Generational Change Potential For Changing Voter Majorities.

[gmerkt]

Im more referring to traditional conservative values like gun rights, Im not certain religion is exclusive to having family values but I do agree with instilling family values regardless of where it comes from.

Yes, the "family values" package can be varied. It doesn't have to include religion. However, I think as a general observation, people of a conservative bent tend more toward religion than people on the left. Therefore the ideas of 2A advocacy and religious belief (of some sort or other) often are found in the same person. Certainly not always.

 

[Koda]

Yes, the "family values" package can be varied. It doesn't have to include religion. However, I think as a general observation, people of a conservative bent tend more toward religion than people on the left. Therefore the ideas of 2A advocacy and religious belief (of some sort or other) often are found in the same person. Certainly not always.

Thats also my general observation. Though I think gun rights and religious beliefs are not connected to each other directly but just that both fall individually under the larger "umbrella" of conservatism.

Whats interesting is while (generally) the right tends to support traditional family structure I don't know of any social groups on the left that do, and the left are the ones that (generally) want to take away gun rights.

 

[monkeybutler]

Whats interesting is while (generally) the right tends to support traditional family structure I don't know of any social groups on the left that do, and the left are the ones that (generally) want to take away gun rights.

Nobody is against traditional family structures. Some don't make it the core of their value system, because it need not be. Values, however, figure prominently. Sometimes to an absurd extent, and kids become moralizing poopbots. But that goes for almost every group.

Conservatives in no way have a lock on values. Just structures. Some of which are clearly becoming economically outmoded, so they will eventually wither due to lack of adaptability. We have seen the start of that. And it is not because hideous demons are undermining the American family. It is simply the march of economic history. Advanced economies produce less children, needing less of a tie to traditional kinship arrangements to operate.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Nobody is against traditional family structures. Some don't make it the core of their value system, because it need not be. Values, however, figure prominently. Sometimes to an absurd extent, and kids become moralizing poopbots. But that goes for almost every group.

Conservatives in no way have a lock on values. Just structures. Some of which are clearly becoming economically outmoded, so they will eventually wither due to lack of adaptability. We have seen the start of that. And it is not because hideous demons are undermining the American family. It is simply the march of economic history. Advanced economies produce less children, needing less of a tie to traditional kinship arrangements to operate.

Until it (economy) collapses so completely that actual tangible things are worth more than the word and promises of people.

Edit. We have seen such things play out repeatedly in many countries.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Nobody is against traditional family structures. Some don't make it the core of their value system, because it need not be. Values, however, figure prominently. Sometimes to an absurd extent, and kids become moralizing poopbots. But that goes for almost every group.

Conservatives in no way have a lock on values. Just structures. Some of which are clearly becoming economically outmoded, so they will eventually wither due to lack of adaptability. We have seen the start of that. And it is not because hideous demons are undermining the American family. It is simply the march of economic history. Advanced economies produce less children, needing less of a tie to traditional kinship arrangements to operate.

Lol.
Plenty of people are against both family and other moral values. I have known many and various individuals and groups who make a point of being anti-whatever . Yes ,they are all over the left/right spectrum. But very few would ever self-identify as conservative.

 

[monkeybutler]

Lol indeed.

 

[Koda]

Advanced economies produce less children, needing less of a tie to traditional kinship arrangements to operate.

Have we determined that this is a good thing?

 

[monkeybutler]

Have we determined that this is a good thing?

Doesn't matter. Neither of us can stop what is coming. Those who understand that become more economically adaptable and prevail long term.

 

[Koda]

Doesn't matter. Neither of us can stop what is coming.

Im not certain it doesnt matter. A healthy child rearing is still important regardless of economic society. Its interesting how as societies grow economically that they simultaneously tend to get more dependent on the govt to survive. That doesn't sound very adaptable to me long term...

I dont see why family values and structure dont apply in modern times. Children need mom and dad and ideally siblings to develop healthy adult lives. Its the ideal situation nature prescribes.

 

[gmerkt]

Advanced economies produce less children

Because less labor is needed to perform economic tasks. Taken to an extreme, technology may make humanity obsolete. If humans cannot earn a living as a result of being replaced by technology, how are they to exist? Is this the endgame that Karl Marx didn't envision? He couldn't have foreseen a ruinous form of capital creation that would render human labor redundant.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A life of leisure,.pleasures where technology and AI does all the work and providing for the humans.. might humanity eventually end up being the "pets", meat, lab articles for AI?

A life where one does not need to work to earn or enjoy things they do... where not having to work and not having to pay.. is literally worthless. It also requires extraordinary resource management and allocation; and doesn't account whatsoever for human needs to feel validation, a sense of worth however that comes, and the human emotions of greed, sloth, envy, hunger, ambition, gallantry.

 

[monkeybutler]

Im not certain it doesnt matter. A healthy child rearing is still important regardless of economic society. Its interesting how as societies grow economically that they simultaneously tend to get more dependent on the govt to survive. That doesn't sound very adaptable to me long term...

I dont see why family values and structure dont apply in modern times. Children need mom and dad and ideally siblings to develop healthy adult lives. Its the ideal situation nature prescribes.

A healthy child rearing is not the exclusive territory of your preferred values and structures. Your belief set is not an absolute or 'natural' standard of morality and ethics for the rest of us. If it works for you, great.

 

[monkeybutler]

Because less labor is needed to perform economic tasks. Taken to an extreme, technology may make humanity obsolete. If humans cannot earn a living as a result of being replaced by technology, how are they to exist? Is this the endgame that Karl Marx didn't envision? He couldn't have foreseen a ruinous form of capital creation that would render human labor redundant.

Because less fungible labor is needed. In Marx's time the production of labor value was much simpler and commodity-like. Or at least that was the capitalist ideal - pull people out of craft industries where they actually had some skills and make them readily replaceable factory bots. A lot went into that. The Luddites didn't win. Today, not quite the same, where labor is as you inferred being taken over by machines and the the highest paid workers - who mostly labor with their brains - are highly specialized/rare/expensive/not so fungible. Marx certainly did not anticipate this, being locked into the paradigms of his time.

 

[Diamondback]

And Leftists who still have Johnsons are 1,000,000% more likely to be peophiles.

Prove you're not a pedo, cut off your pecker right now FOR DUH CHILLUNZ!

 

[OldBroad44]

When I first started voting about 5 decades ago, 2A support was much more evenly spread over both parties. Both republican and democrat senators and reps usually avoided getting on the NRA's blacklist. I recall going to a town hall meeting by OR democratic US rep Peter DeFazio at the OSU campus. In response to a questioner asking about gun control he flatly told the crowd of about 500 that he supported the US Constitution, which guaranteed citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This made many in the crowd angry. But it did them no good. DeFazio supported 2A and that was that. And he said so and said so firmly to a crowd that was largely against that position.

Somewhere in subsequent decades the NRA went totally partisan republican and drove most of the democrat readers away from their mags and membership. And NRA quit supporting democratic candidates, however they voted on gun issues. And democrat candidates increasingly became antigun. So dems knew if they supported 2A, NRA would not support them. But if they voted anti 2A the anti gun block would be won over. I quit my NRA membership at that point. Now, there is a huge correlation between voting republican and supporting 2A. But it didn't start that way.

 

[CrackPipe]

When I first started voting about 5 decades ago, 2A support was much more evenly spread over both parties. Both republican and democrat senators and reps usually avoided getting on the NRA's blacklist. I recall going to a town hall meeting by OR democratic US rep Peter DeFazio at the OSU campus. In response to a questioner asking about gun control he flatly told the crowd of about 500 that he supported the US Constitution, which guaranteed citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This made many in the crowd angry. But it did them no good. DeFazio supported 2A and that was that. And he said so and said so firmly to a crowd that was largely against that position.

Somewhere in subsequent decades the NRA went totally partisan republican and drove most of the democrat readers away from their mags and membership. And NRA quit supporting democratic candidates, however they voted on gun issues. And democrat candidates increasingly became antigun. So dems knew if they supported 2A, NRA would not support them. But if they voted anti 2A the anti gun block would be won over. I quit my NRA membership at that point. Now, there is a huge correlation between voting republican and supporting 2A. But it didn't start that way.

Exactly. I got a letter from Pierre years ago that was so full of false political claims that I quit and never went back. He turned of many moderates.

 

[Koda]

A healthy child rearing is not the exclusive territory of your preferred values and structures. Your belief set is not an absolute or 'natural' standard of morality and ethics for the rest of us. If it works for you, great.

I never mentioned my preferred values, morals, ethics , beliefs....

 

[monkeybutler]

I never mentioned my preferred values, morals, ethics , beliefs....

They are woven throughout your posts in assertions about what is healthy, natural, et cetera being in harmony with your values, and in suggesting that other groups lack certain key values. You don't really need to spell them out - we all know what "tradional family values" means - so it is fine that you skipped to the assertions of your preferred set of beliefs and practices being the bestest for the kiddies. The basis of everything you said is inextricably bound up in that, which is why you can't seem to internalize the idea that rearing a healthy child is not necessarily done to your specifications.

 

[Koda]

They are woven throughout your posts in assertions about what is healthy, natural, et cetera being in harmony with your values, and in suggesting that other groups lack certain key values.

Except for a mother, father and preferably siblings, No they are not woven thru my posts, Ive never included my personal opinions on what constitutes family values. No, I did not suggest other groups lack values. You wont find them, you cant cite them.

To clarify my comment your probably referring to in full context I was responding to the religious right. My apologies for not making that clear there.

 

[Savage Jav]

I believe a lot of younger voters who vote anti-gun are also less likely to have kids. If Pro 2A friendly youngsters were more likely to have and raise like minded kids, how long before we could flip the voter majorities?

You forget most of us Pro 2A voters aren't having kids either.