Are we a more tolerant society today?

[SirJosephPorter]

That is because they didn't walk for health reasons, they walked because they had to. There were plenty of other factors contributing to shorter life span. Lack of adequate medical care (no universal health care in old days, you got what you could afford to pay for), ignorance about nutrition (the two most important food groups were considered meat and dairy, fruits and vegetables were consdired sissy foods, real men ate red meat, not fruits)), ignorance about the evils fo smoking and so on.

very silly post indeed, when I was a kid, the market on friday was heaping with fresh produce, which people
grew and brought in for all to buy.

fresh fish also, or canned fish, or kippers and such.

our diet was much more simple than today.

lots of fresh vegetables, (yeah, my dad ate them too. lol), also fresh fruit, and canned fruit, lots of
home canning back then, yes, meat was usually part of most meals.
nutrition came from the whole foods we ate, including lots of milk, no lack of nutrition at all, unless
people were very poor, and that is same as today.

Walking is just a natural activity for every human, we are built to walk, and back when I was a kid,
there were lots of jobs where people moved around lots throughout the day, 'good exercise'.

The scientific wisdom in those days was that protein and dairy were the most important food groups. There is a long tradition in North America of gorging on red meat.

The awareness of fruits and vegetables being important is of fairly recent origin. I am not exactly sure when nutritionists made the change, but it was probably no more than 10 or 15 years ago.

Indeed, after they started comparing the health and life expectancy of Americans with that of Japanese, of the Mediterranean etc. that is when they realized the importance of eating fish, fruits, vegetables, cereals etc. The traditional North American diet has been meat and potatoes (steak and potatoes when they could afford it).

Also, smoking was considered cool, ill effects of smoking were largely unknown or were ignored. Same with asbestos. People used to work in mines foggy with asbestos, with no protection.

The lower life expectancy in old days was a combination of lack of adequate health care and of ignorance.

Imagine if hate crime laws were repelled and imagine if you were allowed to post homophobic comments in your local newspaper without the RCMP becoming involved?
Would we still be tolerant of homosexuality? Probably not. Perhaps we don't like hearing that but its one of those "cold hard truths"

I think most will be, but some won’t. Forget about local newspaper, if in this forum they decide that any comment about homosexuals (or blacks, or women etc.) were OK, you will see some very vile comments here indeed (as you see some extremely vile comments about me).

However, most people are sensible these days, the support for gay marriage runs at around 70% among Canadians. Even if there were no hate crime laws, I don’t see most Canadians resorting to hating homosexuals once again. However for the few who will, hate crime laws are essential.

 

[JLM]

Apparently the Japanese one of the heaviest nations for smoking, are near the top of the list for life expectancy. Eskimos lived to a ripe old age without eating much for vegetables. I'm beginning to think exercise trumps all other factors.

"Hate crimes" are a red herring. I think a person should be allowed to hate anyone or anything he wants as just a basic freedom. If a guy kills a homosexual because he hates him he should probably hang or do life in prison, if a guy kills a homosexual but doesn't hate him he should get the same punishment.

 

[AnnaG]

I think most will be, but some won’t. Forget about local newspaper, if in this forum they decide that any comment about homosexuals (or blacks, or women etc.) were OK, you will see some very vile comments here indeed (as you see some extremely vile comments about me).

That's not because you are gay, though. I won't tell the truth why, though, because it'll likely bring down the wrath of Ron on me. lol

"Hate crimes" are a red herring. I think a person should be allowed to hate anyone or anything he wants as just a basic freedom. If a guy kills a homosexual because he hates him he should probably hang or do life in prison, if a guy kills a homosexual but doesn't hate him he should get the same punishment.

Hate crimes are not red herrings. They are designed so that the law can charge people with a specific offense. The laws state that inciting hatred against an individual or group on the grounds of religion, skin-color, etc. is illegal and carries specific punishments.
I already posted the specific sections of the criminal code. Apparently you didn't read them or something.
Here's CBC's coverage on it:
CBC News Indepth: Hate Crimes
And why some things are illegal is because our society doesn't want them.

 

[Machjo]

Then why not simply say that it is illegal to have sex in public, of whatever variety. Then leave it to the police to prove it as they see fit, with the help of witnesses, evidence (video footage, audio recording etc.), with DNA testing etc.? Why make it totally illegal and then say that there must be witnesses?

And I believe such laws exist even today, you could be had before the law if you have sex in public, in front of people.

However I believe the law also serves a symbolic function. Even if a law cannot be totally enforced, its existence still communicates the government's disapproval of the action. On the one hand, if espionage is prohibited, most acts of adultery would pass without notice. However, the fact that those acts would still be illegal even if not enforceable in most cases would send the message that they are unacceptable.

Ignoring homosexual acts for a moment, adultery can break marriages, spread VD's, ruin friendships, and damage social and societal bonds in other ways. Homosexual acts can do the same too. For the good of society, even if they can't always be enforced, the government ought still to voice its disapproval, even if only symbolically.

 

[AnnaG]

gnoring homosexual acts for a moment, adultery can break marriages, spread VD's, ruin friendships, and damage social and societal bonds in other ways. Homosexual acts can do the same too. For the good of society, even if they can't always be enforced, the government ought still to voice its disapproval, even if only symbolically.

Then government should also voice its disapproval about money, irreconcilable differences, divorce, lack of communication, substance abuse, kids, religion, politics, and a host of other things that can cause damage to a marriage.

 

[Machjo]

Then government should also voice its disapproval about money,

Depends on what you mean by money. If you mean materialism and an insatiable appetite for money, then perhaps there's something wrong with the education of many youths today, either from teachers or parents. If you mean not enough money to flourish in life, then as long as all have access to quality universal compulsory education, and the government ensure work for all, then there is little reason for people to not have enough money.

irreconcilable differences,

Such as?

divorce,

May be necessary on occasion, but there should be laws in place to discourage it at least. I believe such laws are already in place at least in Quebec, where a couple needs to be separated for at least 1 year before divorce can be granted, as a cooling off period. Good idea in my opinion, since sometimes that's all they might need to fix the marriage.

lack of communication,

I don't know. Marriage counselling?

substance abuse,

It's already illegal, but do we provide enough funding to help those who want to kick their addictions?

kids,

How is a kid per se a problem to a marriage, unless you mean it results in some of the spin off problems you refer to?

religion,

Couldn't education help eliminate religious prejudices?

politics,

How would politics ruin a marriage?

 

[gerryh]

Machjo, you're trolling right? You're not serious about the BS suggestions you have been making in this thread..right?

 

[talloola]

The scientific wisdom in those days was that protein and dairy were the most important food groups. There is a long tradition in North America of gorging on red meat.

The awareness of fruits and vegetables being important is of fairly recent origin. I am not exactly sure when nutritionists made the change, but it was probably no more than 10 or 15 years ago.

Indeed, after they started comparing the health and life expectancy of Americans with that of Japanese, of the Mediterranean etc. that is when they realized the importance of eating fish, fruits, vegetables, cereals etc. The traditional North American diet has been meat and potatoes (steak and potatoes when they could afford it).

Also, smoking was considered cool, ill effects of smoking were largely unknown or were ignored. Same with asbestos. People used to work in mines foggy with asbestos, with no protection.

The lower life expectancy in old days was a combination of lack of adequate health care and of ignorance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You love to throw that 'ignorance' word around, must make you feel good, and you consider people who are
not in your present day world, ignorant. People who have not yet learned about things yet to come are not
ignorant, people who say stupid things are ignorant, make a note of that.

The only thing you have said 'above' that was true in the time that 'I' was a young person living on this
earth, is that smoking was cool, because they had not yet discovered that smoking caused lung cancer.
But the amount of young people I see sucking on cigarettes today is quite amazing, now that is ignorant,
as they 'know' the harm of cigarette smoking, yet they do it anyway.
The ill effects of smoking before l963 was 'not' known, not ignored, today it is ignored.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, you're trolling right? You're not serious about the BS suggestions you have been making in this thread..right?

Sorry to disappoint you, Ger, but no I'm not trolling. Trust me, you'll usually know when I'm joking. I haven't been joking much if at all in this thread yet.

 

[gerryh]

So..... you want to stick your nose into peoples bedrooms and turn back the clock 40 years.

 

[JLM]

Just to clarify a few things:

. I'd rather see one law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and another making adultery a fineable offense. .

Do you really want to open up that can of worms? When it comes right down to it, is a person's marital status really anyone else's business? Do we really want to tie up law enforcement for this kind of thing? I see shades of Joseph McCarthy (the first) here.

 

[Machjo]

Do you really want to open up that can of worms? When it comes right down to it, is a person's marital status really anyone else's business? Do we really want to tie up law enforcement for this kind of thing? I see shades of Joseph McCarthy (the first) here.

How would the police get involved? It would simply remove marriage commissioners from the picture. But yes, I'll bow out of this one.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

However I believe the law also serves a symbolic function. Even if a law cannot be totally enforced, its existence still communicates the government's disapproval of the action. On the one hand, if espionage is prohibited, most acts of adultery would pass without notice. However, the fact that those acts would still be illegal even if not enforceable in most cases would send the message that they are unacceptable.

Ignoring homosexual acts for a moment, adultery can break marriages, spread VD's, ruin friendships, and damage social and societal bonds in other ways. Homosexual acts can do the same too. For the good of society, even if they can't always be enforced, the government ought still to voice its disapproval, even if only symbolically.

So what you are saying is that society should disapprove of homosexuality. That is where we disagree.

May be necessary on occasion, but there should be laws in place to discourage it at least. I believe such laws are already in place at least in Quebec, where a couple needs to be separated for at least 1 year before divorce can be granted, as a cooling off period. Good idea in my opinion, since sometimes that's all they might need to fix the marriage.

I think most jurisdictions do have a cooling off period. When I lived in UK, the colling off period there used to be two years. The idea is noting new, it has been around for a long time.

[The only thing you have said 'above' that was true in the time that 'I' was a young person living on this
earth, is that smoking was cool, because they had not yet discovered that smoking caused lung cancer.
But the amount of young people I see sucking on cigarettes today is quite amazing, now that is ignorant,
as they 'know' the harm of cigarette smoking, yet they do it anyway.
The ill effects of smoking before l963 was 'not' known, not ignored, today it is ignored.

The ill effects of smoking have been known for a long time, but they were largely ignored. I don't specifically know about cancer, but it has been known for a long time that smoking causes shortness of breath, emphysema etc. There was ignorance among the general population.

And I assure you, there was plenty of ignorance about nutrition in old days, the two most important groups were meat and dairy.

From 1956 until 1992 the United States Department of Agriculture recommended its Basic Four Food Groups.
The government's Basic Four involved
(1) meats, poultry, fish, dry beans and peas, eggs, and nuts; in short, proteins
(2) dairy products, such as milk, cheese, and yogurt;
(3) grains and wheat products
(4) fruits and vegetables.
It is only recently that this order has been reversed, with 3, 4 on top and 1, 2 at the bottom. Ignorance is the right word to characterize the state of knowledge about nutrition in old days.

Food guide pyramid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JLM]

[QUOTE
Ignoring homosexual acts for a moment, adultery can break marriages, spread VD's, ruin friendships, and damage social and societal bonds in other ways. Homosexual acts can do the same too. For the good of society, even if they can't always be enforced, the government ought still to voice its disapproval, even if only symbolically.[/QUOTE]

I think you're points are valid enough but I think "can" is the operative word. A lot of activities we engage in (hunting, skiing, fishing, golf, playing poker) "can" lead to disasterous results. No matter what we do there is always going to be fallings out between friends, spouses etc. and many times it has more to do with the imperfection of the person more than what they actually do or don't do. You just can't legislate every move of our lives as that would engage another distasteful act- spying. :smile:

 

[TenPenny]

Don't forget that anything the USDA says about food and nutrition has to be taken with a grain of salt (no pun intended); the USDA is heavily loaded with people from, and beholden to, the huge agribusiness firms. The mandate of the USDA is not to provide good nutrition, it is mainly to promote agriculture and food industry.

 

[talloola]

[QUOTE=SirJosephPorter;.



The ill effects of smoking have been known for a long time, but they were largely ignored. I don't specifically know about cancer, but it has been known for a long time that smoking causes shortness of breath, emphysema etc. There was ignorance among the general population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the surgeon general announced early in l963 that 'smoking' causes cancer of the lungs. That was the
very first indication that smoking was a killer, or even something 'not good for you', although most
people were smart enough to know that smoking, and many other things that were rather foreign to the
human body were 'good' for you, that is just common sense.

from that point on, the word 'ignored' can be used, as people then knew that smoking caused serious
illness, before that, they did not.
I immediately quit smoking right after that announcement, I was 25, and have never smoked since, there
was lots of public chit chat about that announcement, and much reaction, but of course, just as there
is 'today' many ignored that warning, ignored was then a legitimate term to use.

 

[JLM]

[QUOTEI immediately quit smoking right after that announcement, I was 25, and have never smoked since, there
was lots of public chit chat about that announcement, and much reaction, but of course, just as there
is 'today' many ignored that warning, ignored was then a legitimate term to use.[/QUOTE]

Good morning Talloola- There is an article in this month's readers digest, that would lead one to believe that while smoking may be a factor in lung cancer, it is highly possible it is NOT the cause. :smile:

 

[talloola]

[QUOTEI immediately quit smoking right after that announcement, I was 25, and have never smoked since, there
was lots of public chit chat about that announcement, and much reaction, but of course, just as there
is 'today' many ignored that warning, ignored was then a legitimate term to use.

Good morning Talloola- There is an article in this month's readers digest, that would lead one to believe that while smoking may be a factor in lung cancer, it is highly possible it is NOT the cause. :smile:[/QUOTE]

hi, and happy fathers day to you.

WOW, more confusion, I'll have to read that one, but seems to me that it probably isn't the only cause.

 

[JLM]

Good morning Talloola- There is an article in this month's readers digest, that would lead one to believe that while smoking may be a factor in lung cancer, it is highly possible it is NOT the cause. :smile:

hi, and happy fathers day to you.

WOW, more confusion, I'll have to read that one, but seems to me that it probably isn't the only cause.[/QUOTE]

They are looking more along the lines of viruses and infections now.

 

[talloola]

hi, and happy fathers day to you.

WOW, more confusion, I'll have to read that one, but seems to me that it probably isn't the only cause.

They are looking more along the lines of viruses and infections now.[/QUOTE]

well, there are cases where people with lung cancer have never smoked, so I would imagine
a virus or infections caused it, so smoking definitely isn't the only cause.