Turn on thread page Beta

Can young person be a conservative? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    How do you explain my Conservative son, coming from a Socialist household?
    Seeing the (blue) light?

    <3 x
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ... Conservatism is ignorance manifested into a political ideology.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northern_Ireland)
    ... Conservatism is ignorance manifested into a political ideology.
    While clearly you are a beacon of virtue, aren't you? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Alright, education is also an institution. In general way, education, family, marriage and religion are all institutions. (Would you agree with me?) Can a person, who have never been in school, lecture how education should be run?
    Short answer? Yes. It is perfectly possible to have an informed opinion on something without having experienced it directly. Personal experience might be a valuable bonus, but it is not required. Indeed, outside assessment in a number of cases can prove to be valuable precisely because you are able to draw on many sources of information. Consider David Starkey's response to the question of whether he would have liked to witness the Tudor era in person. He said that he likes being a historian and being able to draw on the experiences of many different people, rather than just his own, as it means that he almost certainly has a better idea of what was going on than the people actually involved. Of course, it is usually even better, but not required, to have both personal and objective experience (such as someone who served as a soldier and then did a degree in military history). That said, there are multiple ways to gain personal experience. Growing up in a married or unmarried household can give you a personal perspective on the role of marriage even if you have not yourself married.
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Furthermore, there is nothing wrong if you conserve the institution of marriage, but why that have to apply to everyone? It's like "Nahuh, I'm going to have sex just after marriage, so as you too!". The best way to conserve marriage institution is not to forbid other people from it, but by simply don't get divorced.
    You seem to misunderstand the nature of conservation. I have already pointed out that conserving the institution of marriage is not the same as preserving your own marriage. The two need not be related. Bu beyond that, conservation of a social institution entails retaining it as part of the mainstream social and possibly legal order, so the actions of others are relevant. The two parts of your statement are also inconsistent. First you are talking about preventing people from fornicating,
    then you are talking about preventing people (presumably gay people) from marrying. Which one are you actually talking about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Been conservative since I was 14.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Yeah, you can have young conservatives. But they are less common. There's a good reason for this - young people that are interested in politics make up their minds the same as any person does, by basing them on what seems to them to be the best ideas of the time. However, older generations who have, for the most part, already decided their political ideology, did so in years passed. The progressives of today become the conservatives of tomorrow. The problem is that our opinions aren't as flexible as we'd like them to be - often people care more about feeling right than being right, and evolution is primarily responsible for this. During childhood and early adulthood, we're very malleable because the wisdom of our elders is much more valuable than the hodgepodge experience of our own. Elders' experience has been tried and tested over many years - they know, for example, that tigers are dangerous. You are geared to believe them when young, and then when you are old, your beliefs are partly responsible for your old age - this means that they're probably correct, or at least congruent with survival. In this way, young people are geared to learn, and eventually solidify their opinions. An old person that suddenly decides that tigers might be not dangerous immediately pays a price, and so this is evolutionarily selected against.

    It is very difficult to fight against the tide. There is a reason why older people are statistically more conservative than younger people, but knowing about those reasons lets a person be prepared and guarded, and make an effort to be progressive and conservative where appropriate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, definitely. I am not a conservative, but a few of my friends are staunch conservatives and are big supporters of the Conservative Party. Just to note though - there are conservatives who do support same-sex marriages and abortion, so not all of them hold very traditional views. Basically, they have liberal social views but are fiscally conservative. It's not strange that there are young conservatives.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Young people can be conservative, but it isn't generally the status quo. Conservatism is generally more proliferate amongst those of middle and old age. I do know one guy my age who sits on the wrong side of the isle.

    Personally both my parents vote conservative, whereas I wouldn't in a million years. I'd say I'm very socially democratic/liberal; which is what the UK essentially is as a nation historically. Conservatism is greed and snobbishness manifested as a political ideology. Hence I'll be joining the Labour Party soon I think

    British Conservatives aren't really that conservative. David Cameron is backing gay marriage for example. If you want to see real hardcore conservatives, go to the USA. I really do not want to see Paul Ryan as Vice-President.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The name Conservative is many years old and doesn't really mean anything any more, their motto at the last election was 'Vote for Change'!

    Besides, if a young person can't understand conservatism, how are they supposed to understand the flip side?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    Short answer? Yes. It is perfectly possible to have an informed opinion on something without having experienced it directly. Personal experience might be a valuable bonus, but it is not required. Indeed, outside assessment in a number of cases can prove to be valuable precisely because you are able to draw on many sources of information. Consider David Starkey's response to the question of whether he would have liked to witness the Tudor era in person. He said that he likes being a historian and being able to draw on the experiences of many different people, rather than just his own, as it means that he almost certainly has a better idea of what was going on than the people actually involved. Of course, it is usually even better, but not required, to have both personal and objective experience (such as someone who served as a soldier and then did a degree in military history). That said, there are multiple ways to gain personal experience. Growing up in a married or unmarried household can give you a personal perspective on the role of marriage even if you have not yourself married.
    I don't see any connection between history and marriage. Of course, he knows it better. It is because he is historian and he analyses things in past. Take something what is happening know, for example - economy. Would you rather have chancellor with knowledge of economics or inexperienced person who ha never had a job before?

    You have to taste the pie if you want to know what kind of it is. You can't just smell it.

    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    You seem to misunderstand the nature of conservation. I have already pointed out that conserving the institution of marriage is not the same as preserving your own marriage. The two need not be related. Bu beyond that, conservation of a social institution entails retaining it as part of the mainstream social and possibly legal order, so the actions of others are relevant. The two parts of your statement are also inconsistent. First you are talking about preventing people from fornicating,
    then you are talking about preventing people (presumably gay people) from marrying. Which one are you actually talking about?
    Maybe it is because I have always been thought that you have to start everything from yourself. The thing about fornicating, I mean to say that conservatives often try to impose their own values on everyone.

    My main point was that the best way to conserve the marriage is to not get divorced. But enlighten me, how else you can conserve the marriage? By forbidding gays to marry? First, at least try to prevent one week long marriages by heterosexuals. That would be a start.

    To be clear: I believe that conserving personal marriage is deeply connected with conserving marriage as social institution. If you not conserve you own, you clearly do not conserve it as a social institution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    I don't see any connection between history and marriage.
    It is really quite a straightforward analogy. 'Tudor politics' and 'marriage' are both things that it is possible to know about. You can know about either one without directly experiencing it.

    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Of course, he knows it better. It is because he is historian and he analyses things in past. Take something what is happening know, for example - economy. Would you rather have chancellor with knowledge of economics or inexperienced person who ha never had a job before?
    It is entirely possibe to know about economics without having had a job. You could, for example, have studied economics. Or you could merely be someone who keeps informed. Having a job is also not the only way someone interacts with economy. You do this, for example, whenever you buy something. Now the Chancellor is supposed to be (in an ideal world) a top expert on the economy and taxation, so we might expect him to have many different kinds of knowledge and experience, from studying economics to working in the economy. But he is supposed to be the elite, as it were. It is perfectly possible to have an informed opinion on the economy without having had a job, by studying it or staying generally informed or interacting with others who have or have had jobs.

    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    You have to taste the pie if you want to know what kind of it is. You can't just smell it.
    This could not be more wrong. Tasting a pie is only one way of determining what type it is, and can be a quite imprecise one depending on the pie type. You can tell the kind of pie by reading the recipe and the list of ingredients, by watching it being made, or by asking a number of different people who have all had the pie. All of these, especially the first ones, are actually more effective ways of determining the kind of pie than tasting it, as it can be quite difficult to tell certain types of pie apart simply by tasting them.
    What you may have intended to say is that you have to taste a pie to know whether you like it. This is more true, although it is again often possible to make very reasonable guesses through the steps detailed above. Yet the analogy does not really hold in this particular case, i.e. attempts to conserve the institution of marriage. A better pie-based analogy would be if you were attempting to decide whether your cafeteria should continue to serve pie as one of the main options, and if so whether the recipe or variety should be changed. This depends much less on your personal pie preferences, and has more to do with the general role that pie fills on the menu, the eating habits it encourages, the general attitude towards pie of the diners, etc. It is perfect possible, for example, to support the retention of pie on the menu for the sake of the central role it plays in the general cafeteria experience even if you have never tried it and never will.
    In fact, it would be hard to come up with an analogy that demonstrates more clearly why your point is wrong.

    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    My main point was that the best way to conserve the marriage is to not get divorced. But enlighten me, how else you can conserve the marriage? By forbidding gays to marry? First, at least try to prevent one week long marriages by heterosexuals. That would be a start.

    To be clear: I believe that conserving personal marriage is deeply connected with conserving marriage as social institution. If you not conserve you own, you clearly do not conserve it as a social institution.
    This has a tiny bit of truth but is still mostly wrong. Not marrying and divorcing frivolously is a small personal contribution to the mainainance of marriage as an institution. But not all divorce is frivolous. Divorcing a cheating spouse, for example, is widely considered legitimate by conservatives because it undscores how serious it is to betray the marriage vows. Preserving your own individual marriage is a very distinct, if overlapping, issue from conserving the social institution of marriage.

    Regarding homosexual marriage, conservatives in the UK are split over whether that would be helpful or harmful to the task of preserving marriage as a social institution. Some conservatives, such as David Cameron or myself, are of the opinion that encouraging stable committed marriages among homosexuals, especially those who wish to raise children, will strengthen the role of marriage and thus be of benefit to society. Others believe that homosexual marriage undermines the concept of marriage as an institution that unifies a man and a woman, in the eyes of God, for the primary purpose of raising their children, and is part of the trend towards legitimising all sorts of 'alternative' relationships which damage the fabric of society. Remember that practically everyone who is against homosexual marriage is also against frivolous divorce and lifestyle single-parenthood. They see no reason why they should accept a further step towards the compromising of marriage just because they are having trouble making progress against the current problems.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    It is really quite a straightforward analogy. 'Tudor politics' and 'marriage' are both things that it is possible to know about. You can know about either one without directly experiencing it.
    Except marriage is not something what happened in past, while Tudors are.

    I understand that you can have knowledge about something you directly experienced. But people who had that directly - have upper hand against those who didn't

    It is entirely possibe to know about economics without having had a job. You could, for example, have studied economics. Or you could merely be someone who keeps informed. Having a job is also not the only way someone interacts with economy. You do this, for example, whenever you buy something. Now the Chancellor is supposed to be (in an ideal world) a top expert on the economy and taxation, so we might expect him to have many different kinds of knowledge and experience, from studying economics to working in the economy. But he is supposed to be the elite, as it were. It is perfectly possible to have an informed opinion on the economy without having had a job, by studying it or staying generally informed or interacting with others who have or have had jobs.
    Ok, that's just trying to defend you statement. Because of that "You just have to be informed" thing, many economies suffer. When you have no experience about economy - it really depends what environment you have. Have cabinet full of Keynesians and you will be informed from keynesian point of view. Talk only with wealthy capitalists - you will be informed from another perspective. When you have no standing ground on economy - you are hot metal which could be easily altered.

    This could not be more wrong. Tasting a pie is only one way of determining what type it is, and can be a quite imprecise one depending on the pie type. You can tell the kind of pie by reading the recipe and the list of ingredients, by watching it being made, or by asking a number of different people who have all had the pie...............
    Yeah, my favorite pie is apple pie. Everyone who disagrees, have no taste. Personally, I have never tasted it, but I've seen how my mother made it and recipe looked good.

    You see know? That pie could be delicious, but I can't defend it as sacred, because I don't know that. Recipe do not give you exact idea about taste. Mostly, if you tried to cook something, you will see that it always tastes much different when you thought.

    This has a tiny bit of truth but is still mostly wrong. Not marrying and divorcing frivolously is a small personal contribution to the mainainance of marriage as an institution. But not all divorce is frivolous. Divorcing a cheating spouse, for example, is widely considered legitimate by conservatives because it undscores how serious it is to betray the marriage vows. Preserving your own individual marriage is a very distinct, if overlapping, issue from conserving the social institution of marriage.
    And yet, I believe conservatives always should start from themselves. Yes, exception could be made.

    Can you describe me, that is conserving the social institution of marriage? How it looks?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I run 2 Conservative futures. Aimed at students and young adults. I'm 21 myself. So in short yes


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I considered myself super conservative (aligned with pro-life, pro-family, libertarian economics) from age 15-18 (I am 19 in a few weeks' time.) I have moved away from some extreme right wing ideas this year but am still socially conservative though more liberal in economic terms, so fit the profile you've mentioned.) If we have not much experience of life, then how would we know that changing society away from traditional institutions and modes of being, or allowing people to kill their unborn children, is any good? (I'm 100% pro-life btw)- we may not have experienced what we are trying to conserve in that we don't yet have marriages and children of our own but it is perfectly reasonable to support this over making changes that no-one yet knows the result of.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You can want to conserve whatever you're born into without having created it yourself.

    More generally, Conservative parties tend to encompass just every ideology that isn't a branch of socialism, not only small-c conservatism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As the old adage goes: "If you're young and right-wing, you have no heart. If you're old and left-wing, you have no brain."

    I guess I'm a heartless *******
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    First of all, this is not pro-labour thread. Both parties are equally bad. This is bigger picture. How can young person be a conservative?

    In my opinion, young person can't be a real conservative, since it requires some sort of experience. Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional institutions and supports, at most, minimal and gradual change in society.

    What values young conservative can defend? Family is decade away from him, not speaking about abortions where he does not have any competence to judge about morality.

    Ok, I'm not ignorant and I know that conservatives get their ideas from various books such as bible, but therefore conservatism is the most dogmatic ideology. There is no pragmatism. People just base their policies according to dogmas which have no benefit to society as whole.

    Discuss.

    EDIT: Neggy neggy. Yeah, better neg and run.



    The only hope for the Western world to avoid complete social implosion and economic annihilation is for the younger people to reject ultra-liberal and embrace real Conservatism which effectively means a mix between pre-modernity and modernity. I fear that we are too far gone and people’s minds are too far gone, far too stupefied by the mass media and far to brainwashed to turn around from where we are heading. The iceberg appear to most like an ice cream and the people do not have the intellect to discriminate between the two.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.