Are we a more tolerant society today?

[JLM]

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.

That's a good philosophy, I think- sort of like "hate the sin, but love the sinner"

 

[AnnaG]

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.

We live longer but I doubt we're healthier.

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

... and pitched tipi. Probably. lol

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.

Not me. I can accept the fact that there are a few people I will never manage to be friendly with. Will Rogers once said, “A stranger is just a friend I haven't met yet.” But, there's a corollary to that that goes, "Some friends I prefer to remain strangers with", or something like that and I am not sure who said it.

I also think though that there are certain behaviours we should not tolerate.

Noooooooooooo! You're kidding!

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.

IMO, if the lifestyle behavior of one set of humans does no harm to others, there is no rational basis for intolerance or non-acceptance.

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.

Yup. Many small trips of a few hundred feet as opposed to one or two long trips of a mile or more. These days I think the average is only about 3 miles per day and back then I think it was closer to about 7. We should each be walking at least 5 a day.

 

[JLM]

We live longer but I doubt we're healthier.

You hit the nail right smack on the head. As I've said before life has more dimensions besides longevity. Fifty years ago a typical death occurred fairly suddenly at age 75 or so, now a typical death occurs at age 85, after spending 10 years hooked up to tubes and wires and remembering very little of it. Anyone who thinks this is progress is welcome to it. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[VanIsle]

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.

Why do you think homosexual acts ought to be fined? I have in a manner of speaking, watched the development (for lack of better words) of a little one that I know is growing up a homosexual. He has no control over what is happening to him. I have watched him for several years now and he's only in grade 3! At this point in time, he has no idea that he is different (or he may know but his actions don't show that he knows). I have spoken of this before here. For anyone who believes this is a life choice, he is living proof that it has zero to do with choice. It is the way he was born. His parents tried to change himbecause they could see it happening but nothing changed him. He still likes his Polly Pockets and for now ...... he's happy. Some of the school kids are starting to make fun of him and I find it sad. They are not even old enough to know "what" he is to our manner of thinking. They just think he's strange because he likes to play with dolls. So - if you really want to be nice and you really want to make friends with homosexual people, you must accept them 100%. You don't have to like a homosexual who (like anyone) is nasty or rude or whatever but you cannot single out a homosexual act as wrong. They cannot help who they are and since that part of their life would not touch you, you should ignore it like you would an act between a man and a woman. I too believe that marriage is for a man and a woman. The term - holy matrimony. I think two men and two women of the same sex should be called a legal union. Just because I think a term is reserved for a man and a woman doesn't mean I disagree with a union between two men or two women. I like tradition. I don't want to watch men or women showing major affection for each other in public but I don't like to watch a male/female doing that either.

 

[talloola]

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.

in other words, you would be kind to homosexuals, not hit them or say nasty things, but all the while you
will be looking around for the 'law' to arrest them, 'well ahl be', 'don't that take all'., you are so
accepting of them aren't you.

 

[JLM]

in other words, you would be kind to homosexuals, not hit them or say nasty things, but all the while you
will be looking around for the 'law' to arrest them, 'well ahl be', 'don't that take all'., you are so
accepting of them aren't you.

I'm not sure if I understood him correctly or not but I just took him to mean it's the act that's evil not the person.

 

[VanIsle]

I'm not sure if I understood him correctly or not but I just took him to mean it's the act that's evil not the person.

He does mean the act is evil. You were right the first time regarding "hate the sin, not the sinner. If you look at homosexuality that way! You either accept that a homosexual is that way by birth and that it's not all that unusual or - you banish them for the way they were born. The old way of thinking was that it was a sin. I used to lean that way and I struggled with what was right and what was wrong. After I got to know the little boy I talked about, my struggle was gone. I don't know if you would say that a homosexual is someone born with a birth defect or if it's just the way they are. I believe that it's a defect of some kind. Most of us have some kind of birth defect. I guess it just depends on how it presents itself.

 

[JLM]

YOu are talking like it's a foregone conclusion that he is going to be gay when he grows up. I doubt if anyone can determine that with certainty. Most Tom boys don't grow up to be lesbians. My knowledge is very limited, so if there is a fool proof way to make this determination I wouldn't mind hearing about it. Anyway as far as sexual orientation goes, it's a good topic for one just to mind his own business and be glad he isn't that way.

 

[talloola]

I'm not sure if I understood him correctly or not but I just took him to mean it's the act that's evil not the person.

the act is done by the person, so he wishes for an arrest or be fined, that would be against the person
so I have no compassion for his statement, he is pretending to like the person, but hate what he does,
can't have it both ways, like him and accept him,and what he does, or be honest completely, how can one
say they like someone, but hope something awful happens to them, that is hypocracy in my opinion.

YOu are talking like it's a foregone conclusion that he is going to be gay when he grows up. I doubt if anyone can determine that with certainty. Most Tom boys don't grow up to be lesbians. My knowledge is very limited, so if there is a fool proof way to make this determination I wouldn't mind hearing about it. Anyway as far as sexual orientation goes, it's a good topic for one just to mind his own business and be glad he isn't that way.

I was such a tom boy as a little girl, so much so, that my mother would tell me to 'stop' behaving that way
from time to time, loved playing sports, I hit the ball farther than 'most' boys my age, my girlfriend and I played 'cars' all the time, but also played mayday, and took turns being mayqueen.


I continued that until I was about 12/13, then did a 'complete reverse', and turned into a typical teenager,
but still loved sports, but also the 'mirror'. lol and boys.

 

[JLM]

the act is done by the person, so he wishes for an arrest or be fined, that would be against the person
so I have no compassion for his statement, he is pretending to like the person, but hate what he does,
can't have it both ways, like him and accept him,and what he does, or be honest completely, how can one
say they like someone, but hope something awful happens to them, that is hypocracy in my opinion.

There's a good point. I would imagine in my life I've participated in activities with people that have nothing to do with sexual orientation and hence was never aware of their orientation per se. I don't think it would be right for me to change my attitude toward these people if they were to "emerge from the closet". By the same token the thought of what some of them might engage in is disgusting to me. But that is where I leave it, as it's really none of my business.

 

[talloola]

There's a good point. I would imagine in my life I've participated in activities with people that have nothing to do with sexual orientation and hence was never aware of their orientation per se. I don't think it would be right for me to change my attitude toward these people if they were to "emerge from the closet". By the same token the thought of what some of them might engage in is disgusting to me. But that is where I leave it, as it's really none of my business.

Yes, I'm not in favour of homosexual unions either, but sure would not want to see a homosexual
be arrested or fined for doing, his/her thing, yeah, not my business, or the laws either.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

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.

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.

On the other hand, I also believe homosexual acts ought to be fined,

These are diametrically opposite views, Machjo, I fail to see how you can believe in both at the same time.

You want to fine homosexuals for participating in homosexual acts. How is that compatible with ensuring their safety? Or are you saying that homosexuals should be safe from private citizens, but not from the government?

 

[VanIsle]

YOu are talking like it's a foregone conclusion that he is going to be gay when he grows up. I doubt if anyone can determine that with certainty. Most Tom boys don't grow up to be lesbians. My knowledge is very limited, so if there is a fool proof way to make this determination I wouldn't mind hearing about it. Anyway as far as sexual orientation goes, it's a good topic for one just to mind his own business and be glad he isn't that way.

The difference JLM is that I know the boy and you don't. If you even knew him for a couple of days - you would know. Not in my entire life have I ever had such an experience and I believe with certainty that he will be gay. It's not just because he likes to play with dolls. There is a lot more to it then that and it's not the topic you actually started with here so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Bar Sinister]

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.

You are quite right about the fact that most people prior to the modern era stayed close to home. But that does not mean they did not engage in strenuous physical exercise on a daily basis. Even such "simple" chores such as baking bread required a certain amount of exertion, and jobs like hauling water, chopping wood, mucking out barns and chicken coops as well as walking the fields behind oxen or horses required considerable physical effort. Add to that the fact that most jobs and many other daily activities required considerable amounts of lifting and carrying and you have a population that was constantly exercising.

Shorter lifespans were due to a great many factors modern people do not have to deal with including a lack of proper sanitation, absence of proper medical care, including immunization programs; and exposure to long hard lives where they worked up to fourteen hours a day. Of course, judging from your forum name you probably know all of this.

As to the thread topic, from which we appeared to have strayed - yes we are more tolerant today. One only has to look at the attitudes toward interracial marriage, homosexuality, and visible minorities to realize that. We have also dispensed with most class barriers. In addition, as you have pointed out, most people are much more widely traveled and thus are exposed to many people outside their home bases. In fact the 20th century was the first century in history in which the marrying of "cousins" was not the norm.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm not sure if I understood him correctly or not but I just took him to mean it's the act that's evil not the person.

So does that mean anyone with a trait that makes them different does evil things? Tell me what is so evil about VI's little grade 3 friend playing with dolls? Or is it the people with non-traditional roles that mainstream society inflicted abuse on that's evil?
I'll repeat what Anna said, there is NO rational basis for not tolerating and accepting people with behavioral/physical traits different than ours. "Hate the wsin, not the sinner"? Who says gays being gay is sinning? Religions? Like they're based on rational thought. roflmao
BTW, you people, marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity and no-one owns the copyright on the word.
Besides that, who says that homosexuality is a defect in the first place? Even you people preaching tolerance seem to accept it as a defect. Someone prove it's a defect, please.

 

[Machjo]

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

Just to clarify a few things:

I would oppose any law targeting homosexual acts specifically. I'd rather see one law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and another making adultery a fineable offense. This way, people of the opposite sex would be equally subject to this law.

I should point out too that I am opposed to the government or anyone for that matter spying on another, and do believe that no fine should be given unless there are witnesses.

Within this context, two men engaging in homosexual acts in secret would not be affected by the law, whereas a man and a woman having sex in a park and being spotted by the police could be fined on top of any applicable penalties that might already exist for let's say indecent exposure in a public place, etc.

If you combine the proposals above, it would ensure people, men and woman alike, be more discreet in such activities.

In short, I don't care if you're straight or gay, but I do not want to know about your sexual exploits. Such laws would keep such activities in the bedroom and out of the public realm.

So two homosexuals who are discreet enough would have nothing to fear.

 

[L Gilbert]

YOu are talking like it's a foregone conclusion that he is going to be gay when he grows up. I doubt if anyone can determine that with certainty. Most Tom boys don't grow up to be lesbians.

Evidence supporting that claim?

My knowledge is very limited, so if there is a fool proof way to make this determination I wouldn't mind hearing about it.

Me, too.

Anyway as far as sexual orientation goes, it's a good topic for one just to mind his own business and be glad he isn't that way.

It'd be better if you had said, to each his own and we should all be happy we are the way we are regardless of our differences ande let others be just as happy with themselves..

 

[Machjo]

Why do you think homosexual acts ought to be fined? I have in a manner of speaking, watched the development (for lack of better words) of a little one that I know is growing up a homosexual. He has no control over what is happening to him. I have watched him for several years now and he's only in grade 3! At this point in time, he has no idea that he is different (or he may know but his actions don't show that he knows). I have spoken of this before here. For anyone who believes this is a life choice, he is living proof that it has zero to do with choice. It is the way he was born. His parents tried to change himbecause they could see it happening but nothing changed him. He still likes his Polly Pockets and for now ...... he's happy. Some of the school kids are starting to make fun of him and I find it sad. They are not even old enough to know "what" he is to our manner of thinking. They just think he's strange because he likes to play with dolls. So - if you really want to be nice and you really want to make friends with homosexual people, you must accept them 100%. You don't have to like a homosexual who (like anyone) is nasty or rude or whatever but you cannot single out a homosexual act as wrong. They cannot help who they are and since that part of their life would not touch you, you should ignore it like you would an act between a man and a woman. I too believe that marriage is for a man and a woman. The term - holy matrimony. I think two men and two women of the same sex should be called a legal union. Just because I think a term is reserved for a man and a woman doesn't mean I disagree with a union between two men or two women. I like tradition. I don't want to watch men or women showing major affection for each other in public but I don't like to watch a male/female doing that either.

Whether a person is born homosexual or not is not the issue. I was born heterosexual, yet I'd still think it appropriate that I be fined for committing adultery in so indiscreet a fashion as to have the authorities discover it.

Now on the moral front I should not engage in adultery even behind closed doors, but that is still at least less disrespectful of the public than to engage in it in the public eye. To do it with total lack of discretion is even worse, and add to that that if I make it known to the public, then it becomes public. Is this the example we want to give our youth?

The same applies to homosexuality. If a person is born homosexual, I feel for him. Morally I still think he should refrain from it even behind closed doors. But legally, I think we have a right to sensor such activities in public. Thus a combination of laws making it a fineable offense on the one hand while prohibiting police from spying on him on the other is a good balance I think.

These are diametrically opposite views, Machjo, I fail to see how you can believe in both at the same time.

You want to fine homosexuals for participating in homosexual acts. How is that compatible with ensuring their safety? Or are you saying that homosexuals should be safe from private citizens, but not from the government?

Fineing someone does not threaten his safety, though the fear of being fined may push such activities towards more discretion so as to at least keep it out of public view. Again, nothing to do with homosexuals only; this applies to heterosexual couples too. Just last night as I was waiting for the light to turn green, there were two girls on a bus kissing. Seriously now! There are limits to everything. Could they not have done that behind closed doors? What might the passengers on that bus been thinking? Maybe there were children and parents on that bus too. Seriously now.

Again, no issue with the girl per se. The issue is with what they were doing in public.

(now I'll admit I was a little turned on, but that's beside the point).

Also, I should point out I make a distinction between homosexuals and homosexual acts. I have no problem with a person being openly homosexual. It's fine to say what they are. I just don't want to know what they do.And on that front, I actually oppose the US military's don't ask don't tell policy. If the person is not openly engaging in homosexual behaviour, then I see nothing wrong with people knowing he's homosexual, and he should not be penalized for simply being homosexual.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

Excuse me? Is this crap fact or is it just your feeble little POV about how things were? I know an awful lot of people our age who used to eat raw veggies as a kid and never stopped. Personally I love carrots the most. Meat and dairy products are also great.
A bit of advice; quit sticking your fat face out and claiming stuff you can't or don't back up.

 

[Liberalman]

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?

it depends on what the media is dishing out