3 ms·

So you're arguing that the conservatives at the time failed to conserve their traditional values resulting in their spiritual successors being more liberal. Whi

So you're arguing that the conservatives at the time failed to conserve their traditional values resulting in their spiritual successors being more liberal. Which in the case of the traditional value of having large families resulted in the demographic decline that is the topic of the article. This seems to clearly support OPs argument that conservative societies will be more successful as long as the values they are conserving are beneficial to the individuals comprising those societies and they succeed in conserving them.

ookdatnog 4y ago
That's not at all what I'm arguing. My comment was purely a response to > I think we need an objective rather than a relative definition if we're going to do anything other than move goalposts. I claimed that this is a nonsensical statement for two reasons: 1. You imply that relativity and objectivity are at odds (they aren't -- "I'm taller than my mom" is both a relative and an objective statement). 2. You claim that in order to have a meaningful conversation about conservatism and progressivism, these terms must be defined in an absolute sense. But they are by definition relative. Most of my comment illustrates this point.