Which age groups are affected most by political influence?

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

Benson Boone remains at number one

3 Pages

1 2 3 >

Which age groups are affected most by political influence?

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Who's affected most?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total votes: 14
Guests cannot vote

vidcapper View member profile	Mar 31 2018, 09:12 AM Post #1
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	Just interested to hear your thoughts on this. I thought of using 'propagada' rather than 'influence', but that sounded too loaded. I've set the poll to allow multiple selections.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 13 2018, 01:46 PM Post #2
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	I guess 30-60 yo's can't be Mail readers then... I would have thought the older groups would have been least susceptible to political influence, as their ideas would surely have been set decades previously? This post has been edited by vidcapper: Apr 13 2018, 01:49 PM


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 13 2018, 03:15 PM Post #3
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	Middle aged people with failing memories of the realities of life when they were young getting all misty-eyed and rose-tinted misremembering and forgetting why they had less-right-wing views...it's as true in 2018 as it was in 1972 when the equivalent generation said much the same things about young people as they say now, and equally failed to see that longing for the good old days of the 30's was just a bit mad. They were longing to be young again in reality. Speaking for myself, I haven't been influenced politically by any source at any age. I had clear moral principles as a child and teen and looked for information from sources on those that best-represented my world view. I stopped believing everything I read and heard once I realised that people writing books about being abducted by aliens weren't necessarily telling the truth, and just cos it has been put in print doesn't make it true.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 05:49 AM Post #4
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 13 2018, 04:15 PM) Speaking for myself, I haven't been influenced politically by any source at any age. I had clear moral principles as a child and teen Surely people aren't born with moral principles, so you must've acquired them from somewhere - presumably your parents. QUOTE and looked for information from sources on those that best-represented my world view. I stopped believing everything I read and heard once I realised that people writing books about being abducted by aliens weren't necessarily telling the truth, and just cos it has been put in print doesn't make it true. The above mirrors my experience, so it appears the only difference between us must be the different emphasis we put on certain principles.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 08:29 AM Post #5
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 14 2018, 06:49 AM) Surely people aren't born with moral principles, so you must've acquired them from somewhere - presumably your parents. The above mirrors my experience, so it appears the only difference between us must be the different emphasis we put on certain principles. From my parents, from watching and experiencing injustice, from just having been born with a compassionate nature, and from TV, movies and books. It's not as simplistic as parents though, as my brother and myself have entirely different views despite having the same upbringing, character, the company you keep and later experiences come into it. You and I have very different attitudes towards justice and compassion among other things, so I'd be inclined to observe character is a more important influence on attitudes and opinions, not age.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 09:05 AM Post #6
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 14 2018, 09:29 AM) From my parents, from watching and experiencing injustice, from just having been born with a compassionate nature, and from TV, movies and books. It's not as simplistic as parents though, as my brother and myself have entirely different views despite having the same upbringing, character, the company you keep and later experiences come into it. You and I have very different attitudes towards justice and compassion among other things, so I'd be inclined to observe character is a more important influence on attitudes and opinions, not age. Certainly iro justice : I am prepared to give anyone several chances to reform, but if they refuse, then I have zero tolerance for career criminals.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 12:00 PM Post #7
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 14 2018, 10:05 AM) Certainly iro justice : I am prepared to give anyone several chances to reform, but if they refuse, then I have zero tolerance for career criminals. errr, no you don't. In your own words you are in favour of the right to kill anyone in your house uninvited, that would apply to children as much as career criminals, unless you have the proviso that you have to ask them their age, and interrogate how many times they've been in prison and hope they are truthful before killing them....


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 01:12 PM Post #8
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 14 2018, 01:00 PM) errr, no you don't. In your own words you are in favour of the right to kill anyone in your house uninvited, that would apply to children as much as career criminals, unless you have the proviso that you have to ask them their age, and interrogate how many times they've been in prison and hope they are truthful before killing them.... Then you misunderstand my position (as usual). I do not suggest that burglars should be killed, only that the definition of self-defence be extended to include defence of property as well as person (as it is in certain parts of America). Most people would obviously still not want to take on a burglar, but if they took that risk, they should not be charged with murder. After all, murder requires premeditation, so unless you are dumb enough to put a 'burglars will be killed' notice in your window, the necessary premeditation will be absent. Under normal circumstances, criminals that weren't caught in the act would be subject to trial as now, although I would make a couple of changes : 1. I would replace the CPS with the former system of Grand Juries to decide whether a case should proceed to trial. 2. I would set/raise minimum sentence levels for most offences.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 06:30 PM Post #9
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 14 2018, 02:12 PM) Then you misunderstand my position (as usual). I do not suggest that burglars should be killed, only that the definition of self-defence be extended to include defence of property as well as person (as it is in certain parts of America). Most people would obviously still not want to take on a burglar, but if they took that risk, they should not be charged with murder. After all, murder requires premeditation, so unless you are dumb enough to put a 'burglars will be killed' notice in your window, the necessary premeditation will be absent. Under normal circumstances, criminals that weren't caught in the act would be subject to trial as now, although I would make a couple of changes : 1. I would replace the CPS with the former system of Grand Juries to decide whether a case should proceed to trial. 2. I would set/raise minimum sentence levels for most offences. In effect it's still the right to kill because the other main witness us dead. You can wrap it up in legal blah blah and justify it but that is the end effect.


Suedehead2 View member profile	Apr 14 2018, 07:04 PM Post #10
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,652 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 14 2018, 02:12 PM) Then you misunderstand my position (as usual). I do not suggest that burglars should be killed, only that the definition of self-defence be extended to include defence of property as well as person (as it is in certain parts of America). Most people would obviously still not want to take on a burglar, but if they took that risk, they should not be charged with murder. After all, murder requires premeditation, so unless you are dumb enough to put a 'burglars will be killed' notice in your window, the necessary premeditation will be absent. Under normal circumstances, criminals that weren't caught in the act would be subject to trial as now, although I would make a couple of changes : 1. I would replace the CPS with the former system of Grand Juries to decide whether a case should proceed to trial. 2. I would set/raise minimum sentence levels for most offences. Murder does not necessarily require premeditation. That is why I would support ending the mandatory life sentence for murder.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 06:15 AM Post #11
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 14 2018, 07:30 PM) In effect it's still the right to kill because the other main witness us dead. You can wrap it up in legal blah blah and justify it but that is the end effect. I recall the cliche : 'It's better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six'. QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Apr 14 2018, 08:04 PM) Murder does not necessarily require premeditation. That is why I would support ending the mandatory life sentence for murder. I thought the mandatory life sentence for murder was a compromise the HoC had to made in order to get the abolition of the death penalty through in the first place? IMO it is the threat of punishment that dissuades many more people from committing crimes than actually do - water down the punishments and there's surely even less incentive to obey the law?


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 06:19 AM Post #12
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	On reflection, perhaps I should have titled this thread 'Which age groups are affected most by outside influences?', since different age groups are more susceptible to certain influences than others. e.g. peer pressure has a far stronger effect on younger people.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 08:35 AM Post #13
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 15 2018, 07:15 AM) I recall the cliche : 'It's better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six'. I thought the mandatory life sentence for murder was a compromise the HoC had to made in order to get the abolition of the death penalty through in the first place? IMO it is the threat of punishment that dissuades many more people from committing crimes than actually do - water down the punishments and there's surely even less incentive to obey the law? Your legal views in practice: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/m...JyQ#.syko6DD4gQ had the boy been shot dead, the man would have said (and his equally racist wife would have agreed) "He tried to force his way into my property so I shot the black sonofabitch dead as is my right". No witnesses to say otherwise. Just. So. Wrong.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 08:40 AM Post #14
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 15 2018, 07:19 AM) On reflection, perhaps I should have titled this thread 'Which age groups are affected most by outside influences?', since different age groups are more susceptible to certain influences than others. e.g. peer pressure has a far stronger effect on younger people. Teens have huge peer group pressures, but politics isn't one of the main ways of it showing up, except in a mutual disinterest in it. They don't generally read papers and are no more influenced by internet bullshit than older generations are, probably less because they know most of it BS while older people fall for it same way they have fallen for the right-wing rag BS. They DO read papers with views that reinforce their views and avoid ones that don't.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 08:59 AM Post #15
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 15 2018, 09:35 AM) Your legal views in practice: https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/m...JyQ#.syko6DD4gQ had the boy been shot dead, the man would have said (and his equally racist wife would have agreed) "He tried to force his way into my property so I shot the black sonofabitch dead as is my right". No witnesses to say otherwise. Just. So. Wrong. If you expect me to dismiss this story, the way you dismissed the list of legitimate defensive gun uses I posted, then you are sadly mistaken. A tragic accident was narrowly avoided. I never claimed there weren't assholes who'd overreact, but that doesn't mean that genuine intruders should be allowed to act unchallenged. QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 15 2018, 09:40 AM) Teens have huge peer group pressures, but politics isn't one of the main ways of it showing up, except in a mutual disinterest in it. They don't generally read papers and are no more influenced by internet bullshit than older generations are, probably less because they know most of it BS while older people fall for it same way they have fallen for the right-wing rag BS. They DO read papers with views that reinforce their views and avoid ones that don't. That's why I suggested I might have used a different title for this thread. I should point out that most peer pressure is also BS. This post has been edited by vidcapper: Apr 15 2018, 09:01 AM


Popchartfreak View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 12:47 PM Post #16
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 15 2018, 09:59 AM) If you expect me to dismiss this story, the way you dismissed the list of legitimate defensive gun uses I posted, then you are sadly mistaken. A tragic accident was narrowly avoided. I never claimed there weren't assholes who'd overreact, but that doesn't mean that genuine intruders should be allowed to act unchallenged. That's why I suggested I might have used a different title for this thread. I should point out that most peer pressure is also BS. There is NO legitimate use of guns to kill people for no good reason. That would 100% occur because it happens wherever the rights you want exist. The difference is i feel a law that ends in the death of innocent people is wrong and you just see it as acceptable cannon fodder to the cause you support and i very much dont. I also dont believe thieves deserve death and you do. We are worlds apart in this core belief. If it ever becomes law (it wont) i lok forward to huge legal costs and murderers getting away scot free. Im sure you agree murderers are much worse than thieves...


Suedehead2 View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 01:14 PM Post #17
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,652 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 15 2018, 07:15 AM) I recall the cliche : 'It's better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six'. I thought the mandatory life sentence for murder was a compromise the HoC had to made in order to get the abolition of the death penalty through in the first place? IMO it is the threat of punishment that dissuades many more people from committing crimes than actually do - water down the punishments and there's surely even less incentive to obey the law? It was, but how is that relevant? The vast majority of people don't require the threat of a life sentence to prevent them murdering someone. We just know it is wrong.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 01:27 PM Post #18
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Apr 15 2018, 02:14 PM) It was, but how is that relevant? The vast majority of people don't require the threat of a life sentence to prevent them murdering someone. We just know it is wrong. My 'watering down the punishments' comment was intended to cover that. For example : In the 50's/60's there was far less anti-social behaviour than there is now - society needs to evaluate why that was, and return to what worked to prevent it back then.


Suedehead2 View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 01:36 PM Post #19
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,652 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 15 2018, 02:27 PM) My 'watering down the punishments' comment was intended to cover that. For example : In the 50's/60's there was far less anti-social behaviour than there is now - society needs to evaluate why that was, and return to what worked to prevent it back then. Such as? Reopening the youth clubs that have been closed? Go back to a time when more youngster were malnourished? Return to the days when it was perfectly acceptable for a grown adult to assault a small child? Any attempt to attribute in a possible change of behaviour over decades to a single factor is ridiculously simplistic.


vidcapper View member profile	Apr 15 2018, 01:52 PM Post #20
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Apr 15 2018, 02:36 PM) Such as? Reopening the youth clubs that have been closed? Go back to a time when more youngster were malnourished? Return to the days when it was perfectly acceptable for a grown adult to assault a small child? The youth clubs that closed due to anti-social behaviour, you mean? More youngsters were malnourished because rationing was in force (but what does that have to do with ASB)? 'Assault' is a very loaded word - most physical discipline was not gratuitous, but in response to repeated bad behaviour that less punishments failed to correct - and even then it was generally just a quick smack, rather than the beatings the PC iconoclasts would have us believe. QUOTE Any attempt to attribute in a possible change of behaviour over decades to a single factor is ridiculously simplistic. Which is precisely why I wasn't suggesting a single cause.