>2025
>people still doing this political party shit

top lad

M O R A L I T Y
O
R
A
L
I
T
Y

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.

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:14:46 AM

Quote from: Luciana on October 03, 2015, 04:30:41 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.

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:24:12 AM

Quote from: Kupo on October 03, 2015, 08:22:18 AM

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:14:46 AM

Quote from: Luciana on October 03, 2015, 04:30:41 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.

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:30:39 AM

Quote from: Kupo on October 03, 2015, 08:26:26 AM

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:24:12 AM

Quote from: Kupo on October 03, 2015, 08:22:18 AM

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:14:46 AM

Quote from: Luciana on October 03, 2015, 04:30:41 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.

Quote from: Kupo on October 03, 2015, 08:42:43 AM

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:30:39 AM

Quote from: Kupo on October 03, 2015, 08:26:26 AM

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:24:12 AM

Quote from: Kupo on October 03, 2015, 08:22:18 AM

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 08:14:46 AM

Quote from: Luciana on October 03, 2015, 04:30:41 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.

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.

Quote from: Eliab on October 02, 2015, 10:41:19 PM

Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 02, 2015, 10:09:36 PM

like, you should be a conservative by 40.

Why?

>missing the point

I knew what you meant--you didn't mean "should" as in should, you meant "should" as in "...the trend suggests that middle-aged folk would become conservatives."

But his question still works out in this context--Why does that trend suggest that?
And where's the evidence?

I'm still very skeptical, because the quote still makes no sense even from the vantage point of trends.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:15:34 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.

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.

That's basically what I'm saying, though.

Quote from: Prime Uta 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.

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.