Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[SirJosephPorter]

" You haven’t been able to produce even a single statistics "

YOu are completely missing the point- not all of us measure quality of life by statistics, so really it's not much use even having the discussion until we are all agree on which tool we are going to use as the "measuring stick".

Quite so, JLM. The way I look at it, there are many factors which lead to a better quality of life. They are, greater personal income, greater life expectancy, more tolerance of minorities, civil society etc.

These are necessary ingredients for a better quality of life, they are not sufficient. These ingredients may be used to better the quality of life, it is up to the individual whether he/she does so.

However, without these ingredients, better quality of life is not possible. Thus take the case of blacks. 50 years ago they had very little money, most were janitors or servants. Life expectancy was low 50 years ago, there was no civil society. It was perfectly acceptable to discriminate against blacks, there was no provision in the law forbidding discrimination against blacks.

Against such a background, a better quality of life cannot be achieved, no matter how hard an individual tries. 50 years ago, with Herculean efforts, a black may have been able to become a lawyer or a doctor, but he was still a nigg*r to the store clerk or the waiter in the restaurant. The clerk or the waiter may still refuse to serve him, regardless of whether he is a doctor or a lawyer.

 

[JLM]

I see, so you do make use of the fruits of the progress over the past 50 years. And you don’t fly on planes, have never flown by a plane? Astounding.



So do you use ATM machine or don’t you? You didn’t really answer that. For your information, I don’t use it, never had any use for it. I don’t even have an ATM card. But many people use it, it must make life easier for them, otherwise why would they use it?



Again the same old canard eh? The same old claims of huge, skyrocketing crime rate in Canada. Well, once again, for your information, crime rate in Canada is very low by world standards and is dropping almost every year.



For you information JLM, plenty of people smile at you today. We live in a posh area, you will find very few people on the street. But I do meet people when I go for a walk, I meet other people who have come out for a walk, invariably they say ‘hello’ to you.

I did my share of flying during my working life on both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft. When I retired and found myself still alive, I decided (that barring extra ordinary circumstances) my flying days were over. My wife has never flown and has absolutely no desire to do so.

 

[JLM]

How can an opinion be wrong or right?

Simple- just depends on whether you are smart or stupid.................:lol::lol::lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Simple- just depends on whether you are smart or stupid.................:lol::lol::lol:

...or even allowed to have one

 

[JLM]

...or even allowed to have one

In that case you'd be henpecked.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In that case you'd be henpecked.

JLM, you are truly henpecked when you are given an opinion ('if I want your opinion, I will give you one').

 

[countryboy]

Dear SirJP...Your comments - originals and rebuttals - are in black. My originals are in blue, latest replies in red...

life expectancy – much greater today. - Check the latest projections..it's going the other way.​

Countryboy, so let me get this straight, are you saying that life expectancy today is less that it was 50 years ago? If so, put up the statistics, please. Without statistics, this is just your personal opinion, it only tells me that you don’t like today’s society, you would rather go back to the segregated, prejudiced society of 50 years ago, so you have convinced yourself that life expectancy today is lower than that of 50 years ago.
No, I did not say “today.” Here is what I was talking about:​

After remaining relatively stable in the 1960s and 70s obesity among adults in the US increased by approximately 50% per decade through the 1980s and 1990s. Now two-thirds of the US are overweight or obese. Obesity has been shown to significantly reduce life expectancy by an estimated 5 to 20 years.

You can get more details at: ​

New England Journal of Medicine. March 17, 2005;352(11):1138-45.

health – much better today - ? Need specifics here - I'm reading about certain diseases (eg, diabetes) that are approaching epidemic levels. (I believe it's the old burden of proof thing.​

I will dig this up later. But I have read that people live much longer today without any serious disease compared to 50 years ago.
Well, please go ahead and dig.​

personal income – much higher today - How much of it do we get to keep? Just asking...I don't have the stats but then, the burden is on you. My definition of personal income vis-a-vis comparative quality of life is how much you get to decide to spend...disposable income.​

Personal take home pay is much more than it was 50 years ago (even accounting for inflation). I have already put up the statistic in the thread, go back and hunt for it. I have no wish to keep going over the same ground again and again.
You might want to consider how to properly apply the wonderful technology of the computer by storing your files where you can refer back to them in a timely manner. That way, your burden (of proof) would be lighter and easier to manage.​

living comforts – much better and widespread toady - living comforts is subjective...please be more specific. I don't have a widespread toady...is that some sort of furniture?​

I see, so I assume you don’t think that cheaper plane travel, cell phones, microwave ovens, DVD players etc. make our life easier and more pleasant today? Do you think those are invensit0ns of the Devil, sent down by him to corrupt us?
Cheaper plane travel? Price is one thing, but perhaps you didn't fly much back in the good old days of good service, good food, and all those other small but important details that create a total experience. Do the long delays at airports, smaller seats, declining service, make your life easier and more pleasant?​

standard of living - much higher today Measurements, please​

Again, I have already put up the statistics, go hunt for it or find on your own. I have no desire to do the same research over and over again whenever somebody demands proof.
You might want to consider how to properly apply the wonderful technology of the computer by storing your files where you can refer back to them in a timely manner. That way, your burden (of proof) would be lighter and easier to manage. I'm just applying the principle you talked about before – you raised the point, I asked you to support it, so the burden of proof lies with you, not me.​

scientific knowledge - much more advanced today No question about it, although I'm not sure how that might be have a net impact on everyday life, but I'll give you one for that.​

Oh, so you think something is better today ,do you? Wow, what a surprise. My impression was that today we are living in a living Hell, 50 years ago we were living in Heaven, in paradise.
You're kidding! Well, now I see that we're agreeing on the whole thing. Mind you, I think your impression is quite extreme...I wouldn't have used those strong words like “living Hell” but if that's the way you feel...​

Technological innovations – we have technology today which was not even dreamed of 50 years ago, such as microwave, oven, cell phone, computer, DVD and many more. They may prove to be not all that wonderful...microwave ovens are questionable in terms of what they do to food, cell phones are suspected of causing brain cancer, computers when overused, tend to make people weird, and you get one point for DVD.​

So I assume you don’t use microwave, don’t own a ell phone, don’t use a computer, don’t use DVD player, ATM machine, don’t use any of the inventions of the Devil, you live the pure, Godly lifestyle of 50 years ago, Right? Then do you perhaps mail in your posts to the forum and moderators post them for you?
My, you're a sarcastic one, aren't you? You don't have to get bent of shape to get your point across. (do you?)
No, I don't use a microwave and don't even own one. After I discovered what they do to my food a long time ago, I got rid of it. I don't “overuse” my computer (check my original post wording please, instead of flying off the handle with emotionally unbalanced comments), I don't own a cell phone (gave up on them years ago as a useless intervention on my time and besides, I don't need one), and I do use a DVD player (which I gave you one point for, if you had taken the time to actually read my post instead of getting sarcastic, emotional, and out of control).
I have no idea why you introduced “inventions of the Devil” and “pure, Godly lifestyle” but I think you might want to calm down and think about what you write before you approach the keyboard. It is that kind of comment that makes some of your writings look silly.​

racial tolerance – much more widespread today – 50 years ago it was routine, customary to discriminate against women, against blacks, to lock up gays for being homosexual etc. They didn't lock up the 2 gay guys in my hometown...one was a student, the other a highly respected music teacher​

I assume they were gays? Well, again look up in the literature, there have been cases 50 years ago of imprisoning gays because they participated in consensual gay sex.
SirJP – You are acting weird here. You “assume they were gays?” You don't have to – I already told you they were. You go and make these raving statements about gays being locked up in the 50s for being gay and I simply pointed out 2 examples of where you were wrong. And those example are from a tiny prairie town of 600 people. And that is based on personal experience, not from “the literature” to which you refer and of which I have no knowledge because you conveniently neglected to mention the source of these “facts.”​

Civil society - much more humane, more civilized more fair today. Oh boy, we really need that burden of proof thing here.​

Sorry, but the proof is all around you. Blacks, women are treated as equal today, 50 years ago they were not.
You brought up the subject of a much more humane, more civilized, more fair and civil society. And then you cited blacks and women. Period. There is much more to society than those 2 elements, and cannot for the life of me figure out why you have such a narrow-minded view of it. I don't...I like to look at the big picture and then form an opinion. You appear to be a very “small picture” kind of person, which might account for your “tunnel vision” approach to this whole idea of society. I would recommend a stroll around a neighborhood other than your posh home turf so you can gain some insight into this subject. As my Granny used to tell me back in the 50s, “Get out and see the world so you can understand things better.”​

So far, I think you've scored two or possibly 3 (personal income), which puts that right in line JLM's post re: those two or three things. The rest are simply the result of an active imagination and/or an unsubstantiated opinion.​

2 or 3 in your opinion perhaps. In my opinion, I have scored on all of them. You haven’t been able to produce even a single statistics to show that life was better in the ‘good old days’.
And neither have you. As I pointed out earlier, you are the one that made the points we're discussing here, and you have neglected to provide the proof to support those points.​

Personal opinion is cheap, you cannot produce even a single scrap of statistics to show us how the good old days were so wonderful, how the current days are straight from Hell.
I do not understand your fixation with Hell. You have stated you are an Atheist but you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you don't believe in the concept of Hell (which is a Christian thing) then why are you bringing it up? Are you making the assumption that I do? ​

 

[countryboy]

Really? Then when I said that personal incomes are much higher today, why did you and countryboy came back with ‘but what about taxes’? The clear implication was that taxes are eating up whatever improvement in personal income was there. To that my reply is no, even after taxes, average person is financially much better off today than 50 years ago

As to quality of life, it depends upon both how much wealth you have and how you are using it. If somebody earns so little that he is starving, it wouldn’t make any difference how well he uses whatever wealth he has, he will still be miserable.

The first requirement is clearly better today, people have much more disposable income than they did 50 years ago. As to how they make use of what they have, that depends upon the individual and has nothing to do with whether it was 50 years ago or today. There were responsible and irresponsible people 50 years ago, there are today. So I don’t’ see how that is relevant to the discussion here.

The means for a better quality of life are clearly more substantial today, how those means are used is up to the individual.

To demonstrate it with an analogy, let us talk in terms of fish. People have many more fish available today than 50 years ago, they have the means to assuage their hunger. Now, whether they eat the fish, or throw it into the garbage, is up to them.

I think I am beginning to understand your basic approach to this subject, SirJP. You have a fixation on quantity, not quality. Your fish example did it. I'm sure we do have "many more fish" available today, but much of it is farmed fish. Farmed fish are generally not fed a natural diet, thus this type of "food" can have a less than ideal impact on human health. Why would having more of something that is of questionable value be a good thing? I mean, I realize this is a bit of a trend in Canada and the U.S. (obsession with quantities of things and excess in general) but I fail to see how quantity itself contributes to a healthier, happier lifestyle in '09 vs. '59. Quite the opposite, as I see it.

 

[JLM]

I think I am beginning to understand your basic approach to this subject, SirJP. You have a fixation on quantity, not quality. Your fish example did it. I'm sure we do have "many more fish" available today, but much of it is farmed fish. Farmed fish are generally not fed a natural diet, thus this type of "food" can have a less than ideal impact on human health. Why would having more of something that is of questionable value be a good thing? I mean, I realize this is a bit of a trend in Canada and the U.S. (obsession with quantities of things and excess in general) but I fail to see how quantity itself contributes to a healthier, happier lifestyle in '09 vs. '59. Quite the opposite, as I see it.

Exactly (CB. go to Control panel and check your reps) :lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, I did not say “today.” Here is what I was talking about:After remaining relatively stable in the 1960s and 70s obesity among adults in the US increased by approximately 50% per decade through the 1980s and 1990s. Now two-thirds of the US are overweight or obese. Obesity has been shown to significantly reduce life expectancy by an estimated 5 to 20 years.
You can get more details at: New England Journal of Medicine. March 17, 2005;352(11):1138-45.

Again, I say to you what I said to JLM, it is a caution only, nobody's life expectancy has decreased. It only tells us what may possibly happen if obesity goes unchecked. You sound like people are dying in the street due to obesity.

Reduced life expectancy is something that may happen if obesity epidemic goes unchecked. Increase in life expectancy is something that has already happened in the past 50 years, life expectancy has increased by 10 years. Contrary to what you may presumably believe, people are not dropping like flies in the street due to obesity. It is simply a cautionary note, that something should be done about obesity.

health – much better today - ? Need specifics here - I'm reading about certain diseases (eg, diabetes) that are approaching epidemic levels. (I believe it's the old burden of proof thing.

For your information, diabetes is not a disease, it is a medical condition. It is simply the body’s inability to metabolize sugar, that by itself is not an illness or a disease. Provided sugar is metabolized properly by administration of insulin, diabetes does not cause any adverse effect. There are many diabetic people who lead full life, are not even inconvenienced in any way. The latest Supreme Court justice in USA is a diabetic. So diabetes is just a bogeyman you have put up.

 

[countryboy]

Again, I say to you what I said to JLM, it is a caution only, nobody's life expectancy has decreased. It only tells us what may possibly happen if obesity goes unchecked. You sound like people are dying in the street due to obesity.

Reduced life expectancy is something that may happen if obesity epidemic goes unchecked. Increase in life expectancy is something that has already happened in the past 50 years, life expectancy has increased by 10 years. Contrary to what you may presumably believe, people are not dropping like flies in the street due to obesity. It is simply a cautionary note, that something should be done about obesity.



For your information, diabetes is not a disease, it is a medical condition. It is simply the body’s inability to metabolize sugar, that by itself is not an illness or a disease. Provided sugar is metabolized properly by administration of insulin, diabetes does not cause any adverse effect. There are many diabetic people who lead full life, are not even inconvenienced in any way. The latest Supreme Court justice in USA is a diabetic. So diabetes is just a bogeyman you have put up.

You're right...I forgot the hyphen...dis-ease. I don't mind a bit of "hair splitting" in order to get things right. :lol:

 

[countryboy]

Again, I say to you what I said to JLM, it is a caution only, nobody's life expectancy has decreased. It only tells us what may possibly happen if obesity goes unchecked. You sound like people are dying in the street due to obesity.

Reduced life expectancy is something that may happen if obesity epidemic goes unchecked. Increase in life expectancy is something that has already happened in the past 50 years, life expectancy has increased by 10 years. Contrary to what you may presumably believe, people are not dropping like flies in the street due to obesity. It is simply a cautionary note, that something should be done about obesity.



For your information, diabetes is not a disease, it is a medical condition. It is simply the body’s inability to metabolize sugar, that by itself is not an illness or a disease. Provided sugar is metabolized properly by administration of insulin, diabetes does not cause any adverse effect. There are many diabetic people who lead full life, are not even inconvenienced in any way. The latest Supreme Court justice in USA is a diabetic. So diabetes is just a bogeyman you have put up.

"You sound like people are dying in the street due to obesity."

I do? My, you have a rather extreme and may I suggest, alarmist reaction to very simple statements!

"Contrary to what you may presumably believe, people are not dropping like flies in the street due to obesity."

I think the key word in there is "presumably"...meaning YOU are presuming what I believe. I realize it's a convenient way for you to divert attention away from your position, but really, don't you think it would be better to simply state what you believe (and why) rather than these obvious attempts to make yourself look perfect? Most reasonable people understand that none of us are perfect.

I also understand that you deliberately make these outrageous statements in an attempt to get the other person to become unglued and thus make even more outrageous statements. But, I have been in a lot of debates, discussions, and difficult negotiations over the years - in more than one language - and I have to say, it's a rather unproductive way to have an intelligent discussion. These types of "games" do tend to get people off the topic with the end result being that nobody really benefits or learns much from it all. Carried to an extreme, this type of behaviour can even start wars, and I'm sure you agree that war is a bad thing.

I love to learn something new every day. If I was to think I had to have the absolute last word in every discussion, I would end up being a very ignorant and unpleasant person, don't you think? And to quote/paraphrase my Granny (one more time, from '59)..."The smartest man in the world is the one who admits that he doesn't know everything." I still believe that is true in '09.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

health – much better today - ? Need specifics here - I'm reading about certain diseases (eg, diabetes) that are approaching epidemic levels. (I believe it's the old burden of proof thing.​

I will dig this up later. But I have read that people live much longer today without any serious disease compared to 50 years ago.
Well, please go ahead and dig.​

Well, here it is. The healthy life expectancy (without a serious disease) is 68.3 years for men, 70.8 years for women.

Life Expectancy at Birth / Health / Indicators of Well-being in Canada

That was roughly ALL the life expectancy in 1959.

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 — Infoplease.com

I don’t think they have statistics for healthy life expectancy for 1959. But unless you assume that they did not get any serious diseases in 1959, that people were perfectly healthy until they reached 68 or 70 years of age and all of a sudden they dropped dead after that, it stands to reason that healthy life expectancy is also greater today than in 1959.

I had not posted this before, so I am posting now. As to the rest of the statistics, sorry, I can’t do the same work twice. I have already posted numbers for personal income etc. in this very thread. You can either go back and hunt for it, Google for it yourself, or go on assuming that people were rich 50 years ago and are paupers today. It is all the same to me.


​

 

[lone wolf]

In that case you'd be henpecked.

Not any more. I got on the do not pester list early - which frees me from having to submit my opinion for approval before being allowed to have it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You might want to consider how to properly apply the wonderful technology of the computer by storing your files where you can refer back to them in a timely manner. That way, your burden (of proof) would be lighter and easier to manage.​

You might want to consider how to properly apply the wonderful technology of the computer by storing your files where you can refer back to them in a timely manner. That way, your burden (of proof) would be lighter and easier to manage. I'm just applying the principle you talked about before – you raised the point, I asked you to support it, so the burden of proof lies with you, not me

I would do that countryboy, but I quote so many websites that I will have to save hundreds of files on my computer, which is just not practical. So what I do is if we are having this discussion again in a few month’s time, I will dig up the references again. If I have already given them in this thread, I don’t bother, let the other poster believe what he will.

As to the burden of proof, I have already proved my point in this thread, I see mo need going over the same ground again.

 

[JLM]

News flash for you S.J.- Obese people ARE dropping dead in the streets. As for diabetes, you are getting into semantics (my nephew has diabetes bad) what difference does it make if it's an illness, disease, malady or malfunction, these people are not completely well, their lives are in jeopardy and generally are shortened, it is only by intensive monitoring and strict attention to diet and exercise that they have a chance at normal lifestyle and longevity.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

News flash for you S.J.- Obese people ARE dropping dead in the streets. As for diabetes, you are getting into semantics (my nephew has diabetes bad) what difference does it make if it's an illness, disease, malady or malfunction, these people are not completely well, their lives are in jeopardy and generally are shortened, it is only by intensive monitoring and strict attention to diet and exercise that they have a chance at normal lifestyle and longevity.

Really? How many people have died due to obesity so far, could you put up some statistics?

And diabetes is not a disease (in the sense that cancer, heart attack etc, are diseases). Your nephew has diabetes bad? What does that mean? What are the symptoms of diabetes? Fever? Diarrhea? Nausea? Headache?

The fact is, diabetes is not a disease, it is simply inability of the body to metabolize sugar. Now, if the condition is left untreated, it can lead to all sorts of diseases. But provided there is regular insulin injection, diet is strictly controlled, diabetics can live happy fulfilling lives same as anybody else. As I said, the latest Supreme Court justice (Sonya Sottomoyer) is diabetic. Nobody brought up her ‘disease’ during the confirmation hearings, even her staunch opponents did not make an issue of it. If they had, they would have been laughed out of court.

With proper care and control, diabetics can live happy, fulfilling lives, they can live as long as anybody else. My father in law was a diabetic, he lived to a ripe old age of 84 (and died in his sleep). The same cannot be said of cancer or heart attack patients.

 

[lone wolf]

Heart attack is NOT a disease. Most times, it is the result of a disease. It astounds me how much you prattle on what little you know.

 

[JLM]

Really? How many people have died due to obesity so far, could you put up some statistics?

And diabetes is not a disease (in the sense that cancer, heart attack etc, are diseases). Your nephew has diabetes bad? What does that mean? What are the symptoms of diabetes? Fever? Diarrhea? Nausea? Headache?

The fact is, diabetes is not a disease, it is simply inability of the body to metabolize sugar. Now, if the condition is left untreated, it can lead to all sorts of diseases. But provided there is regular insulin injection, diet is strictly controlled, diabetics can live happy fulfilling lives same as anybody else. As I said, the latest Supreme Court justice (Sonya Sottomoyer) is diabetic. Nobody brought up her ‘disease’ during the confirmation hearings, even her staunch opponents did not make an issue of it. If they had, they would have been laughed out of court.

With proper care and control, diabetics can live happy, fulfilling lives, they can live as long as anybody else. My father in law was a diabetic, he lived to a ripe old age of 84 (and died in his sleep). The same cannot be said of cancer or heart attack patients.

Wrong again on most counts. Heart patients do indeed die in their sleep at age 84, same with cancer patients.

 

[JLM]

What difference does it make how many people drop dead in the streets from obesity? Some will suffice and others drop dead on the side walk and in corridors and in the bath tub and on a bar stool, what's the difference? they are all fat and they are all just as dead!