Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Winston Churchill
81 views
Skip to first unread message
bratt
Apr 16, 2012, 7:26:27 PM4/16/12
to
"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
conservative at 40, you have no head."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
______________________________________________________________________
conservative at 40, you have no head."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
______________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 5:06:12 PM4/27/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:26:27 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>conservative at 40, you have no head."
Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
>"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>conservative at 40, you have no head."
under his name?
DaveM
fffurken
Apr 27, 2012, 5:15:00 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:06 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
> >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>
> Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
> under his name?
Firstly, thank you David. I don't know whether the quote is actual or
> >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
> >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>
> Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
> under his name?
not but I'm playing the odds and I'm going with you.
Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
the cesspool.
My gratitude may be mean nothing to you, but at least please remeber,
you posting on RGP is appreciated.
bratt
Apr 27, 2012, 5:19:37 PM4/27/12
to
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html
http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Sir-Winston-Churchill/1/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
fffurken
Apr 27, 2012, 6:48:50 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:19 pm, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 27 2012 4:06 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
> On Apr 27 2012 4:06 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:26:27 -0700, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
> > >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>
> > Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
> > under his name?
>
> > DaveM
>
> http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/winston_churchill.htm
>
> http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you...
>
> > >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
> > >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>
> > Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
> > under his name?
>
> > DaveM
>
> http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/winston_churchill.htm
>
>
> http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you...
>
> http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Sir-Winston-Churchill/1/index.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> ----
bratt, if you're right about this, you're right. But could you just
> http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Sir-Winston-Churchill/1/index.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> ----
post a clearer link and proof?
If you do, I'll give you 2 dollars!
I just don't do donkey work.
brewmaster
Apr 27, 2012, 7:01:53 PM4/27/12
to
history (Paul, don't jump in here claiming he was a communist please) and
2. the quote is 100% true, whoever said it.
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
-------
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 7:22:00 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:19:37 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 4:06 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:26:27 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>> >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>>
>> Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
>> under his name?
>>
>> DaveM
>
>http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/winston_churchill.htm
Not in this one.
>On Apr 27 2012 4:06 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:26:27 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>> >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>>
>> Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
>> under his name?
>>
>> DaveM
>
>http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/winston_churchill.htm
>http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html
Not the quote you wrote.
>http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html
>
>http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Sir-Winston-Churchill/1/index.html
Again, not what you quoted and different from the other reference.
To be honest, I don't need to see your references to know the quote is
wrong, although in this case, I'll forgive you the misattribution because
you've been misled. The reason I can be certain, is the word "liberal"
(small "L") wasn't used in the American political sense in British English
until the last decade or so. He might have said something similar to your
quote, although there's no record that he did, but if he had, both "Liberal"
and "Conservative" would have been capitalised and the quote would have had
quite a different meaning.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/33/messages/799.html
<http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed>
DaveM
fffurken
Apr 27, 2012, 7:17:57 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 28, 12:01 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> I don't care if W said it or not.
Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
> I don't care if W said it or not.
in the evening in CA?
I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
recounted on RGP -
"Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
That had some resonance with me, tbh. Anyway, I just want DaveM to
post more. If he would be so kind.
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 7:41:37 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:00 -0700 (PDT), fffurken <fffu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 27, 10:06 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>> >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>>
>> Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
>> under his name?
>
>Firstly, thank you David. I don't know whether the quote is actual or
>not but I'm playing the odds and I'm going with you.
I appreciate your faith. It's well placed in this instance, I believe.
>Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
>the cesspool.
I don't play so much poker nowadays, and truth be told, I haven't made a
profit (even discounting my vaporised FTP bankroll) for a few years, so I
don't feel my poker opinions are as valid as I used to think they were. I
mostly try and stay out of US domestic politic threads, too - who wants to
hear a foreigner's views? - but I like to read them to see which way the
wind blows. And, occasionally, someone expresses a view - usually an opinion
dressed up as fact - that I just can't let pass, which is when I pop up.
DaveM
wrote:
>On Apr 27, 10:06 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>> >conservative at 40, you have no head."
>>
>> Winston Churchill never said that, so why have you put it in quotation marks
>> under his name?
>
>Firstly, thank you David. I don't know whether the quote is actual or
>not but I'm playing the odds and I'm going with you.
>Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
>the cesspool.
profit (even discounting my vaporised FTP bankroll) for a few years, so I
don't feel my poker opinions are as valid as I used to think they were. I
mostly try and stay out of US domestic politic threads, too - who wants to
hear a foreigner's views? - but I like to read them to see which way the
wind blows. And, occasionally, someone expresses a view - usually an opinion
dressed up as fact - that I just can't let pass, which is when I pop up.
DaveM
fffurken
Apr 27, 2012, 8:27:36 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 28, 12:41 am, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
> >the cesspool.
>
> I don't play so much poker nowadays, and truth be told, I haven't made a
> profit (even discounting my vaporised FTP bankroll) for a few years, so I
> don't feel my poker opinions are as valid as I used to think they were.
Poker really isn't such a big deal here Dave, I've been saying that
> >Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
> >the cesspool.
>
> I don't play so much poker nowadays, and truth be told, I haven't made a
> profit (even discounting my vaporised FTP bankroll) for a few years, so I
> don't feel my poker opinions are as valid as I used to think they were.
for years, if years were months.
I feel really compassionate for people who lost money on Full Tilt, I
had thousands there myself, but well before the bust.
> I mostly try and stay out of US domestic politic threads, too - who wants to
> hear a foreigner's views?
> but I like to read them to see which way the
> wind blows. And, occasionally, someone expresses a view - usually an opinion
> dressed up as fact - that I just can't let pass, which is when I pop up.
to hear your voice more. Plus, there's a lot more on RGP to talk about
than purely American issues. People on RGP are in fact generally, I
think, very accepting of another point of view on just about anything.
Unless you're Canadian.
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 9:15:03 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT), fffurken <fffu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>People on RGP are in fact generally, I think, very accepting of another
>point of view on just about anything.
>Unless you're Canadian.
Ah. I'm afraid Canada's failure to embrace union in 1812 may still ruffle a
few feathers.
DaveM
wrote:
>People on RGP are in fact generally, I think, very accepting of another
>point of view on just about anything.
>Unless you're Canadian.
few feathers.
DaveM
Clave
Apr 27, 2012, 9:23:33 PM4/27/12
to
"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6ef27ce-c743-4700...@w7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
true that most stupid people are conservative."
-- John Stuart Mill
news:b6ef27ce-c743-4700...@w7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 12:01 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't care if W said it or not.
>
> Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
> in the evening in CA?
>
> I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
> recounted on RGP -
>
> "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
>
>> I don't care if W said it or not.
>
> Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
> in the evening in CA?
>
> I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
> recounted on RGP -
>
> "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
true that most stupid people are conservative."
-- John Stuart Mill
brewmaster
Apr 27, 2012, 9:19:17 PM4/27/12
to
sure it was 6AM. It is 6PM though. I'm all confused.
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
fffurken
Apr 27, 2012, 9:30:51 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 28, 2:19 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> I just woke up and was sure the clock was wrong saying it was 6PM, I was
> sure it was 6AM. It is 6PM though. I'm all confused.
Don't worry about it!
> I just woke up and was sure the clock was wrong saying it was 6PM, I was
> sure it was 6AM. It is 6PM though. I'm all confused.
Have another drink.
brewmaster
Apr 27, 2012, 9:33:48 PM4/27/12
to
particularly ill.
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
fffurken
Apr 27, 2012, 9:32:44 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 28, 2:23 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
> > recounted on RGP -
>
> > "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
>
> "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
> true that most stupid people are conservative."
> -- John Stuart Mill
Thank you Claveasaurus.
> > I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
> > recounted on RGP -
>
> > "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
>
> "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
> true that most stupid people are conservative."
> -- John Stuart Mill
I think I made it reasonably clear that my sloppiness wasn't
attributal. Unfortunately, I still don't know just who the fuck John
Stuart Mill is! ;)
Tim Norfolk
Apr 27, 2012, 9:45:28 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 9:33 pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 27 2012 6:23 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Apr 27 2012 6:23 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Plato, they say, could put it away,
Half a pint of whiskey every day...
TruthSeeker
Apr 27, 2012, 9:55:39 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/12 5:17 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 28, 12:01 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't care if W said it or not.
>
> Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
> in the evening in CA?
>
> I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
> recounted on RGP -
>
> "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
The OP's quote is widely attributed to Churchill (in various forms) but
> On Apr 28, 12:01 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't care if W said it or not.
>
> Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
> in the evening in CA?
>
> I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
> recounted on RGP -
>
> "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
may not have actually been said by him. Nevertheless, it resonates with
many people because, while oversimplified, it expresses a basic truth
about the human condition.
Your quote, on the other hand, is quite false. Many left-loons are
idiots (and some of them post here).
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 10:03:43 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com>
wrote:
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram...
wrote:
Hobbes was fond of his dram...
brewmaster
Apr 27, 2012, 10:16:50 PM4/27/12
to
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
Tim Norfolk
Apr 27, 2012, 10:13:28 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:03 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com>
> Hobbes was fond of his dram...- Hide quoted text -
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart 'I drink, therefore I am'.
> - Show quoted text -
Clave
Apr 28, 2012, 12:35:18 AM4/28/12
to
"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:28ae027a-d01f-4e49...@i2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Jim
Pepe Papon
Apr 28, 2012, 2:24:09 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:41:37 +0100, David Monaghan
<monagha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
>>the cesspool.
>
>I don't play so much poker nowadays, and truth be told, I haven't made a
>profit (even discounting my vaporised FTP bankroll) for a few years, so I
>don't feel my poker opinions are as valid as I used to think they were. I
>mostly try and stay out of US domestic politic threads, too - who wants to
>hear a foreigner's views?
I'm interested in anyone's views if they make sense, and yours usually
<monagha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Secondly, why do you post so little? You've barely posted in eons on
>>the cesspool.
>
>I don't play so much poker nowadays, and truth be told, I haven't made a
>profit (even discounting my vaporised FTP bankroll) for a few years, so I
>don't feel my poker opinions are as valid as I used to think they were. I
>mostly try and stay out of US domestic politic threads, too - who wants to
>hear a foreigner's views?
do.
Pepe Papon
Apr 28, 2012, 2:53:03 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:55:39 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 4/27/12 5:17 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 12:01 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care if W said it or not.
>>
>> Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
>> in the evening in CA?
>>
>> I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
>> recounted on RGP -
>>
>> "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
>
>
>The OP's quote is widely attributed to Churchill (in various forms) but
>may not have actually been said by him. Nevertheless, it resonates with
>many people because, while oversimplified, it expresses a basic truth
>about the human condition.
It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 4/27/12 5:17 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 12:01 am, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care if W said it or not.
>>
>> Yeah, but you're probably smashed at this stage. What is it, like six
>> in the evening in CA?
>>
>> I don't give a shit about the quote, here's a quote I half remember
>> recounted on RGP -
>>
>> "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
>
>
>The OP's quote is widely attributed to Churchill (in various forms) but
>may not have actually been said by him. Nevertheless, it resonates with
>many people because, while oversimplified, it expresses a basic truth
>about the human condition.
believe it.
TruthSeeker
Apr 28, 2012, 11:38:29 AM4/28/12
to
Neighbor."
fffurken
Apr 28, 2012, 1:01:52 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 2:55 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> > "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
>
> > "Not all conservatives are idiots but all idiots are conservative."
>
> Your quote, on the other hand, is quite false. Many left-loons are
> idiots (and some of them post here).
There you go again, provin shit.
> idiots (and some of them post here).
Truthseeker (chortle), you're a fucking retard and blissfully unaware.
Don't talk to me anymore, you're barred.
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 7:28:17 AM4/29/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:53:03 -0700, Pepe Papon <hitme...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
complimentary.
DaveM
wrote:
effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
complimentary.
DaveM
da pickle
Apr 29, 2012, 10:40:40 AM4/29/12
to
On 4/29/2012 6:28 AM, David Monaghan wrote:
The original post quote:
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Sir
Winston Churchill.”
>> It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
>> believe it.
>
> Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
> effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
> old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
> complimentary.
>
> DaveM
Is your interpretation exclusive of others?
Maybe what it "says" is that as you mature you might discover what you
thought was "right" was not so "right" after all. If "right" is the
"right" approach at all.
Another attributed to WC:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.”
And perhaps more closely aligned with the OP quote, from Corinthians:
New International Version (©1984)
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
New Living Translation (©2007)
When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But
when I grew up, I put away childish things.
English Standard Version (©2001)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child,
reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
International Standard Version (©2008)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
When I was a child, I was speaking as a child, I was led as a child, I
was thinking as a child, but when I became a man, I ceased these
childish things.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and
reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I no longer used childish
ways.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
American King James Version
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
American Standard Version
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as
a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a
child.
Darby Bible Translation
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I reasoned as
a child; when I became a man, I had done with what belonged to the child.
English Revised Version
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as
a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.
Webster's Bible Translation
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Weymouth New Testament
When I was a child, I talked like a child, felt like a child, reasoned
like a child: when I became a man, I put from me childish ways.
World English Bible
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as
a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things.
The original post quote:
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Sir
Winston Churchill.”
>> It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
>> believe it.
>
> Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
> effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
> old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
> complimentary.
>
> DaveM
Maybe what it "says" is that as you mature you might discover what you
thought was "right" was not so "right" after all. If "right" is the
"right" approach at all.
Another attributed to WC:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.”
And perhaps more closely aligned with the OP quote, from Corinthians:
New International Version (©1984)
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
New Living Translation (©2007)
When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But
when I grew up, I put away childish things.
English Standard Version (©2001)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child,
reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
International Standard Version (©2008)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
When I was a child, I was speaking as a child, I was led as a child, I
was thinking as a child, but when I became a man, I ceased these
childish things.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and
reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I no longer used childish
ways.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
American King James Version
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
American Standard Version
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as
a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a
child.
Darby Bible Translation
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I reasoned as
a child; when I became a man, I had done with what belonged to the child.
English Revised Version
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as
a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.
Webster's Bible Translation
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Weymouth New Testament
When I was a child, I talked like a child, felt like a child, reasoned
like a child: when I became a man, I put from me childish ways.
World English Bible
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as
a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things.
Adam Russell
Apr 29, 2012, 12:49:25 PM4/29/12
to
chapter/verse attribution imo.
Then there is Matthew 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless
you change and become like little children, you will never enter the
kingdom of heaven.
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 1:19:59 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:40:40 -0500, da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On 4/29/2012 6:28 AM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>The original post quote:
>
>“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
>man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Sir
>Winston Churchill.”
That's not the "original post" quote. It's yet another variation of a quote
attributed to Churchill that he never made. _This_ is the original post
quote from Susan:
>"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>conservative at 40, you have no head."
If you can't even bother to check what you're quoting, I despair of you. To
save you the trouble of not reading the rest of the thread, this is the
rebuttal:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed
And please note the capitalisation of "Conservative " and "Liberal" in the
comments. Not only did he not say it, he didn't not say it in the way you
think he did.
>>> It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
>>> believe it.
>> Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
>> effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
>> old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
>> complimentary.
It's certainly exclusive of that, if you're suggesting the two are
equivalent.
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/29/2012 6:28 AM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>The original post quote:
>
>“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
>man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Sir
>Winston Churchill.”
attributed to Churchill that he never made. _This_ is the original post
quote from Susan:
>"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a
>conservative at 40, you have no head."
save you the trouble of not reading the rest of the thread, this is the
rebuttal:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed
And please note the capitalisation of "Conservative " and "Liberal" in the
comments. Not only did he not say it, he didn't not say it in the way you
think he did.
>>> It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
>>> believe it.
>> Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
>> effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
>> old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
>> complimentary.
>Is your interpretation exclusive of others?
>And perhaps more closely aligned with the OP quote, from Corinthians:
<snip multiple versions>
>King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
>When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
>thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
<snip multiple versions>
>When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
>thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
It's certainly exclusive of that, if you're suggesting the two are
equivalent.
DaveM
da pickle
Apr 29, 2012, 6:26:06 PM4/29/12
to
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 7:24:15 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:26:06 -0500, da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
Perhaps.
It would be easier to give you a definitive answer if I understood what you
meant.
DaveM
wrote:
>Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
It would be easier to give you a definitive answer if I understood what you
meant.
DaveM
TruthSeeker
Apr 29, 2012, 7:39:03 PM4/29/12
to
TruthSeeker
Apr 29, 2012, 7:51:19 PM4/29/12
to
What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion and the way
you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
altruistic than when you were young, you come to understand the
limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand
"The poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning
government mandates and social programs often harm more than they help.
You come to understand and value the complimentary principles of
personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
government programs reduce them.
At least those of us who "have a head" do.
TruthSeeker
Apr 29, 2012, 7:55:02 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/29/12 4:26 PM, da pickle wrote:
> Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
> Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 8:05:59 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:51:19 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 5:28 AM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:53:03 -0700, Pepe Papon <hitme...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:55:39 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>>> The OP's quote is widely attributed to Churchill (in various forms) but
>>>> may not have actually been said by him. Nevertheless, it resonates with
>>>> many people because, while oversimplified, it expresses a basic truth
>>>> about the human condition.
>
>>> It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
>>> believe it.
>
>> Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
>> effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
>> old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
>> complimentary.
>
>What a convoluted misinterpretation of the quote.
>
>What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion
That's a reasonable alternative interpretation
>and the way you wish the world to be, rather that as it is.
That's entirely added by you.
>As you age you gain Knowledge, experience, and judgement,
Although I don't agree, I recognise that as a valid alternative explanation.
>and even though you become more altruistic than when you were young, you
>come to understand the limitations of government in the real world. You
>come to understand "The poor you shall always have with you" and that
>well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
>they help. You come to understand and value the complimentary principles
>of personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
>government programs reduce them.
You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
>At least those of us who "have a head" do.
You keep your head. I want none of it.
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 5:28 AM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:53:03 -0700, Pepe Papon <hitme...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:55:39 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>>> The OP's quote is widely attributed to Churchill (in various forms) but
>>>> may not have actually been said by him. Nevertheless, it resonates with
>>>> many people because, while oversimplified, it expresses a basic truth
>>>> about the human condition.
>
>>> It resonates with many conservatives because they desperately want to
>>> believe it.
>
>> Why would they want to do that? The phrasing is good, but what it says, in
>> effect, is that when you're young, you act on what is right, and when you're
>> old, you act in your own self-interest. I wouldn't see that as terribly
>> complimentary.
>
>What a convoluted misinterpretation of the quote.
>
>What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion
>and the way you wish the world to be, rather that as it is.
>As you age you gain Knowledge, experience, and judgement,
Although I don't agree, I recognise that as a valid alternative explanation.
>and even though you become more altruistic than when you were young, you
>come to understand the limitations of government in the real world. You
>come to understand "The poor you shall always have with you" and that
>well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
>they help. You come to understand and value the complimentary principles
>of personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
>government programs reduce them.
that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
>At least those of us who "have a head" do.
DaveM
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 8:15:59 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:55:02 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 4:26 PM, da pickle wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
>
>So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
>tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
>viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
You've left a great deal unsaid there. By specifying this is a "Left"
characteristic you're implying it doesn't apply to the Right. But what
doesn't apply? Do the Right make no claim to be open-minded and tolerant?
Are they tolerant of contrary views? Or do they just stay silent? Inquiring
minds want to know...
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 4:26 PM, da pickle wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
>
>So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
>tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
>viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
characteristic you're implying it doesn't apply to the Right. But what
doesn't apply? Do the Right make no claim to be open-minded and tolerant?
Are they tolerant of contrary views? Or do they just stay silent? Inquiring
minds want to know...
DaveM
~M~
Apr 29, 2012, 8:18:30 PM4/29/12
to
"Clave" wrote in message news:ABHmr.13562$M37...@newsfe01.iad...
>"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
>true that most stupid people are conservative."
> -- John Stuart Mill
Do you think Mill, an Englishman who died in 1873, was talking about 21st
century American conservatives?
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
>"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
>true that most stupid people are conservative."
> -- John Stuart Mill
century American conservatives?
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 8:30:26 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:18:30 -0400, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Clave" wrote in message news:ABHmr.13562$M37...@newsfe01.iad...
>
>>"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
>>true that most stupid people are conservative."
>> -- John Stuart Mill
>
>Do you think Mill, an Englishman who died in 1873, was talking about 21st
>century American conservatives?
Of course not. He would have been talking about "Conservatives"
>"Clave" wrote in message news:ABHmr.13562$M37...@newsfe01.iad...
>
>>"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
>>true that most stupid people are conservative."
>> -- John Stuart Mill
>
>Do you think Mill, an Englishman who died in 1873, was talking about 21st
>century American conservatives?
I wouldn't claim this as a definitive as it doesn't reference its source,
but here's how Wikiquotes has the quotation:
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to
say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so
obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any
gentleman will deny it.
John Stuart Mill, in a Parliamentary debate with the Conservative MP, John
Pakington (May 31, 1866);
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Sourced
DaveM
Pepe Papon
Apr 29, 2012, 9:10:21 PM4/29/12
to
da pickle
Apr 29, 2012, 9:40:37 PM4/29/12
to
right (and many variations all around) that might fit the bill.
However, here we are just dancing around what appears to be your version
of the characteristic.
I have a quite high opinion of my opinion but it is still just my opinion.
Truthseeker
Apr 30, 2012, 11:46:47 AM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/12 6:15 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:55:02 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/12 4:26 PM, da pickle wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
>>
>> So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
>> tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
>> viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
>
> You've left a great deal unsaid there. By specifying this is a "Left"
> characteristic you're implying it doesn't apply to the Right.
I did no such thing. My pointing out that this is a characteristic of
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:55:02 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/12 4:26 PM, da pickle wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you are educated beyond your ability to tolerate dissent.
>>
>> So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
>> tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
>> viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
>
> You've left a great deal unsaid there. By specifying this is a "Left"
> characteristic you're implying it doesn't apply to the Right.
many on the Left, especially those on the far left, does not preclude
some people of other ideologies having the same characteristic. Those
who have it generally indignantly deny having it, though. And it seems
to me that people on the Left tend to be more defensive about it, since
tolerance and open-mindedness is supposed to be a fundamental part of
their ideology.
> But what
> doesn't apply? Do the Right make no claim to be open-minded and tolerant?
> Are they tolerant of contrary views? Or do they just stay silent? Inquiring
> minds want to know...
It seems that you got a bit overwrought about this simple observation.
Does the shoe fit?
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Apr 30, 2012, 11:50:43 AM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/12 6:05 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:51:19 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
...
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:51:19 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>> and even though you become more altruistic than when you were young, you
>> come to understand the limitations of government in the real world. You
>> come to understand "The poor you shall always have with you" and that
>> well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
>> they help. You come to understand and value the complimentary principles
>> of personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
>> government programs reduce them.
>
> You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
> that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
> chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
Ah, I see another example of resorting to snark rather than address the
>> come to understand the limitations of government in the real world. You
>> come to understand "The poor you shall always have with you" and that
>> well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
>> they help. You come to understand and value the complimentary principles
>> of personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
>> government programs reduce them.
>
> You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
> that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
> chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
points raised.
>> At least those of us who "have a head" do.
> You keep your head. I want none of it.
response. But thank you, I shall keep mine and I'm happy that you don't
covet it.
--
Truthseeker
fffurken
Apr 30, 2012, 11:57:43 AM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 12:51 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion and the way
> you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
> knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
> altruistic than when you were young, you come to understand the
> limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand
> "The poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning
> government mandates and social programs often harm more than they help.
> You come to understand and value the complimentary principles of
> personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
> government programs reduce them.
(chortle)
> What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion and the way
> you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
> knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
> altruistic than when you were young, you come to understand the
> limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand
> "The poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning
> government mandates and social programs often harm more than they help.
> You come to understand and value the complimentary principles of
> personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning
> government programs reduce them.
Classic Truthseeker (chortle).
David Monaghan
Apr 30, 2012, 1:41:33 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:46:47 -0600, Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 6:15 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:55:02 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>>> So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
>>> tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
>>> viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
in this thread: "Many left-loons are idiots (and some of them post here)."
This is a particularly choice specimen as it makes it clear you don't have
to be an idiot to be described as a "left-wing loon" by you, you just need
to have views you don't agree with.
But I'm a fair man - find me making a similar disparaging comment about the
right from all my Usenet posts and I'll concede the point. And just to make
it fair, I can tell you I've been posting from 1997 and my two previous
email addresses were xg...@dsl.pipex.com and da...@dmonaghan.fsnet.co.uk, so
you have a wealth of opportunity to catch me out. Enjoy!
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 6:15 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:55:02 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>>> So many on the Left will tell you, loudly and often, how open-minded and
>>> tolerant they are -- all the while being fiercely intolerant of any
>>> viewpoint that does not comport with their own.
>It seems that you got a bit overwrought about this simple observation.
>Does the shoe fit?
I think it may fit one of us. My vote is for the one who said this earlier
>Does the shoe fit?
in this thread: "Many left-loons are idiots (and some of them post here)."
This is a particularly choice specimen as it makes it clear you don't have
to be an idiot to be described as a "left-wing loon" by you, you just need
to have views you don't agree with.
But I'm a fair man - find me making a similar disparaging comment about the
right from all my Usenet posts and I'll concede the point. And just to make
it fair, I can tell you I've been posting from 1997 and my two previous
email addresses were xg...@dsl.pipex.com and da...@dmonaghan.fsnet.co.uk, so
you have a wealth of opportunity to catch me out. Enjoy!
DaveM
David Monaghan
Apr 30, 2012, 5:50:16 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:50:43 -0600, Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 6:05 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:51:19 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>
>>>you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
>>>knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
the world that phrase means you're paraphrasing whatever "it" is, not making
a series of points you want addressed. Still, now I know better:
So let's see:
1)"when you are young, you act on emotion and the way you wish the world to
another quotation:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
2) "As you age you gain knowledge, experience, and judgement,"
Well, yes.
3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
I don't believe that's true.
4) "you come to understand the limitations of government in the real world.
nothing. If you're not making that argument what well-meaning (you would be
well-meaning, wouldn't you?) plan would you espouse and what evidence do you
have it would do better than the policies your criticising?
5) "You come to understand and value the complimentary principles of
foreigner and put some specifics on it. And at the risk of being thought
snarky again, I'm pretty sure you meant "complementary" not "complimentary"
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 6:05 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:51:19 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>
>>>What a convoluted misinterpretation of the quote.
>
>>>What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion and the way
>
>>>you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
>>>knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
>>>altruistic than when you were young, you come to understand the
>>>limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand "The
>>>poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning government
>>>mandates and social programs often harm more than they help. You come to
>>>understand and value the complimentary principles of personal liberty and
>>>opportunity, and understand how well-meaning government programs reduce
>>>them.
>> You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
>> that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
>> chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
>
>Ah, I see another example of resorting to snark rather than address the
>points raised.
I got fooled by your use of the phrase "What it says is...". In my part of
>>>limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand "The
>>>poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning government
>>>mandates and social programs often harm more than they help. You come to
>>>understand and value the complimentary principles of personal liberty and
>>>opportunity, and understand how well-meaning government programs reduce
>>>them.
>> You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
>> that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
>> chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
>
>Ah, I see another example of resorting to snark rather than address the
>points raised.
the world that phrase means you're paraphrasing whatever "it" is, not making
a series of points you want addressed. Still, now I know better:
So let's see:
1)"when you are young, you act on emotion and the way you wish the world to
be, rather that as it is"
There's some truth in that, but there's as much, if not more truth in
another quotation:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
2) "As you age you gain knowledge, experience, and judgement,"
Well, yes.
3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
I don't believe that's true.
4) "you come to understand the limitations of government in the real world.
You come to understand "The poor you shall always have with you" and that
well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
they help."
Yes, the poor will always be with us, but that isn't an argument to do
well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
they help."
nothing. If you're not making that argument what well-meaning (you would be
well-meaning, wouldn't you?) plan would you espouse and what evidence do you
have it would do better than the policies your criticising?
5) "You come to understand and value the complimentary principles of
personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning government
programs reduce them."
I'm sure you have something specific in mind here, but bear in mind I'm a
programs reduce them."
foreigner and put some specifics on it. And at the risk of being thought
snarky again, I'm pretty sure you meant "complementary" not "complimentary"
DaveM
TruthSeeker
Apr 30, 2012, 8:06:13 PM4/30/12
to
all about you?
You are quite correct, though, that you don't have to be a left-wing
loon to be an idiot. You find idiots of all ideological persuasions.
Please note, though, that I did not call any particular individual an
idiot, nor did I even say that everyone of a particular political
persuasion is an idiot. You also conveniently left off what I was
replying to with that statement. It was a bit of tit for tat.
--
TruthSeeker
fffurken
Apr 30, 2012, 8:13:34 PM4/30/12
to
On May 1, 1:06 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> > But I'm a fair man - find me making a similar disparaging comment about the
> > right from all my Usenet posts and I'll concede the point. And just to make
> > it fair, I can tell you I've been posting from 1997 and my two previous
> > email addresses were xg...@dsl.pipex.com and da...@dmonaghan.fsnet.co.uk, so
> > you have a wealth of opportunity to catch me out. Enjoy!
>
> My, you are rather full of yourself aren't you?
I knew you'd bring envy into it at some point sooner rather than later.
> > But I'm a fair man - find me making a similar disparaging comment about the
> > right from all my Usenet posts and I'll concede the point. And just to make
> > it fair, I can tell you I've been posting from 1997 and my two previous
> > email addresses were xg...@dsl.pipex.com and da...@dmonaghan.fsnet.co.uk, so
> > you have a wealth of opportunity to catch me out. Enjoy!
>
> My, you are rather full of yourself aren't you?
TruthSeeker
Apr 30, 2012, 8:23:25 PM4/30/12
to
On 4/30/12 3:50 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:50:43 -0600, Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>>>> What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion and the way
>>>> you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
>>>> knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
>>>> altruistic than when you were young, you come to understand the
>>>> limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand "The
>>>> poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning government
>>>> mandates and social programs often harm more than they help. You come to
>>>> understand and value the complimentary principles of personal liberty and
>>>> opportunity, and understand how well-meaning government programs reduce
>>>> them.
>>> You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
>>> that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
>>> chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
>> Ah, I see another example of resorting to snark rather than address the
>> points raised.
> I got fooled by your use of the phrase "What it says is...". In my part of
> the world that phrase means you're paraphrasing whatever "it" is, not making
> a series of points you want addressed. Still, now I know better:
I was offering an alternate explanation of what the OP quote says in
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:50:43 -0600, Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>>>> What it says is that when you are young, you act on emotion and the way
>>>> you wish the world to be, rather that as it is. As you age you gain
>>>> knowledge, experience, and judgement, and even though you become more
>>>> altruistic than when you were young, you come to understand the
>>>> limitations of government in the real world. You come to understand "The
>>>> poor you shall always have with you" and that well-meaning government
>>>> mandates and social programs often harm more than they help. You come to
>>>> understand and value the complimentary principles of personal liberty and
>>>> opportunity, and understand how well-meaning government programs reduce
>>>> them.
>>> You got all that out of it? I'm betting that either the voices told you
>>> that's what it meant or you have the ability to tell the future by reading
>>> chicken entrails or reading tea leaves.
>> Ah, I see another example of resorting to snark rather than address the
>> points raised.
> I got fooled by your use of the phrase "What it says is...". In my part of
> the world that phrase means you're paraphrasing whatever "it" is, not making
> a series of points you want addressed. Still, now I know better:
contrast to the one in the post I replied to. And yes, that is what I
get out of it.
> So let's see:
>
> 1)"when you are young, you act on emotion and the way you wish the world to
> be, rather that as it is"
>
> There's some truth in that, but there's as much, if not more truth in
> another quotation:
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
> depends on the unreasonable man."
> George Bernard Shaw
to Left/Progressive politics than I do.
> 2) "As you age you gain knowledge, experience, and judgement,"
> Well, yes.
> 3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
> I don't believe that's true.
self-centered. Teenagers and twentysomethings are in many cases
beginning to become altrustic, but in the aggregate are not so much as
their elders IMO, and many of them fall for the promises that
Progressive governments can fix what they see as wrong with society.
> 4) "you come to understand the limitations of government in the real world.
> You come to understand "The poor you shall always have with you" and that
> well-meaning government mandates and social programs often harm more than
> they help."
>
> Yes, the poor will always be with us, but that isn't an argument to do
> nothing.
the truly needy but cannot eliminate poverty.
> If you're not making that argument what well-meaning (you would be
> well-meaning, wouldn't you?) plan would you espouse and what evidence do you
> have it would do better than the policies your criticising?
sticker. First, devolve social safety nets to the States and not the
Federal Government. Second, provide opportunities for self-improvement
rather than just handouts. Third, make it clear that spending your life
on the government dole (other than for the disabled who actually cannot
provide for themselves) is not an entitlement.
> 5) "You come to understand and value the complimentary principles of
> personal liberty and opportunity, and understand how well-meaning government
> programs reduce them."
>
> I'm sure you have something specific in mind here, but bear in mind I'm a
> foreigner and put some specifics on it. And at the risk of being thought
> snarky again, I'm pretty sure you meant "complementary" not "complimentary"
value personal liberty and opportunity, they are pretty much universal
aspirations of human beings. Again, you're asking for a book, but the
one-sentence answer is that government programs, regulations and taxes
force things on people, even when their intentions are good.
--
TruthSeeker
~M~
Apr 30, 2012, 9:16:21 PM4/30/12
to
"David Monaghan" wrote in message
news:srmrp7hg7p3nov26c...@4ax.com...
>Of course not. He would have been talking about "Conservatives"
But not the same "Conservatives" that people in 21st century America would
be discussing. His statement, however accurate, does not relate to 21st
century political discourse.
--
"Let's take a wander into the Republican Southern States, including Texas.
We'll find a typical singlewide (with a doublewide porch for 8-dogs to hid
[sic]
under); with a shiny new pickup with tires the size of Bel-dim's ego; gun
rack, stars and bars, Christian cross and a radio blaring Rush Limbaugh.
The single-toothed right-wing idiot comes out and spits as he laughs at
the suggestion that Democrats are against 'colored people' and are Ku Klux
Klan lovers."
- Jerry (Big 'ol Bigot) 'n Vegas Sturdivant 4/6/2011
-
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/4384ceb92c41296...
news:srmrp7hg7p3nov26c...@4ax.com...
>Of course not. He would have been talking about "Conservatives"
be discussing. His statement, however accurate, does not relate to 21st
century political discourse.
--
"Let's take a wander into the Republican Southern States, including Texas.
We'll find a typical singlewide (with a doublewide porch for 8-dogs to hid
[sic]
under); with a shiny new pickup with tires the size of Bel-dim's ego; gun
rack, stars and bars, Christian cross and a radio blaring Rush Limbaugh.
The single-toothed right-wing idiot comes out and spits as he laughs at
the suggestion that Democrats are against 'colored people' and are Ku Klux
Klan lovers."
- Jerry (Big 'ol Bigot) 'n Vegas Sturdivant 4/6/2011
-
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/4384ceb92c41296...
ramashiva
Apr 30, 2012, 11:06:15 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 5:23 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> No? Altruism is learned, not innate.
FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
> No? Altruism is learned, not innate.
well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
and death to defend the group against predators. Not to mention the
willingness of mothers of most animal species to risk death in order
to protect their young.
As usual, you are pulling shit out of your ass without knowing what
you are talking about. I saw E. O. Wilson, arguably the world's
leading expert on the biological basis of animal behavior, discuss
this very issue with Charlie Rose. Wilson expressed the view that
there was beyond doubt a genetic basis for altruism. Rose brought up
the views of Richard Dawkins, of selfish gene fame, as a
counterpoint. Wilson replied --
Mr. Dawkins is confused. Mr. Dawkins also does not publish his views
in peer reviewed journals.
Seriously, Joe. You are way out of their depth on this newsgroup.
You think you are smart, well-educated, and knowledgeable. Compared
to many people here, you are none of those things.
William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
May 1, 2012, 1:48:58 AM5/1/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:16:21 -0400, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David Monaghan" wrote in message
>news:srmrp7hg7p3nov26c...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Of course not. He would have been talking about "Conservatives"
>
>But not the same "Conservatives" that people in 21st century America would
>be discussing. His statement, however accurate, does not relate to 21st
>century political discourse.
Nor does the alleged Churchill quote.
>"David Monaghan" wrote in message
>news:srmrp7hg7p3nov26c...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Of course not. He would have been talking about "Conservatives"
>
>But not the same "Conservatives" that people in 21st century America would
>be discussing. His statement, however accurate, does not relate to 21st
>century political discourse.
Pepe Papon
May 1, 2012, 2:06:30 AM5/1/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:23:25 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> 3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
>
>> I don't believe that's true.
>
>No? Altruism is learned, not innate. Toddlers are totally
>self-centered. Teenagers and twentysomethings are in many cases
>beginning to become altrustic, but in the aggregate are not so much as
>their elders IMO, and many of them fall for the promises that
>Progressive governments can fix what they see as wrong with society.
You must be high. Teens and young adults are notoriously idealistic.
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> 3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
>
>> I don't believe that's true.
>
>No? Altruism is learned, not innate. Toddlers are totally
>self-centered. Teenagers and twentysomethings are in many cases
>beginning to become altrustic, but in the aggregate are not so much as
>their elders IMO, and many of them fall for the promises that
>Progressive governments can fix what they see as wrong with society.
That's the very basis for the OP quote. As they grow older, people
become more centered on their own careers, their own wealth, and their
own families. The classic example is the idealistic hippies who
grew up into self-centered yuppies. The cry of the '60s: "Peace and
love!"; the cry of the '80s: "Greed is good!"
TruthSeeker
May 1, 2012, 2:37:33 PM5/1/12
to
On 4/30/12 9:06 PM, ramashiva wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:23 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> No? Altruism is learned, not innate.
>
> FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
> well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
> and death to defend the group against predators. Not to mention the
> willingness of mothers of most animal species to risk death in order
> to protect their young.
>
> As usual, you are pulling shit out of your ass without knowing what
> you are talking about. I saw E. O. Wilson, arguably the world's
> leading expert on the biological basis of animal behavior, discuss
> this very issue with Charlie Rose. Wilson expressed the view that
> there was beyond doubt a genetic basis for altruism. Rose brought up
> the views of Richard Dawkins, of selfish gene fame, as a
> counterpoint. Wilson replied --
>
> Mr. Dawkins is confused. Mr. Dawkins also does not publish his views
> in peer reviewed journals.
Good points. Instinctive altruism, as least in the form of defending
> On Apr 30, 5:23 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> No? Altruism is learned, not innate.
>
> FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
> well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
> and death to defend the group against predators. Not to mention the
> willingness of mothers of most animal species to risk death in order
> to protect their young.
>
> As usual, you are pulling shit out of your ass without knowing what
> you are talking about. I saw E. O. Wilson, arguably the world's
> leading expert on the biological basis of animal behavior, discuss
> this very issue with Charlie Rose. Wilson expressed the view that
> there was beyond doubt a genetic basis for altruism. Rose brought up
> the views of Richard Dawkins, of selfish gene fame, as a
> counterpoint. Wilson replied --
>
> Mr. Dawkins is confused. Mr. Dawkins also does not publish his views
> in peer reviewed journals.
one's young, is a positive survival trait long developed by evolution.
Nevertheless much of the broader type that we see in humans (and is
expressed in politics) is learned.
TruthSeeker
May 1, 2012, 2:49:40 PM5/1/12
to
thought they were going to change the world, but the world changed them.
What I wrote is consistent with the quote. Late teens and
twentysomethings are becoming idealistic and easily fall for the
government-solution hopes, hence the "Liberal at twenty." I don't
dispute that people, once they get married and have families and the
responsibilities that come with that, get more focused on that and
practical about things. I maintain that they also get more altruistic,
in part due to the very things ramashiva wrote about (protecting their
young). Idealism and altruism are not the same thing.
Again: idealism invites wishful-thinking attitudes about government.
Tim Norfolk
May 1, 2012, 3:21:49 PM5/1/12
to
and Dawkins well knows that. I suspect that Rose misunderstood.
mo_ntresor
May 1, 2012, 3:27:28 PM5/1/12
to
mo_ntresor
----
Tim Norfolk
May 1, 2012, 3:22:37 PM5/1/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's easy to be altruistic and liberal when you don't have a job and
mortgage to protect.
mo_ntresor
May 1, 2012, 3:42:11 PM5/1/12
to
On May 1 2012 1:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> > FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
> > well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
> > and death to defend the group against predators. Not to mention the
> > willingness of mothers of most animal species to risk death in order
> > to protect their young.
> >
> > As usual, you are pulling shit out of your ass without knowing what
> > you are talking about. I saw E. O. Wilson, arguably the world's
> > leading expert on the biological basis of animal behavior, discuss
> > this very issue with Charlie Rose. Wilson expressed the view that
> > there was beyond doubt a genetic basis for altruism. Rose brought up
> > the views of Richard Dawkins, of selfish gene fame, as a
> > counterpoint. Wilson replied --
> >
> > Mr. Dawkins is confused. Mr. Dawkins also does not publish his views
> > in peer reviewed journals.
> >
> > Seriously, Joe. You are way out of their depth on this newsgroup.
> > You think you are smart, well-educated, and knowledgeable. Compared
> > to many people here, you are none of those things.
>
> > FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
> > well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
> > and death to defend the group against predators. Not to mention the
> > willingness of mothers of most animal species to risk death in order
> > to protect their young.
> >
> > As usual, you are pulling shit out of your ass without knowing what
> > you are talking about. I saw E. O. Wilson, arguably the world's
> > leading expert on the biological basis of animal behavior, discuss
> > this very issue with Charlie Rose. Wilson expressed the view that
> > there was beyond doubt a genetic basis for altruism. Rose brought up
> > the views of Richard Dawkins, of selfish gene fame, as a
> > counterpoint. Wilson replied --
> >
> > Mr. Dawkins is confused. Mr. Dawkins also does not publish his views
> > in peer reviewed journals.
> >
> > Seriously, Joe. You are way out of their depth on this newsgroup.
> > You think you are smart, well-educated, and knowledgeable. Compared
> > to many people here, you are none of those things.
>
> But the 'selfish gene' does not exclude the possibility of altruism,
> and Dawkins well knows that. I suspect that Rose misunderstood.
they've offered different explanations for altruism (both genetic and
> and Dawkins well knows that. I suspect that Rose misunderstood.
social). they rely heavily on magic bone rolling to arrive at their
antithetical conclusions. maybe they should take some statistics classes
at the university of akron.
mo_ntresor
_______________________________________________________________________
~M~
May 1, 2012, 7:20:29 PM5/1/12
to
"ramashiva" wrote in message
news:2c2edf0b-2c56-44e4...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> No? Altruism is learned, not innate.
>FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
>well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
>and death to defend the group against predators.
Those are the ones that get to mate.
news:2c2edf0b-2c56-44e4...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> No? Altruism is learned, not innate.
>FAIL. Please explain the willingness of mature male in baboons, as
>well as mature males in many ungulate species, to risk personal danger
>and death to defend the group against predators.
~M~
May 1, 2012, 7:23:03 PM5/1/12
to
"TruthSeeker" wrote in message
news:9JWdndx3QLPwsD3S...@giganews.com...
>Good points. Instinctive altruism, as least in the form of defending
>one's young, is a positive survival trait long developed by evolution.
Defending one's young is not altruistic, making your young do without in
order to support someone else's young is.
--
"'Personal responsibility' there addressess [sic] people who feel a personal
responsibility to help others... "
- The Dictionary According to Beldin
news:9JWdndx3QLPwsD3S...@giganews.com...
>Good points. Instinctive altruism, as least in the form of defending
>one's young, is a positive survival trait long developed by evolution.
order to support someone else's young is.
--
"'Personal responsibility' there addressess [sic] people who feel a personal
responsibility to help others... "
- The Dictionary According to Beldin
Pepe Papon
May 2, 2012, 2:08:38 AM5/2/12
to
On Tue, 01 May 2012 12:49:40 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 5/1/12 12:06 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:23:25 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
>>>
>>>> I don't believe that's true.
>>>
>>> No? Altruism is learned, not innate. Toddlers are totally
>>> self-centered. Teenagers and twentysomethings are in many cases
>>> beginning to become altrustic, but in the aggregate are not so much as
>>> their elders IMO, and many of them fall for the promises that
>>> Progressive governments can fix what they see as wrong with society.
>>
>> You must be high. Teens and young adults are notoriously idealistic.
>> That's the very basis for the OP quote. As they grow older, people
>> become more centered on their own careers, their own wealth, and their
>> own families. The classic example is the idealistic hippies who
>> grew up into self-centered yuppies. The cry of the '60s: "Peace and
>> love!"; the cry of the '80s: "Greed is good!"
>
>First of all, the '60's was something of an aberration. Alas, they
>thought they were going to change the world, but the world changed them.
>
>What I wrote is consistent with the quote. Late teens and
>twentysomethings are becoming idealistic and easily fall for the
>government-solution hopes, hence the "Liberal at twenty."
Do you ever get beyond your one-dimensional government/anti-government
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 5/1/12 12:06 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:23:25 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> 3) "even though you become more altruistic than when you were young,"
>>>
>>>> I don't believe that's true.
>>>
>>> No? Altruism is learned, not innate. Toddlers are totally
>>> self-centered. Teenagers and twentysomethings are in many cases
>>> beginning to become altrustic, but in the aggregate are not so much as
>>> their elders IMO, and many of them fall for the promises that
>>> Progressive governments can fix what they see as wrong with society.
>>
>> You must be high. Teens and young adults are notoriously idealistic.
>> That's the very basis for the OP quote. As they grow older, people
>> become more centered on their own careers, their own wealth, and their
>> own families. The classic example is the idealistic hippies who
>> grew up into self-centered yuppies. The cry of the '60s: "Peace and
>> love!"; the cry of the '80s: "Greed is good!"
>
>First of all, the '60's was something of an aberration. Alas, they
>thought they were going to change the world, but the world changed them.
>
>What I wrote is consistent with the quote. Late teens and
>twentysomethings are becoming idealistic and easily fall for the
>government-solution hopes, hence the "Liberal at twenty."
way of looking at things? Idealism is not a matter of
government-solution hopes, it's a matter of wanting to change the
world for the better, whatever form that happens to take. There's
inherent altruism in that view. Idealists are interesting in
improving the lives of others as well as themselves.
> I don't
>dispute that people, once they get married and have families and the
>responsibilities that come with that, get more focused on that and
>practical about things. I maintain that they also get more altruistic,
>in part due to the very things ramashiva wrote about (protecting their
>young).
facts to support your opinion.
0 new messages