Why do young people tend to be socialists?

[brendan]

There is no doubt that some people have differing opinions, thats a fact of life, I never said that i didn't accept that. However, that doesn't mean that their opinion is correct or makes any sense.

Makes any sense in who's eyes?

It doesn't matter who thinks it is correct or not. The statement that 1+1 = 3 is incorrect regardless of who views it, or whether people believe it.

[costargh]

But its an opinion, it's differnt. Some people may see that it makes sense and other may not. There does not neccesaily have to be a right and wrong answer when it comes to opinions. If there was then there would be no such thing as an opinion because the answer would be obvious.

[Eriny]

free access to the things that are fundemental to life (health, education).

Talk about assuming free lunches...

Nothing in life is free. Can we get past the idea that you can get something for nothing? There is no money fairy. Who's going to pay for it? How are they are going to pay for it?

lol, I get it

[brendan]

But its an opinion, it's differnt. Some people may see that it makes sense and other may not. There does not neccesaily have to be a right and wrong answer when it comes to opinions. If there was then there would be no such thing as an opinion because the answer would be obvious.

My point was that an opinion can be flawed. I did not say that an opinion always is flawed. I said that an opinion can be flawed.

that doesn't mean that their opinion is correct or makes any sense.

Secondly, just because an answer to an issue is not "obvious" does not mean that one cannot utter a completely illogical and nonsensical argument.

Take for example this statement that was made to support the proposition that there existed a god:

i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?

I pointed out that it is logical mistake to conclude that a proposition is true just because of the fact that someone believes it to be true. This is a logical mistake regardless of whether i pointed it out. It doesn't matter that I even existed. It is a mistake regardless. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to the statement to be logical or not. The soundness of the argument independent of you and me.

[costargh]

Yes thats one example Brendan but as a general rule, just because you don't find someones opinion to be correct or think it makes any sense doesn't mean that it isn't correct. I'm not saying that you have said that, but I am saying that just because other people have differing views to you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.

[brendan]

Yes thats one example Brendan but as a general rule, just because you don't find someones opinion to be correct or think it makes any sense doesn't mean that it isn't correct.

Yes but what? I never made that claim. Don't attempt to attribute to me arguments I never made, and then try to cover yourself by saying "I'm not saying that you have said that, but..." If you weren't saying that then why did you feel the need to point it out? I mean that reminds me of arguments that start off with "I'm not racist but..."

[costargh]

Interpret that how you may but If I specifically say

I'm not saying that you have said that, but 

It kinda means what it says whether it is convenient for that line to be there or not.

The you was a general 'you' which is why I had that line preceding what I wrote. So its your own wrong interpretation that has led to an argument that shouldn't exist.

[brendan]

The you was a general 'you' which is why I had that line preceding what I wrote. So its your own wrong interpretation that has led to an argument that shouldn't exist.

So let me get this straight, you (costargh) said:

"Yes thats one example Brendan but as a general rule, just because you don't find someones opinion to be correct or think it makes any sense doesn't mean that it isn't correct. I'm not saying that you have said that, but I am saying that just because other people have differing views to you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong."

Was it really unreasonable for me to interpret the use of the word "you" as referring to me after you had used my very name in the same sentence?

[costargh]

Highlight the passages which make it clear Brendan.

"Yes thats one example Brendan but as a general rule, just because you don't find someones opinion to be correct or think it makes any sense doesn't mean that it isn't correct. I'm not saying that you have said that, but I am saying that just because other people have differing views to you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong."

If it was about you wouldn't it make sense for me to use an example referring to you. Eg Eriny?
Hmmm
BTW thats rhetorical.

I highlighted they're cause if I was talking about you it would have read "just because Eriny have differing views to you doesn't mean Eriny is necessarily wrong."

[brendan]

You highlighted so much that you might as well not highlight anything at all.

"Yes thats one example Brendan but as a general rule, just because you don't find someones opinion to be correct or think it makes any sense doesn't mean that it isn't correct. I'm not saying that you have said that, but I am saying that just because other people have differing views to you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong."

So that "you" there certainly wasn't referring to me right? So it was unreasonable for me to interpret that as referring to me? Gosh, I am so sorry for thinking that the bolded passage could have possibly have been referring to me.

[costargh]

Its not my problem you interpret things to think I am attacking you. It may not be the clearest expression but the intention in my writing is what matters and considering it actually does make sense as a general rule you should have asked me if I was referring to you before unleashing a scathing attack on me and saying I was "covering" up by using a VERY clear line saying

"I'm not saying that you have said that"

[brendan]

Firstly, the you said that: "The you was a general 'you' which is why I had that line preceding what I wrote."

So why did you highlight "they're"?

It may not be the clearest expression

No, it's definitely not.

the intention in my writing is what matters 

What in fact matters is what you actually said. You could have in your mind have intended anything.

you should have asked me if I was referring to you before unleashing a scathing attack on me and saying I was "covering" up by using a VERY clear line saying

"I'm not saying that you have said that"

Hrmm, that "you" really wasn't referring to me?

You said that: "Yes thats one example Brendan but as a general rule, just because you don't find someones opinion to be correct or think it makes any sense doesn't mean that it isn't correct. I'm not saying that you have said that, but I am saying that just because other people have differing views to you doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong."

Gosh, I am so sorry, how could I have thought that the bolded passage could have possibly have been referring to me!

[rhcpfox1]

Lol this reminds me of that Simpsons skit when Homer has to climb the mountain to get to the cabin with Mr. Burns.

Bart is in the visitors centre looking at Smokey the Bear

Bear: "Only Who can prevent forest fires?"
Bart: Presses 'You'
Bear: "You picked 'you', referring to 'me'. That is incorrect. The correct answer is 'you'."

Sorry to digress.

[costargh]

Maybe young people tend to be socialists because they see the arrogance in the young libertarians (right choice of words?) and don't ever wanna be that way?
I'm being serious. Maybe its just a matter of the composition of socialists and libertarians that matters and the differences in personality, at least at a young stage.

[BA22]

libertarians aren't arrogant, their sense of equality is essentially pure. Socialism tends to judge people's "need" by their supposed social status or make policy to create a socially fair society, this bascially means people are treated differently in order to create equality, a highly dubious manner of creating a cohesive society. How are people who are essentially treated differently under the law ie (rich/poor) supposed to believe they are equal? Despite my own, often flawed championing of the poor, i still see socialism as a ridiculous and overbearing method of allocating equality. Such a philosophy is not only subjective "what's fair to you, might not be fair to everyone else", but must be constantly overseen by an overbearing and often invasive government, this goes against the heart of libertarian philosophy. Libertarians view each indivdual as equal from birth, unlike socialism which will make assumptions about people's lives given their background. Socialists make the arrogant assumption here that these people will never be able to help themselves and will move to make them equal to a child perceived to more fortunate. People may argue that no such assumptions are made, but they are even in our society, socialism fails because of ignorance and often militant backed arrogance of those in charge.