Young people to older adults, "We know better, leave us alone!" Survey, page 5

This topic is in the Political Ideology discussion forum. (rss)

Young people to older adults, "We know better, leave us alone!" Survey << 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:21 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by EnlightenUp .....Quite honestly, I think I can relate to the attitudes of my 80-something year old grandmother more than I can my parents'..... So are you acknowledging an 80 is genrally wiser than a 50 yr old? OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:24 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by Tayesin reply to post by OldThinker You asked... 1) Why is this happening? 2) Are we losing control of society? 3) Have we lost respect for the wisdom of our elders? 1/. Because WE allowed it to get this way. We did not stand up and tell our governments that we did not want all that violence, sex, disrespect, hatred as portrayed in the popular media that our kids have had force-fed to them for the pst 30 years. We had the right to say NO, but we didn't because the bleeding hearts were telling us we needed to get up with the times... and that kids had rights before they were mentally mature enough to deal with them or need them. Tayesin, Well, its good to hear from you, hope all is well.... Always like your responses... Lot of truth there!!! OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:25 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by Donnie Darko It's funny how Generation X, those born from 1965 to 1979, are actually quite conservative these days. Definitely more conservative than the Boomers (1946-1964) or my generation, Y (1980-1994). OK...I understand what you are saying...where do you base this from? Do you have stats? Thanks for taking the time to post! OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:35 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by Darth Lumina reply to post by OldThinker 1) Why is this happening? Is this really new? No, this is something that has occured every generation, Thanks for the answer, the survey seemed to have addressed this here: The Generation Gap, Circa 2009. In a 1969 Gallup Poll, 74% of respondents said there was a generation gap, with the phrase defined in the survey question as "a major difference in the point of view of younger people and older people today." When the same question was asked a decade later, in 1979, by CBS and The New York Times, just 60% perceived a generation gap. But in perhaps the single most intriguing finding in this new Pew Research survey, the share that say there is a generation gap has spiked to 79% -- despite the fact that there have been few overt generational conflicts in recent times of the sort that roiled the 1960s. It could be that the phrase now means something different, and less confrontational, than it did at the height of the counterculture's defiant challenges to the establishment 40 years ago. Whatever the current understanding of the term "generation gap," roughly equal shares of young, middle-aged and older respondents in the new survey agree that such a gap exists. The most common explanation offered by respondents of all ages has to do with differences in morality, values and work ethic. Relatively few cite differences in political outlook or in uses of technology. link here for more: pewresearch.org...
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:37 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by WolfofWar I say good! The whole concept that a person is older therefore wiser and society should listen to them is just plain old Ageist Elitist. A 68 year old is no smarter or wiser then a 23 year old by default. We are all humans, of various educations and a culmination of experiences that wildly differ from one person to another, in both trial and outcome. The only thing listening to your elders does is help maintain old doctrines, dogma, misconceptions and old school ignorance alive and well. I see this as society taking a step towards the right direction. Good? ok, why? Same question to you....a 68-yr-old you, is wiser than a 25-yr-old you...right? OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:39 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by laiguana I just think the older generations are beomcing less secure with themselves. ????? What does that mean? OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:49 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by Bunken Drum ......but somehow there are always conservatives retarding progress ???? Reallly???? Do you base that on evidence....? Here's some conservatives that helped society.... Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God link for more: www.godandscience.org...
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 03:54 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by Donnie Darko I also think those born AFTER 1989 are more open-minded and tolerant of "weirdness" than those born in the 1980s ... what do you think? DD, probably true statement there... BUT IS IT GOOD? OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 04:33 PM by Dewm0nster
My grandmother offers me a lot of input on how to raise my son (Things deemed to be the wrong way of doing it, twenties years ago.) I take most advice from my seniors with a grain of salt.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 04:35 PM by cpdaman
well younger people can see the "flaws" of the older people and may think they are smarter but things are never so cut and dry.....and often involve misconceptions and over generalizations Such as young people can see the way older people believe certain things about the world or religon or authority that they don't and so they will not take their advice.......they will think on their own.....and then they assume they will be immune from manipulation attemps by the same general forces...putting on a new hat Anyone who thought for more than a inspirational day or so that the people have a voice in washington and thus a real choice in the election are fools......to a degree and i guess that is the key......how many of these ignorant beleifs someone holds but being smart does not mean you will be happier......they say ignornace is bliss.....and sometimes it is i think one can be a realist and be optomistic or rather one needs to be to be aware and happy in this world........ Also i fault no one for religious beliefs it gives tremendous strengh to a belief system... beleif system's....ya .....those things are kind a imporant to keep your head on straight and be happy so i have respect for many people and cut them some slack because wether they are bible thumpers or control freak types (but still "nice") alot of times they are just tryin to stay sane in their own mental make up.....same with me and my crazy beliefs
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 04:51 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by Dewm0nster My grandmother offers me a lot of input on how to raise my son (Things deemed to be the wrong way of doing it, twenties years ago.) I take most advice from my seniors with a grain of salt. ????? What does "WRONG WAY...20 YRS AGO"....mean to you???? OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 04:54 PM by OldThinker
Originally posted by cpdaman but being smart does not mean you will be happier......they say ignornace is bliss.....and sometimes it is.... That is kinda like the ole guys MARRIAGE philosophy..... Have I got everyone's attention now????????? Husbands.... you... can... be.... right....or.... happy.... BUT NOT BOTH!!!!!!!
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 04:56 PM by OldThinker
THANKS AGAIN FOR THE LAST ROUND OF RESPONSES.... sorry caps, I fixed it.... Very insightful ATS responses again... Gonna head to dinner....I'll check back in a while ok? OT
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 05:24 PM by bommer09
Originally posted by 10010010011 They put their whole private lives online for the whole world to see, but if you criticize their appearance to their face they blow a gasket. I think that sort of answers your question right there. People of my generation DO put large amounts of information about their lives on the internet. And for the most part no one else really bothers them about it. Young people today are very accepting for the most part. So when someone older does criticize appearance, it's just like "WTF why can't you accept me like everyone else?" The thought of not accepting someone merely based on their appearance does baffle many of us. Most of the time if it does bother someone they will just avoid said person with the weird appearance, we don't normally criticize people based on their appearance, and when that happens we call those people bullies.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 05:45 PM by EnlightenUp
Originally posted by OldThinker Originally posted by EnlightenUp .....Quite honestly, I think I can relate to the attitudes of my 80-something year old grandmother more than I can my parents'..... So are you acknowledging an 80 is genrally wiser than a 50 yr old? No. I'm making no such generalization, not for age itself as a reason.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 06:06 PM by ArMaP
Originally posted by bommer09 Young people today are very accepting for the most part. Unless we are talking about someone different from what they consider normal. A fat girl, for example, would she be as well accepted as a skinny girl? Or with an out-of-fashion haircut or clothes? Or without money for having cell-phone or a MP3 player? I have seen some cases like that; sure they are very accepting, if other people use the same rectangular glasses with blue rims, or if they use their pants almost falling down their legs, etc. They are no more accepting than older people (60 year olds, for example) that accept moustaches but not piercings.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 06:29 PM by nunya13
Originally posted by Donnie Darko ^Wow, very good points. Are you part of the younger generation btw? I am, I'm 19, and I hope I don't grow into a bitter crusty old fart ever! I do think we're becoming a bit TOO individualistic though - being your own person and being free is awesome, but there is a point at which one becomes a narcissistic "precious little snowflake" and that gets pretty ridiculous. I also think those born AFTER 1989 are more open-minded and tolerant of "weirdness" than those born in the 1980s ... what do you think? I'm on the edge of being in the "in-between" generation. I'm 28. There is definitely such a thing as being to individualistic. I always give people I know crap about being so non-conformist they conform to non-conforming. It also reminds me of a South Park episode where the boys "get served" and one of them tries to start a dance group to "fight back" he asks one of the goth kids and they all say "no" but then one says "I'm such a non-conformist that I'm not going to conform to not-conforming by dancing with this guy". I loved it!!! The message: who cares what other conform to or don't conform to, just do what the heck you like to do and to hell with everyone else. I'm not sure about what you're saying about being born in or after the 80's. I'm out of touch with those born after the 80's, but my interpretation is that they're more concerned with being cool. I always thought people born in the 70's and 80's were the one's into "weirdness" ergo, all the off-the-wall comedians that have come out as of late.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 07:09 PM by Bunken Drum
reply to post by OldThinker Re: religious scientists Being religious does not equate to being conservative, even if many people are both. If there were no radicals in religion, there would be no christianity (apparently Jesus himself started it with radical ideas) & there would later have been no protestant schism. Nor does one have to be a wild-eyed radical to be considered non-conservative. Those scientists you mentioned clearly did have radical ideas, but this doesn't mean we should call them conservatives simply because in other matters they were products of their time. Napoleon was a radical: his meritocratic ideas didn't extend to doing away with patriarchal hierarchy tho. Karl Marx was too: didn't stop him enjoying the society he moved in. I wanted to quote from "The Future of Ideas" by Lawrence Lessig as evidence to support my position, but my phone doesn't support the filetype. Anyone can download it free: www.the-future-of-ideas.com... - I highly recommend it. Lessig's argument is that copyright & patent law actively discourage development & from such ideas was born the "Creative Commons Licence". He also describes how big business actively "chills" innovation, by refusing to fund &/or stigmatising research & development of anything that may compete with them, or if this fails, by buying the patents, refusing to develope & suing anyone who tries anything similar. He likens such to the end of the USSR, something like this: we can imagine that there were people in the Kremlin who could see that changes would be best for everyone, but what they couldn't see was how they could keep their power & so resisted to the end. Also, just because church authority doesn't condemn an idea, doesn't mean everyone accepts innovation that stems from it (see trains, steam powered looms, birth control, for eg). What do we call people who won't accept something new? Conservatives. & the effect: retardation.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 08:50 PM by chiron613
This isn't anything new. Homer complained that the youth of his day didn't respect their elders and weren't properly respectful of the gods. Same old, same old. So, to answer the questions: 1. It's how each generation seeks to separate itself from its parents, to become their own persons. 2. No. 3. We never had it.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 09:16 PM by bommer09
Originally posted by ArMaP Originally posted by bommer09 Young people today are very accepting for the most part. Unless we are talking about someone different from what they consider normal. A fat girl, for example, would she be as well accepted as a skinny girl? Or with an out-of-fashion haircut or clothes? Or without money for having cell-phone or a MP3 player? I have seen some cases like that; sure they are very accepting, if other people use the same rectangular glasses with blue rims, or if they use their pants almost falling down their legs, etc. They are no more accepting than older people (60 year olds, for example) that accept moustaches but not piercings. True I agree with you there. But even in every group of popular girls, there's always one fat girl. And besides, even among the "uncool" kids and stuff rarely do I see them get made fun of or ridiculed. Maybe that's just me but at least around here everyone gets along alright. That doesn't mean everyone is friends and buddy buddy with everyone, but most people at least respect each others way to live their life. And as for the whole religion and spirituality thing I would agree. It seems like most people my age definately believe in some sort of higher power but not necessarily any organized religion. We learn about that in school, how religions have been used to control people for thousands of years, and that's just plain ridiculous so we choose not to believe in those, at least I dont. Also that is why there are a lot of atheists among the younger crowd.
copyright & usage