Are we a more tolerant society today?

[Cliffy]

" I think driving is where you find people at their worst, and I've no idea why."

"Perhaps because driving is un-natural".

"In my experience it's because people come to think of their vehicles almost as appendages. A risk to their vehicle is a risk to them. It's also a risk to their passengers. And so they get uniquely threatened."

Some scientists promote the theory that the weight/volume of brain compared to total body weight has a lot to do with intelligence.

Lot of people, getting in their vehicles, become one with them, thereby reducing the proportion of brain/body weight - i.e. - intelligence, to that of a dinasour.

This is a brilliant analogy. Never thought of it that way but it makes a lot of sense.

 

[JLM]

No, we are not more tolerant. Tolerant is accepting someone's choice to be wrong, apathetic is probably a better word to describe certain behaviors and life styles that have become more acceptable.

Now I think we are getting somewhere:smile: (Is that "Sed" or "Sy-eed"?)

Taxslave - in true 'tolerant' fashion - you decided to be personally abusive and a LIAR, to boot, and opined:

"True most of us (YJ excepted) have come out of the dark ages and understand that homosexuality is genetic, not a lifestyle choice and we at least give lip service to equality which compensates for the PC going overboard on it."

Now, that you displayed your superiority and benign tolerance, would you please quote any of my posts where I said anything intolerant about about homosexuality, with the possibly exception where I might have had the nerve to say that I favour traditional marriage.

Whoa! Slow down Y.J. I have to confess myself (as presumptuous as it may have been of me) that I was under the impression that you disapproved of Homosexuality. I have to admit myself that I disaprove of homosexuality, although I DO NOT disapprove of homosexuals.

 

[AnnaG]

I would say, overall, we are more accepting of diversity, not merely tolerant of it. We have fewer expectations that people fit a cookie cutter mold. Or perhaps it's just that we have more cookie cutters... lol.

... jello molds, cake molds, pie plates, pizza pans, etc. lol

Yes VanIsle I see lots of examples of what you describe, but I think I still see more examples of people being kind, considerate and helpful. I think driving is where you find people at their worst, and I've no idea why. You'd think a person walking might have more of an excuse to hurry than one who is driving. :lol::lol::lol:



These "hate laws" open up another subject- is it a worse crime to beat me up because I'm black than it is to beat me up because I have buck teeth? That law is a total crock of sh*t. Beating up someone is criminal- hating someone isn't - end of story.

Do you even know what the hate laws are?
If you start spreading hatred about some group of people or other based on a normal cultural trait or a normal genetic thing, you open yourself up to a pile of offenses. If you hate some group or other but keep your dum yap shut about it, you are fine. Try reading and understanding The Canadian Criminal Code Sections 318 and 319.

Perhaps because driving is un-natural. People used to walk many miles in a day to get where they were going. It is a lot less stressful, good exercise, and calms the mind. For a million years we did without the iron horse. It has only been around in common use for less that 100 years but we have become so addicted that most people would sit down and die without the damn things.

Um, the "iron horse" was a term apploed to locomotives and they've been in use for more than a century. Horseless carriages, on the other hand, I think is what you meant. lol

 

[JLM]

... jello molds, cake molds, pie plates, pizza pans, etc. lol

/QUOTE]

Not to mention a lot of brain mold......:lol::lol::lol:

 

[AnnaG]

Some scientists promote the theory that the weight/volume of brain compared to total body weight has a lot to do with intelligence.

Lot of people, getting in their vehicles, become one with them, thereby reducing the proportion of brain/body weight - i.e. - intelligence, to that of a dinasour.

That was an hypothesis easily proven wrong. If brain mass/body mass ratio had anything to do with intelligence, we'd be swinging in trees and apes would be flying into space and doing heart surgery and mice would be running the planet.

Now I think we are getting somewhere:smile: (Is that "Sed" or "Sy-eed"?)

Funny. I never thought of that. I always thought she meant "Said1" as a slight twist on "said I" as in I said something..

 

[JLM]

... The Canadian Criminal Code Sections 318 and 319.

150 years ago a wise man said "the law is a ass"- I rely more on common sense than reading something out of a book. Where would you draw the line? Can the law get inside a guy's head to know that there was no justification for the hatred. What if I hate Nazis? What if 8 members of my family were exterminated in a Nazi concentration camp? If I beat the sh*t out of a Nazi, I can accept that I deserve to be punished....................the "hate" part is total, utter, unadulterated, unvarnished BULLSH*T.

That was an hypothesis easily proven wrong. If brain mass/body mass ratio had anything to do with intelligence, we'd be swinging in trees and apes would be flying into space and doing heart surgery and mice would be running the planet.

..

Years ago I read somewhere that the smallest human brain on medical record was that of Anatole France- a fairly intellectual author. So much for trivia for the day. :lol::lol:

 

[YukonJack]

AnnaG responded to my post #20:

"That was an hypothesis easily proven wrong. If brain mass/body mass ratio had anything to do with intelligence, we'd be swinging in trees and apes would be flying into space and doing heart surgery and mice would be running the planet."

AnnaG, the theory was just that. However, here it is modified. It is up to you if you believe or not, in part or full.

Brain and Body Size... and Intelligence

And let us not forget that a larger and larger number of humans - especially in North America - are obese, some morbidly so. That would futrher skew the validity of the theory.

 

[AnnaG]

AnnaG responded to my post #20:

"That was an hypothesis easily proven wrong. If brain mass/body mass ratio had anything to do with intelligence, we'd be swinging in trees and apes would be flying into space and doing heart surgery and mice would be running the planet."

AnnaG, the theory was just that. However, here it is modified. It is up to you if you believe or not, in part or full.

Brain and Body Size... and Intelligence

lmao Then according to your link the planet should be run by birds. roflmao

What is believed to be the smallest brain ever found in a normal human being was revealed as a result of autopsy performed at the New York city morgue upon the body of Daniel Lyons, a watchman, employed in the Pennsylvania tunnel excavation.

Lyons became ill suddenly while at work, and, having had no medical attendance, his death came technically under the investigation of the coroner, Dr. Philip O'Hanlon, who, with Prof. John E. Larkin, of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, made the autopsy, found that the brain of Lyons weighed only 24 ounces, although the normal weight of the human cerebrum is from 48 to 50 ounces.

Lyons was 40 years of age, five feet five inches in height and weighed 140 pounds. Those who had known him for many years testified that he was of average intelligence. The cause of the man's death was inflammation of the kidneys. The man's brain seemed in every way normal except as to size.

http://antiqueclippings.blogspot.com/2007/06/smallest-human-brain.html

 

[YukonJack]

"lmao Then according to your link the planet should be run by birds. roflmao"

AnnaG, I guess you got stuck on the first screen. Take the time to read the entire article and don't forget to view the last tabulation.

 

[AnnaG]

"lmao Then according to your link the planet should be run by birds. roflmao"

AnnaG, I guess you got stuck on the first screen. Take the time to read the entire article and don't forget to view the last tabulation.

Read my cutting from the last post.
Isaac Newton was 5'6" tall and was of average build, like Daniel Lyons, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ludwig Beethoven, and a couple neighbors of mine. BUT, he had an average brain size.

Oh, and BTW, at the end of your link it says, "
None of this data necessarily has a definitive link with intelligence. Only behavioral data could show the significance of levels of encephalization of a species.".

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

If tolerance means keeping our mouths shut in the face of something we don't agree, then yes... we are. Because I know in our minds we're all thinking something different ;-)

 

[AnnaG]

If tolerance means keeping our mouths shut in the face of something we don't agree, then yes... we are. Because I know in our minds we're all thinking something different ;-)

I can tolerate that POV without agreeing with it.

 

[JLM]

I can tolerate that POV without agreeing with it.

I always considered "tolerance" means barely putting with, so I would think in that light tolerance means a certain amount of stress, which isn't supposed to be good. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[AnnaG]

The Online Dictionary says, "Tolerance:
1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. a. Leeway for variation from a standard.".

 

[The Old Medic]

Perhaps because driving is un-natural. People used to walk many miles in a day to get where they were going. It is a lot less stressful, good exercise, and calms the mind. For a million years we did without the iron horse. It has only been around in common use for less that 100 years but we have become so addicted that most people would sit down and die without the damn things.

Sorry, but most people did not walk many miles to get anywhere. It was unusual for most people to have traveled even 10 miles form their homes, unless they either rode horses or went in wagons or carriages.

The vast majority of people never traveled at all. They stayed right where they were, within a 10 mile or smaller radius of their dwelling. The "iron horse" opened up the world to many millions of people. Without it, Canada would not exist as the country it is. (The Prairie Provinces and B/C would be part of the USA, and so would the Maritimes most likely).

As to cars, they allowed the rural people access to a much wider world.

I might just point out that we now live a great deal longer than people did back in those "healthier" days when everyone walked. So much for the "health benefits" of that lifestyle.

 

[CDNBear]

Sorry, but most people did not walk many miles to get anywhere. It was unusual for most people to have traveled even 10 miles form their homes, unless they either rode horses or went in wagons or carriages.

Are you one of those people that think all "injuns" rode on horse back too?

 

[petros]

I tolerate plenty. How long the cork holds is anyone's guess.

 

[karrie]

Sorry, but most people did not walk many miles to get anywhere..

No, his statement 'people walked many miles in a day to get where they were going' applies just fine... they may have stuck to within a smaller radius, but they walked within that radius. They walked for water, they walked for the outhouse, they walked to get food, they walked to work, they walked to tend animals.... the list goes on and on. They walked many miles a day. I don't think they needed pedometers to tell them if they'd moved enough or not.

 

[Machjo]

This is a subject with a multitude of pros and cons. We are more tolerant of some minorities and we are less tolerant of such things as pedophilia and child abuse. But are we also not more tolerant of bad behaviour as indicated by more lenient sentences handed down to violent offenders? We are more tolerant of drugs (I'm not talking marijuana) running rampant. WE are more tolerant of paying higher insurance costs to cover damage done by bad behaviour. I have two questions- one - are we more tolerant over all? and two- how much tolerance is a good thing?

Well, first off we have to make a distinction between tolerance and friendliness, being tolerant and welcoming. We also have to make a distinction between people and actions.

Personally, I'd say we ought to be not just tolerant of, but friendly towards all people. I also think though that there are certain behaviours we should not tolerate.

To take a simple example, I respect homosexuals, want to make friends with them, believe we as a society ought to ensure their safety against violence inflicted against them. That would fall under the category of accepting the person.

On the other hand, I also believe homosexual acts ought to be fined, and marriage ought to be restricted to between a man and a woman.

I hold similar views on a number of front in terms of accepting people but not their actions, and do make a distinction between people and actions.

 

[karrie]

Well, first off we have to make a distinction between tolerance and friendliness, being tolerant and welcoming. We also have to make a distinction between people and actions.

Personally, I'd say we ought to be not just tolerant of, but friendly towards all people. I also think though that there are certain behaviours we should not tolerate.

To take a simple example, I respect homosexuals, want to make friends with them, believe we as a society ought to ensure their safety against violence inflicted against them. That would fall under the category of accepting the person.

On the other hand, I also believe homosexual acts ought to be fined, and marriage ought to be restricted to between a man and a woman.

I hold similar views on a number of front in terms of accepting people but not their actions, and do make a distinction between people and actions.

a facade of civility with the courts weilding your contempt for you makes no sense to me whatsoever.