no you said they correlate to what the current status quo is and that's not true. Socialism is a liberal ideal and implies more government so if it was the current system and you opposed it in favor of less government you'd be a conservative. If you were in full favor of it you would be a liberal.
Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:21:42 PMUh, "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.
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.
Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on October 03, 2015, 04:23:52 PMQuote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:21:42 PMUh, "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.
Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on October 03, 2015, 04:28:35 PMQuote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:18:15 PMAge 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.
Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:18:15 PMAge 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.
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.
Again, that doesn't make sense, but... okay.
Quote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:33:11 PMQuote from: Fuddy-duddy on October 03, 2015, 04:28:35 PMQuote from: Prime Uta on October 03, 2015, 04:18:15 PMAge 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.
Conservative means to restrict.
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.
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.
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.
Again, not everybody. Definitely not everybody. So many people drop out of college early or don't even go at all. Ridiculous generalization.
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.
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'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.
"Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head."
Quote"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.
In which case, all discussion in this thread stems from a maladapted statement in more than one way.Which, yes, especially includes myself.
It's a crock of absolute shit.
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.
let's get a mod to edit the OP with the actual original quote insteadyeah
for fucks sake why are we arguing about 25 words
i'm just sayingmisquotes aren't cool
Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on October 03, 2015, 08:50:29 PMi'm just sayingmisquotes aren't coolWho's misquoting? I took that off of one of my Facebook friends, not some 18th century French faggot
How do you feel about this quote?
