Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[JLM]

It most certainly would. However, that is the decision each person must arrive for themselves.

Now, I personally frown on vulgar language and would not permit it in my house. Not that our son has ever used it. But you cannot legislate morality.

Aha, gotcha S.J. - you've been ranting on for years about how tolerant you are and what a good thing tolerance is in society, BUT you are not really a tolerant person, eg. the use of bad language. While in general terms there is a time and place for bad language, bad language does have it's beneficial uses. When the "f" words are appearing in a deluge, in an undiscrimatory manner then yes it's crass ignorance. When say a nun who hasn't said "sh*t" in 20 years all of a sudden exclaims that things are "f*****g" bad people tend to pay attention. Another use is humour, an expletive often inserted at just the right point can be down right humourous (to folks who enjoy humour)- some don't and that's their perogative.

 

[JLM]

I used to think that vulgar language had its place (and I guess I still do - old habits die hard)...for example, useful in emphasizing a strong point. As you know, I was brought up in a particular time and place where "bad words" were not to be spoken anywhere near females. This seemed to work quite well, as everyone pretty much conformed to this practise.

But, during the mid-late 60s, I noticed that it was becoming more acceptable to use these words in a public setting, no matter who might be present. I attribute that to the permissiveness that grew quickly during the "flower power" cultural change in Canada and the U.S. (the "hippy daze"). Interestingly, it seemed to me that one of the first "cultural bastions" to break down this language barrier was the hallowed halls of higher learning. The first time I heard a university professor utter the "F" word in a lecture, I almost fell off the chair.

Eventually, this language found its way into the movies and now we hear all kinds of bad words on television too. I hear it all the time on the street, from very young children...I am fond of calling it "mall rat language." It's a bit disappointing to a father to hear any young children expressing their disrespect of others, especially in such vulgar terms.

I guess the liberal types like to shrug their shoulders and say, "It's just the price of freedom." I disagree. I think it's an indication of a shifting value base - less respect for other people, complete disregard for the impact one's behaviour might have on others, and perhaps even a decrease in self-respect.

More extreme viewpoints say that it is leading to a general breakdown in society. There might be some truth to that, in that disrespect for others can easily become disrespect for law and order. Especially when the values begin to deterioriate...it can become hard to tell right from wrong.

Currently, freedom does seem to come with a price but I'm wondering if we're going to see a steady increase in the "Freedom Price Index." It could become costly for our entire society. In fact, we might be there already...we just have the costs buried well.

Before I read this I took S.J. to ask from the opposite angle. Kind of ironic. He doesn't accept swearing but yet he accepts it as one of the bad things that come with "progress". I'm mostly with you when it comes to swearing, but I'd be a hypocrite if I was very strict about it. I draw the line at refraining from doing it with an audience who tolerance is uncertain. If a woman swears a blue streak, then why not.

 

[countryboy]

Before I read this I took S.J. to ask from the opposite angle. Kind of ironic. He doesn't accept swearing but yet he accepts it as one of the bad things that come with "progress". I'm mostly with you when it comes to swearing, but I'd be a hypocrite if I was very strict about it. I draw the line at refraining from doing it with an audience who tolerance is uncertain. If a woman swears a blue streak, then why not.

I'm totally with you on the subject, JLM. I think your point "I draw the line at refraining from doing it with an audience who tolerance is uncertain." says it all.

Mind you, you set yourself up to be accused of exercising common sense here, and possibly even crossing over the line of giving a sh*t about other people, but I guess that's just the price of "regress" (opposite of "progress").

Now it's time to make some ****ing coffee in my new-fangled g*dd*mn coffee maker that sometimes works! :lol:

 

[countryboy]

I'm totally with you on the subject, JLM. I think your point "I draw the line at refraining from doing it with an audience who tolerance is uncertain." says it all.

Mind you, you set yourself up to be accused of exercising common sense here, and possibly even crossing over the line of giving a sh*t about other people, but I guess that's just the price of "regress" (opposite of "progress").

Now it's time to make some ****ing coffee in my new-fangled g*dd*mn coffee maker that sometimes works! :lol:

A quick follow-up still on the topic of the thread (a bit past 1959 but still close...)

I remember walking down a street in Winnipeg with my Dad in 1968. We passed by a campaign office that had Trudeau's posters plastered all over it. It was the Trudeaumania days. (or "daze") Dad wasn't a highly-educated, articulate academic type...he was a farmer who also happened to be a WWII vet and saw a lot of combat overseas. He stopped, took a look at the posters and campaign slogans and said, "That SOB is going to ruin this country."

I think what he was referring to was the new "Just Society" that Trudeau was promising, and the utopian freedom and wonderfulness that would go with it.

As I look back over my own experiences and what has gone on since, I realized that - even though I always had a lot of respect for my elders - Dad was a pretty smart cookie!

 

[JLM]

A quick follow-up still on the topic of the thread (a bit past 1959 but still close...)

I remember walking down a street in Winnipeg with my Dad in 1968. We passed by a campaign office that had Trudeau's posters plastered all over it. It was the Trudeaumania days. (or "daze") Dad wasn't a highly-educated, articulate academic type...he was a farmer who also happened to be a WWII vet and saw a lot of combat overseas. He stopped, took a look at the posters and campaign slogans and said, "That SOB is going to ruin this country."

I think what he was referring to was the new "Just Society" that Trudeau was promising, and the utopian freedom and wonderfulness that would go with it.

As I look back over my own experiences and what has gone on since, I realized that - even though I always had a lot of respect for my elders - Dad was a pretty smart cookie!

And no doubt a hell of a lot smarter than Trudeau. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yep, suicide was illegal, a few years back - probably 30 or so now. What do you mean you couldn't be punished, we don't know that, a guy could wind up doing 10000 years in purgatory. There's probably more about this life and it's adjuncts that we don't know about than we do. WE don't want to be so short sighted that we think this short span of 70 years or so is the be all and end all. We simply don't know.

We have been through this before, JLM. There is no evidence for afterlife so the default position has to be that there is no afterlife. If anybody claims that there indeed is an afterlife, it is up to them to prove it.

So we simply don’t know, but chances of there being anything to the afterlife are very slim.

And suppose there was something to the afterlife (however remote the possibility may be), and as you say somebody who commits suicide, is sentenced to 10,000 years in the purgatory. Isn’t that for the Big Guy in the sky to decide, and not up to the state here?

So either way, ban on suicide was nonsense.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But, during the mid-late 60s, I noticed that it was becoming more acceptable to use these words in a public setting, no matter who might be present. I attribute that to the permissiveness that grew quickly during the "flower power" cultural change in Canada and the U.S. (the "hippy daze"). Interestingly, it seemed to me that one of the first "cultural bastions" to break down this language barrier was the hallowed halls of higher learning. The first time I heard a university professor utter the "F" word in a lecture, I almost fell off the chair.

That is how language evolves, countryboy. The words which could not be uttered in polite society in one age become acceptable in another age. I remember reading somewhere that in Victorian England, the word ‘liver’ was not uttered in female company, it was considered too disgusting for female company.

I guess the liberal types like to shrug their shoulders and say, "It's just the price of freedom." I disagree. I think it's an indication of a shifting value base - less respect for other people, complete disregard for the impact one's behaviour might have on others, and perhaps even a decrease in self-respect.

There is no contradiction here, it is the price of freedom and it is also a shifting value base.

More extreme viewpoints say that it is leading to a general breakdown in society. There might be some truth to that, in that disrespect for others can easily become disrespect for law and order. Especially when the values begin to deteriorate...it can become hard to tell right from wrong.

More extreme viewpoints have been saying that since times immemorial. I am a Gilbert and Sullivan fan. When they wrote their operas, the more extreme viewpoint frowned on such new fangled music (these were light operas, not serious operas), to them it signified the end of the world.

Similar sentiments were expressed about the Rock music (and of course, about Elvis) in the 50s, about Beatles in the 60s, etc. So such sentiment is nothing new. If they don’t like some new fangled contraption, some old timers automatically link that to the end of the world, or a general breakdown of the society.

Currently, freedom does seem to come with a price but I'm wondering if we're going to see a steady increase in the "Freedom Price Index." It could become costly for our entire society. In fact, we might be there already...we just have the costs buried well.

No price is too great for freedom, countryboy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Aha, gotcha S.J. - you've been ranting on for years about how tolerant you are and what a good thing tolerance is in society, BUT you are not really a tolerant person, eg. the use of bad language.

There is no ‘gotcha’ here, JLM, Sure I am a tolerant person, so I acknowledge the right of others to swear, to use four letter words. It is a free country.

That doesn’t mean that I personally have to tolerate such language. In my opinion anything that cannot be said without using forum letter words probably isn’t worth saying. The professor that countryboy talked about, the one who used the ‘f’ word in the classroom, you can be sure that when he is publishing a paper in a scientific journal, he wouldn’t even think of using four letter words. I think he was just trying to lower himself to the level of his students.

Let me give you an example. I think people should have the right you go bungee jumping, I will defend anybody’s right to go bungee jumping. Does that mean that I will do bungee jumping myself? No way, in my opinion, it is a crazy and senseless sport. But tolerance means that one accepts the rights of people to say things, do things that one may disapprove of.

So I don’t care if people use abusive, filthy language filled with four letter words here, that is for the moderators to worry about. But if anybody wants to discuss issues with me, it had better be in a polite, civil, gentlemanly language, or I am done debating with them.

 

[lone wolf]

Does gentlemanly include constant nattering stale points until your opponent walks away from your Foghorn syndrome? You have a HELL of a lot to learn about the art of communication. "Gift of gab" is what you like to call it. In your case, it's no gift....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A When say a nun who hasn't said "sh*t" in 20 years all of a sudden exclaims that things are "f*****g" bad people tend to pay attention. Another use is humour, an expletive often inserted at just the right point can be down right humourous (to folks who enjoy humour)- some don't and that's their perogative.

You may pay attention JLM, I wouldn’t. I would think ‘typical of a religious person, another hypocrite’ and then tune her out.

But think about it. Suppose a nun is giving some story to a newspaper. She starts her narrative with the sh*t word. Do you really think that anything she said after that word would really matter? No way, nun uttering the ‘S’ word itself will be the big story.

Another use is humour, an expletive often inserted at just the right point can be down right humorous (to folks who enjoy humour)- some don't and that's their perogative.

Perhaps, for those who enjoy that kind of humour, I don’t.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Before I read this I took S.J. to ask from the opposite angle. Kind of ironic. He doesn't accept swearing but yet he accepts it as one of the bad things that come with "progress". I'm mostly with you when it comes to swearing, but I'd be a hypocrite if I was very strict about it. I draw the line at refraining from doing it with an audience who tolerance is uncertain. If a woman swears a blue streak, then why not.

I draw the line at not swearing, period.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think what he was referring to was the new "Just Society" that Trudeau was promising, and the utopian freedom and wonderfulness that would go with it.

As I look back over my own experiences and what has gone on since, I realized that - even though I always had a lot of respect for my elders - Dad was a pretty smart cookie!

Your dad may have been a ‘pretty smart cookie’ for all I know. However in this case he was wrong. Trudeau was the best thing that could happen to Canada.

Sure he had many faults. However, the stellar work he did regarding the constitution and the Charter has no parallel in Canadian history. Especially enacting of the Charter changed Canadian society profoundly (and for the better, in my opinion). All kinds of minority rights were embedded in the constitution, and were not left to the whim of the majority and the Parliament.

Trudeau is greatly loved and admired in the east, particularly in Ontario and Québec. The last poll I saw (a couple of years before he died), Trudeau had an approval rating in the 60s.

In my opinion, Trudeau was the best PM ever, in spite of the horrible mess he made of the economy.

 

[lone wolf]

Of course Trudeau had an approval rating of around 60% a couple of years before he died. He couldn't do any more harm. You do know PETRO-Canada meant Pierre Elliot Trudeau Ripped Off Canada....

Election poster Trudeau only looked like Napolean. Later ... he acted the part too.

Guess what.... That wasn't 1959 or 2009

 

[countryboy]

Your dad may have been a ‘pretty smart cookie’ for all I know. However in this case he was wrong. Trudeau was the best thing that could happen to Canada.

Sure he had many faults. However, the stellar work he did regarding the constitution and the Charter has no parallel in Canadian history. Especially enacting of the Charter changed Canadian society profoundly (and for the better, in my opinion). All kinds of minority rights were embedded in the constitution, and were not left to the whim of the majority and the Parliament.

Trudeau is greatly loved and admired in the east, particularly in Ontario and Québec. The last poll I saw (a couple of years before he died), Trudeau had an approval rating in the 60s.

In my opinion, Trudeau was the best PM ever, in spite of the horrible mess he made of the economy.

Good morning SJP - Busy day here so will be in and out. This'll be short (for a change, and for the moment...!)

Well, not surprisingly, I think we have a difference of opinion here. I am not a fan of the Charter for a number of reasons, but perhaps the biggest one is that it left Trudeau's colleagues (lawyers) a huge opportunity to grow their profession, all the way to fighting drunk driving charges with the Charter. I fail to see the net benefit to society.

He also said the "F" word in the House of Commons.

 

[JLM]

Good morning SJP - Busy day here so will be in and out. This'll be short (for a change, and for the moment...!)

Well, not surprisingly, I think we have a difference of opinion here. I am not a fan of the Charter for a number of reasons, but perhaps the biggest one is that it left Trudeau's colleagues (lawyers) a huge opportunity to grow their profession, all the way to fighting drunk driving charges with the Charter. I fail to see the net benefit to society.

He also said the "F" word in the House of Commons.

Trudeau, the F word, no that was Fuddle Duddle....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[countryboy]

There is no ‘gotcha’ here, JLM, Sure I am a tolerant person, so I acknowledge the right of others to swear, to use four letter words. It is a free country.

That doesn’t mean that I personally have to tolerate such language. In my opinion anything that cannot be said without using forum letter words probably isn’t worth saying. The professor that countryboy talked about, the one who used the ‘f’ word in the classroom, you can be sure that when he is publishing a paper in a scientific journal, he wouldn’t even think of using four letter words. I think he was just trying to lower himself to the level of his students.

Let me give you an example. I think people should have the right you go bungee jumping, I will defend anybody’s right to go bungee jumping. Does that mean that I will do bungee jumping myself? No way, in my opinion, it is a crazy and senseless sport. But tolerance means that one accepts the rights of people to say things, do things that one may disapprove of.

So I don’t care if people use abusive, filthy language filled with four letter words here, that is for the moderators to worry about. But if anybody wants to discuss issues with me, it had better be in a polite, civil, gentlemanly language, or I am done debating with them.

Hmm...I think bungee jumping is fine too (I don't like it myself...gosh, we agreed on that!) but it's OK with me if someone wants to do it. It won't affect someone else in society if they do...except for the local clean-up crew, if the cord snaps. But then again, cleaning that up is a job opportunity for someone so it's a net positive to society.

But, I do draw the line at people feeling "free" to do whatever they want if it has a net negative impact on society. Which, of course, is why we have laws in Canada. I think the problem is, when we mix all these wonderful freedoms to excess with a never-ending stream of legislation to try and control them (the freedoms), we end up with a society that gets a bit confused, or possibly even irritated by the whole situation. Except for the lawyers...they must love it because it represents a never-ending stream of business, sorting out the various squabbles and such.

I'd rather see a society where common sense is the rule, not the exception. Which is what I was getting at somewhere back in some thread when I made reference to people respecting other people and all that old-fashioned, conservative-like drivel.

When you encourage people to do whatever "feels good" to them, you naturally risk the possibility of a whole number "feeling bad" because of it. Something to do with actions and reactions.

Sorry about doing this in bits and pieces, but gotta' run again...will continue later...

 

[countryboy]

Trudeau, the F word, no that was Fuddle Duddle....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Oh shoot, I stand corrected. I'm always making those darned mistakes when I talk about that son-of-a-biscuit box, Mr. Trudeau. I guess it's because I remember him giving us Westerners the big finger from the window of his train car while he was on a royal tour. Himself peed off a lot of people doing that...they might have even uttered a fuddle duddle or two over the whole thing. It said a lot about his level of respect for the people he was supposed to leading...down the garden path, as the old expression goes.

SJP says he's highly thought of in Ontario and Quebec...I guess he kept his fingers in their proper place when making his rounds down there.

 

[countryboy]

That is how language evolves, countryboy. The words which could not be uttered in polite society in one age become acceptable in another age. I remember reading somewhere that in Victorian England, the word ‘liver’ was not uttered in female company, it was considered too disgusting for female company.

Yes, and as any linguist will tell you, language is a very direct reflection of culture. I happen to have some knowledge of other languages and I agree with the linguist's views.

So, if that is true, then a deteriorating language (sinking to the level of using bad/vulgar/offensive words in everyday life), then would it not follow that it's an indication of a deteriorating culture?

 

[lone wolf]

Can we thank Doctor Spock?

 

[countryboy]

More extreme viewpoints have been saying that since times immemorial. I am a Gilbert and Sullivan fan. When they wrote their operas, the more extreme viewpoint frowned on such new fangled music (these were light operas, not serious operas), to them it signified the end of the world.

Similar sentiments were expressed about the Rock music (and of course, about Elvis) in the 50s, about Beatles in the 60s, etc. So such sentiment is nothing new. If they don’t like some new fangled contraption, some old timers automatically link that to the end of the world, or a general breakdown of the society.

Y'know it's funny but I used to play in a rock and roll band way back in high school days. Although I was smack dab in the middle of good old conservative farming country, not once did I hear anything about the music of the day contributing to the downfall of mankind...from the locals, that is. Most of that stuff came from the more "civilized" areas of the continent...places like Toronto, Montreal, and New York, to name 3 that I remember.

The "old timers" I'm referring to in our local area were people who generally had a pretty good work ethic, had weathered some nasty times in their lives (like farming during the Great Depression, surviving more than a few prairie winters in a very rural setting, to name a few), and they wuz generally a buncha' good ol' god-fearin' folks who could think for themselves.

My point? Perhaps the elitist, pompous city folks "back east" (not all of them, of course...just the elitist, pompous ones) feared all these changes because, being ahead of their time, they had begun to lose their ability to think things through clearly and saw everything "new" as a threat to their sheltered lifestyles. Might be on to something there...

Just for the record, I'm a fan of all kinds of music...everything from country (the old, whiny type like Hank Williams) to big band to rock to folk to opera. One of my daughters is in fact an opera singer (in Toronto now) and the other one is a big band and Broadway music fanatic who also sings in Festivals because she loves it. And they vote Conservative and are proud of it. :lol: