Teenagers in New Zealand are conservative about sex education and abortion. How could this be? After all the sexualisation they have been exposed to, all the State endorsed sex-ed - and they're turning out to be conservative!! Oh, the horror!
And David Farrar's polling company did the research.
This is hope, people. The young are not lost!
Teenagers conservative about sex/abortion – Poll ~ Investigate Daily
And David Farrar's polling company did the research.
This is hope, people. The young are not lost!
Teenagers conservative about sex/abortion – Poll ~ Investigate Daily
Wait until these young kids fall under the influence of those social liberals who lecture at most NZ "universities".
ReplyDeleteThey'll soon be put right on such matters.
You have a point, there.
ReplyDeleteI thunk you forget that indoctrination just doesn't work. Give kids some credit, sure a few will fall off the rails but most know instinctivly what is right and what isn't.
ReplyDeleteSorry think.
ReplyDeleteNo Lucia, it doesn't scare me, or any liberal I know. You see, unlike the religious who prescribe exactly how things must be done, we liberal humanists simply believe in providing the information and letting people make their own decisions.
ReplyDeletePart 1/2:
ReplyDeleteWell said, leftrightout.
Also, a nationwide survey of "600 young people aged 15-21"? That's a *very* small sample size. Along with that, the article didn't say how, where or from what demographic the sample was taken from. Add to that the biased language used in the article and anyone with a basic academic introduction to statistics would rule out this "study" as inconclusive and non-representational of the population as a whole.
I fall under the aforementioned age bracket and have attended two high schools, one public school and one Anglican private school. The general opinion of my acquaintances at both schools were/are that sex ed is a good thing because it provides information with which people can make their own decisions. They also, as with most people our age, believe that sex between two consenting people is perfectly okay and that birth control should be used if one doesn't want to get pregnant or (in the male case) impregnate someone else. Although abortion is definitely a trickier topic to handle, the most common view is that if, for whatever reason, a person wants to have an abortion, they should be allowed one. To sum it up, most young people I know believe that, whatever a person chooses for themself in the way of sex or pregnancy, that choice is *theirs*, and they shouldn't judge or persecute someone else if they make a different choice.
I think that this is the main problem that Liberals have with Conservatives; Conservatives, as a rule, insist on seeing things in black and white, and see any difference of opinion or lifestyle as a challenge declared, and a battle to be won. That's why you, as a conservative, take a sort of righteous pleasure in the thought that "this will scare the liberals". It's like when creationists refer to evolutionism as a "religion", when it is simply a commonly accepted scientific theory. They (creationists), can't understand that people who believe different things genuinely *believe differently*, so they expect the structure of evolutionists' rationale to be the same as theirs; in this case, inflexible and founded on faith, as opposed to logic. The same can be said of the majority of conservatives; they are unable to accept or accomodate views and behaviors besides their own, nor can they understand that different people think differently, resulting in their interpretation of any difference in opinion or lifestyle as a challenge.
Not to say that some liberals aren't guilty of this "with us or against us" attitude, as well. But the foundation of being Liberal is, in fact, to be liberal, ie. to be open to new behavior or opinions, and to respect individual rights and freedoms.
Part 2/2:
ReplyDeleteOn a more personal note, Lucia Maria, I don't like your ridiculous homophobic attitudes, but I do like that you seem to be more of a feminist (Note: NOT a feminine supremacist, like those women who believe that men are inferior to women, but a feminist, a person who believes that men and women should be treated equally.) than the typical conservative would be. On the other hand, as I suppose you would be hasty to point out, the belief that homsexuality is wrong, according to my liberal "standards", is an opinion/personal choice like any other. To that I say yes, it is, and if you think it's wrong then you are welcome not to do it yourself, but hurting other people because they are bisexual, homosexual or transgendered is, by definition, judging their choice and persecuting them for it. And, to answer your frequent propositions about the difference between pedophilia, psychopathy and homosexuality, all of which are currently believed to be the way a person is and not a choice, I can only point out the obvious. Pedophiles and psychopaths are harmful, even dangerous, if they act on their urges, whereas homosexuality and bisexuality, when practiced between consenting adults (or consenting young people of a similar age), are no more harmful than romantic or sexual relations between heterosexual partners.
I am aware that this post has gone considerably off-topic. Forgive me on that front. Actually, forgive me, and people, generally. Forgiveness of sins is, after all, the foremost teaching of Jesus - not hate of the people who commit them.
Thanks,
AYN
The liberal point of view is "let me do what I want, and I'll let other people do what they want."
ReplyDeleteOf course, this philosophy does not accommodate people who don't think exactly like liberals, so the net effect can be that liberals only tolerate the 'diverse' opinions of liberals.
Why don't we give 12 year olds alcohol and cigarettes and advise them of the risks an let them make up their minds? Are you only hamstrung by authoritarian laws in this regard? How liberal are you really?
If you chose to drink and drive, is the choice yours?
Of course not, because the consequences of your decisions affect other people. And that is the fundamental issue a liberal faces living in a society that requires social cohesion.
They also, as with most people our age, believe that sex between two consenting people is perfectly okay
Do you follow the law with regard to drink driving, or do you ignore that law because you are a liberal?
For people to provide consent, they need to be 16. Does your sex ed class tell people that technically, sex with under 16's is against the law, because consent cannot be provided? Or is it OK, because you are a liberal?
The same can be said of the majority of conservatives; they are unable to accept or accomodate views and behaviors besides their own, nor can they understand that different people think differently, resulting in their interpretation of any difference in opinion or lifestyle as a challenge.
You are wrong to think that. I suspect it's because you see things as black and white with regard to non-liberals and are unable to accommodate different views, and end up ascribing reasoning behind the expression of different views as "inflexible" because they don't match yours.
Liberal is, in fact, to be liberal, ie. to be open to new behavior or opinions, and to respect individual rights and freedoms.
Actually, Liberal is to place individual rights and freedoms above all else. Above responsibility, above obligation, above honour, above values that are appreciated but optional after the "me first" mentality. Liberals are actually only open to new behaviour that confirms to a baseline liberal ethos.
Obviously, not all of this needs to be negative. I too am a product of a society based on development of the individual - it's actually a very Christian belief. The question, as always is how far does the pendulum swing?
ZenTiger,
ReplyDeleteYou make some fair points, with regard to the legal age for sex and choosing to drink and drive. And I do acknowledge that, to some extent, your first description of the liberal point of view is accurate. But to accuse liberals of undervaluing honour, responsibility and obligation is both cruel and incorrect.
I would have thought that your questions on giving twelve-year olds alcohol and cigarrettes, and on drink-driving, would have been logically answered by the sentiment behind my comment on the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, but obviously that has not been the case. The answer as to why these things should not be allowed is that they are HARMFUL, both to the people who do them and, particularly with drink-driving, to people who get in the way. The "liberal point of view" which you have described is only one aspect of a larger philosophy. To crudely describe the liberal philosophy towards rights somewhat more accurately, you should have said "Let me do what I want, and I'll let other people do what they want, and if no-one gets hurt, that's okay."
Now to address your other mis-representation:
--------------------
"The same can be said of the majority of conservatives; they are unable to accept or accomodate views and behaviors besides their own, nor can they understand that different people think differently, resulting in their interpretation of any difference in opinion or lifestyle as a challenge."
You are wrong to think that. I suspect it's because you see things as black and white with regard to non-liberals and are unable to accommodate different views, and end up ascribing reasoning behind the expression of different views as "inflexible" because they don't match yours.
-----------------------------
Note the use of "the majority" in my first sentence, and my earlier use of "as a rule..." when beginning my description. I'm quite aware that not all conservatives are the same; for example, I have a friend who is very conservative, and at sixteen is already a member of the national party. We have many a political debate, which I thin we both quite enjoy. However, despite his very conservative beliefs regarding the economy and the poor, he once told me, regarding homosexuals, that "I think it's wrong, but I'm not going to make life hard for them."
Another of my friends, a girl this time, is very firm in her Christian beliefs. When asked about the same subject, she told me; "I think it's a sin. No, hear me out. I think it's a sin, but as a Christian I should be forgiving. Besides, the Bible says that all sins are equal under the eyes of God, so if I hated all the homosexuals, I'd have to hate all the liars, too, and everyone lies." It was a Christian point of view which I'd genuinely never seen before, and it made me realise that not everyone is either conservative or liberal, and that the extreme viewpoints of each group are the ones that make the most noise.
Finally, I said "...the foundation of being Liberal is, in fact, to be liberal, ie. to be open to new behavior or opinions, and to respect individual rights and freedoms." To this you painted a very different perspective of liberals. Frankly, I just don't agree with your picture. But, as I said earlier, it's always the most extreme viewpoints of each group which make the most noise, and some so-called "Liberals" do have a very "me first" mentality. However, some Conservatives (note, not all) believe that the it's a person's own fault that he or she is poor, and therefore they should not extend their own money or services to help them, at risk of their own disadvantage. What is more "me first" than that? What I'm getting at is that each group has its bad eggs, but that is not to say that everyone in that group is therefore rotten, too.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I don't know a single Liberal who thinks that it is not every financially sound person's duty to help the poor, and if I did, they would not deserve the name. That counts, most definitely, as valuing obligation, does it not?
My point is that each "side" has its good and its bad philosophies, which is why a functioning society needs both, so that the good of each can come through. Along with that, very few people have opinions which reside solely in one camp or the other. Saying "conservatives" in my previous post was incorrect; on revision, I believe I should have said "those whose political opinions reside on the far-right". It would not, however, have had quite the same effect, but feel free to mentally replace "conservatives" with 'far-righters" in my previous posts.
Thanks,
AYN
PS. My definition of "liberal" after "ie." was taken loosely from the word's adjective form in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Very creative postt
ReplyDelete