, binary worldview..." is an awfully narrow way to view the world, not to mention problematic.
PSU being the OP has nothing to do with this.
And that is a problem. This is not, in its original meaning, a black and white statement. It's a statement on how conservative values tend to fall more heavily in the older generation, and liberal values toward the younger generation. This is because of two things: slight changes in worldview and a change in what is considered "conservative" or "liberal". The only constant between both have to do with economic policy, but social views are a radical change in every generation. That's why there has always been, and always will be, a "new generation is terrible/older generation are close-minded" view in societies. This is an easier way to explain it: The "Lost Generation" pushed for the dis-establishment of slavery, but it wasn't until the "Silent Generation" that civil rights were nationally expanded to include black Americans. This can be seen even within a single decade, where Millennials started to become of age to vote. Gen X, who grew up generally under the acceptance of equality between different races, had no such preconception when it came to the acceptance of homosexuality. This is not to say, however, that there was a unanimous position against it; every generation has forward-thinkers of some kind or another. But as evidenced by research, the older generation is more likely to hold conservative values (relative to the time period) in comparison to the younger generation. I'm not saying that once you hit 40, you'll suddenly be against immigration and hate the middle east entirely. I'm just point out the actual meaning of the statement: with each successive generation, we as a civilization become more liberal. Conservatives values of a certain time-period are held in regard as less progressive, but the positions have still been developed for a longer period and are thus considered the more "planned" stance in comparison.
7229
« on: October 03, 2015, 03:45:29 PM »
And no, about the "'liberal' has the connotation of empathy; 'conservative' has the connotation of experience" thing?
I don't buy that, either. I don't get either of those connotations out of those extremely broad terms. I never said that liberals grow up to become conservatives. I said that people become more conservative as they age, especially in reference to economic stances. Liberal stances entail greater government activity, especially that which applies to social policies; conservatives are the opposite. The connotation that people are more conservative stems from changing definitions between generations and a general trend toward personal financial being. You say not to project implications onto the words, but... that's... exactly... what you're... doing.... there.
If you don't project implications onto the words, the quote becomes meaningless tosh, which is my point. Kupo's point, I gather, is that it would be a real stretch to take out those very obvious implications, and I completely agree. I'd like to find whoever said this originally and take a look at his political views.
I was saying not to project PSU's implications onto it. We all good and know what he meant by it, but I'd say that's a twisting of words. And the quote isn't from Churchill, it's from François Guizot. "Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head." This statement was made before the 1960s, with the shift in platform between Republicans and Democrats.
7230
« on: October 03, 2015, 08:46:38 AM »
This is literally oversimplifying something that has far more depth to it than one quote could give it.
But a bunch of people would think it rings true because they think they're pseudo-philosophers. It only preaches to the ignorant.
As Meta said earlier, it's good if you just look at is as a trend of views and not project implications on it.
Youth have always leaned more liberally then there predecessors, and always have grown to have more conservative values as they grow older.
I think it's quite obviously less of an "observation" than a command.
Young Republicans are more liberal than older Republicans. Older Democrats are more conservative than Young Democrats.
It's incredibly obvious what PSU thinks, and what his intent is behind the post. But the statement itself isn't necessarily wrong.
That may be a trend but I can't see how the statement actually implies any of that.
Liberalism has the connotation of empathy, Conservatism has the connotation of experience. Given that it's true that young people trend towards "charitable" goals and older people trend toward "personal" values, it's not really wrong.
But when you imply that one is necessarily more "right" than the other is when it starts to break down. Which is why, just taken at face value, it's not wrong.
What you're saying about conservatism and liberalism is true, but it's a stretch to take all of that out of this statement.
Not really, no. "If you're not a liberal by 20, you have no heart" AKA empathy. "If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no head" AKA you haven't put thought to personal values or you haven't paid attention over the past 20 or so years. I don't think there's really any problem with the statement, but "PSU posted it means that it must be wrong" is the real contention here.
Pages: 1 ... 239240241 242243 ... 352
|
Show Posts