The More We Learn, the More Stupid We Become

[JLM]

"Oh really??? I double dog dare you to threaten to kill somebody over the internet."- THAT wouldn't be smart, I passively suggested on another forum that someone could end up dead, they deep sixed me although I didn't specify whether it should be physically dead, morally dead or socially dead.

 

[Cannuck]

It was understood, fully... hence the reason I picked it apart.

No, apparently you didn't. You have confused the statement "Maybe a big part of your problem is that you rely too heavily on what you see and experience first hand" with what you see and experience being a bad thing. See, the bad thing is not, as you mistakenly believed, seeing and experiencing things. It is rely too heavily on your personal experiences. JLM reminds me of one of the blind men in the story about meeting the elephant.

Hopefully, that clears things up for you. No need to thank me.

 

[kryptic]

Oh really??? I double dog dare you to threaten to kill somebody over the internet.

If you are using a public computer, you are using the resources of the organization that has supplied you with the equipment. If you have a private computer, you've handed your cash to Microsoft, Apple, Exxon and a whole host of corporations that provide the equipment and technology for you to participate in the internet experience.

You have not opted out.

You know what, I can do anything I want with a computer, including threaten your life, and I can do it all in the comfort of my home, while my IP shows that I am in china, or some other part of the world, lawless, if you are smart. Obviously you have no idea how to do these things, so I think your out classed.

Alright, so I use some technology that was made by certain groups of society, (I didn't say I wanted to go all bush man). But no matter how you look at it, this is just a fancy device that we could do without, we still have voice boxes that do the same thing, but I suppose talking is part of society too?

 

[kryptic]

No, apparently you didn't. You have confused the statement "Maybe a big part of your problem is that you rely too heavily on what you see and experience first hand" with what you see and experience being a bad thing. See, the bad thing is not, as you mistakenly believed, seeing and experiencing things. It is rely too heavily on your personal experiences. JLM reminds me of one of the blind men in the story about meeting the elephant.

Hopefully, that clears things up for you. No need to thank me.

as I said, if you don't rely on what you see and experience heavily then you are a programmed drone that likes to watch TV advertisments and do as your told.

and I'm sure what you have seen and experienced you rely on, heavily... if not, your not as smart as you think. Your programmed

JLM seems like more of a thinker to me.

 

[Cliffy]

. JLM reminds me of one of the blind men in the story about meeting the elephant.

What? He thinks you are an elephants scrotum?8O

 

[Cannuck]

Alright, so I use some technology that was made by certain groups of society, (I didn't say I wanted to go all bush man).

You said you opted out of society. The reality is that you like your creature comforts and are just talking the talk. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I just think it might serve you better to be honest about it if you plan on spending any significant amount of time here. People can generally see through lies pretty quick and you shouldn't pretend to be something you are not if you get your panties all twisted when you get caught.

 

[Cannuck]

as I said, if you don't rely on what you see and experience heavily then you are a programmed drone that likes to watch TV advertisments and do as your told.

I live in an area that has a very large Dutch population. In fact, they are a majority. Relying solely on what I see and experience, I would believe the the majority of people are Dutch. After all, I've never been to China and the TV doesn't tell me anything different...it's just fantasy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The people who did manage to live long lives in '59 were probably healthier than a lot of folks today who are hooked up to tubes and wires and a regiman of drugs. I guess the burning question is what do you prefer, quality of life or quantity of life?

Well, today we have a better quality and more quantity of life compared to 50 years ago.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You're half right, Liberal equates with Optimism, Conservative equates with Realism. Both are necessary to get through life.

Many times conservatism equates with pessimism, JLM. Many conservatives are not that much different from the perennial old timer one would find in almost any bar, the one who will cheerfully explain to you how things are going to the dogs (provided you buy him a beer, of course).

Conservatives many times harken back to the ‘good old days’ or their conception of good old days. The conception is usually flawed; the good old days were really terrible in many respects.

 

[Mowich]

My dad is 80 and he plays and walks 18 holes of golf everyday. Not a tube or a wire to be seen.

My Mum's going to be 90 this August. She plays Wii bowling, bean bag toss, walks around the halls in the seniors complex where she lives, and still has most of her marbles. I am really proud of her. :smile:
Oh, and she also goes to Riders games when the weather is warm.

 

[Cannuck]

Oh, and she also goes to Riders games when the weather is warm.

Poor girl.

 

[JLM]

Well, today we have a better quality and more quantity of life compared to 50 years ago.

Do you think the number of fragmented families to day bears that out?

 

[Cannuck]

Do you think the number of fragmented families to day bears that out?

You would first have to show that fragmented families are a negative before you should ask that question.

 

[Cliffy]

It is known by Psychologists that nuclear families are dysfunctional. Fragmented families may or may not be more so. Using myself as a standard, I would have to say that I have never met a well adjusted human in this society. Although someone mentioned the other day that they knew a well adjusted functional nuclear family, I find that really hard to believe. Usually people who act well adjusted in the outside world are completely psychotic in private.

 

[JLM]

It is known by Psychologists that nuclear families are dysfunctional. Fragmented families may or may not be more so. Using myself as a standard, I would have to say that I have never met a well adjusted human in this society. Although someone mentioned the other day that they knew a well adjusted functional nuclear family, I find that really hard to believe. Usually people who act well adjusted in the outside world are completely psychotic in private.

I'm sure there are cases that bear what you say, but then think there's just as many that don't.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

It is known by Psychologists that nuclear families are dysfunctional. Fragmented families may or may not be more so. Using myself as a standard, I would have to say that I have never met a well adjusted human in this society. Although someone mentioned the other day that they knew a well adjusted functional nuclear family, I find that really hard to believe. Usually people who act well adjusted in the outside world are completely psychotic in private.

Ah poop, Cliffy - just what is 'well adjusted anyway? A 'leave it to Beaver' moment? We've been married over 27 years and have 2 really good - normal kids. It's been hell at times but we weathered it. I think that fragmented families do the same. I think that in the 50s and 60s a lot of couples stayed together for bad reasons - and the kids suffered. Just because you have 2 parents in the home doesn't mean that you have 2 good parents. sometimes they're better parents if they're apart - and sometimes it's better to have one good parent in the home than one good one and one bad one.
Fragmented families? Just because they're fragmented doesn't make them bad. Just like having two 'normal' parents in the home makes it good. A good family dynamic doesn't rely on the physical bodies of the people in the family, it relies on the intentions of those within the family unit to make it work.

 

[Johnnny]

Johnny, life expectancy in Canada in 1960 was 71.13 years, today it is 81 years. So unless your grandfolks lived longer than average, and had a good medical health insurance coverage (there was no universal health care in those days), chances are they would not have been alive in 1959 (as grandfolks).

obviously, thats why i said they think that things are better now then in the 50's....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Do you think the number of fragmented families to day bears that out?

And what has that got to do with anything, JLM? Whether a family is fragmented or not has nothing to do with quality of life. In the 40s and 50s when there was social stigma against divorce, single parenthood etc., many couples used to live together in spite of being unhappy. There is no data to indicate that quality of life is better in unfragmented families.

 

[JLM]

And what has that got to do with anything, JLM? Whether a family is fragmented or not has nothing to do with quality of life. In the 40s and 50s when there was social stigma against divorce, single parenthood etc., many couples used to live together in spite of being unhappy. There is no data to indicate that quality of life is better in unfragmented families.

Your vision is clear but it's short. Fragmented families are just one symptom. Our whole society was traditionally based on the concept of the family, with the father and mother playing different and specific roles. Sure families can fare well when they are fragmented if the remaining members can make the adjustment, too often they don't. You say, S.J. that quality of life is better today, but your assessment is based on the ability to do quick fixes. Sure if we drink ourselves into oblivion now and kill our livers no problem go out a transplant for $20000 at Gov't cost. Look at the number of troubled kids today, the number of kids in the courts today. Look at the number of people with drug and alcohol problems today. Look at the number of families today that have to be subsidized by the gov't. I doubt if figures are available for 1959 but I'd sure like to see the comparison between total taxes as a percentage of income then compared to now. I'd guess we are being taxed to 2 to 3 times as much now. How many families these days are having their children raised (at least part of the time) by non family people?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your vision is clear but it's short. Fragmented families are just one symptom. Our whole society was traditionally based on the concept of the family, with the father and mother playing different and specific roles. Sure families can fare well when they are fragmented if the remaining members can make the adjustment, too often they don't. You say, S.J. that quality of life is better today, but your assessment is based on the ability to do quick fixes. Sure if we drink ourselves into oblivion now and kill our livers no problem go out a transplant for $20000 at Gov't cost. Look at the number of troubled kids today, the number of kids in the courts today. Look at the number of people with drug and alcohol problems today. Look at the number of families today that have to be subsidized by the gov't. I doubt if figures are available for 1959 but I'd sure like to see the comparison between total taxes as a percentage of income then compared to now. I'd guess we are being taxed to 2 to 3 times as much now. How many families these days are having their children raised (at least part of the time) by non family people?

Again JLM, you talk of higher taxes like it is a bad thing. It is nothing of the sort. Taxes fund all kids of services that were not available in 1959, starting with universal health care. I have no problem paying high taxes (and as upper middle class couple, we pay plenty).

Sure, there are troubled kids today, that is one of the minuses today. However, it is important to remember that many of the problems existing today were also there in the 50s, they were simply swept under the rug. Nobody talked of child sex abuse, spousal abuse etc., but they were very much present. Many of the troubled kids who get help today would not have got any in 1959. So even the question of troubled kids is far from black and white.

And quality of life is better today, there is no question about it. We are healthier, wealthier, we have many gadgets that we take for granted that were not even imagined in 1959. So the quality of life is definitely better today by any measure. Are we happier today? I don’t know, that is a totally separate question.

And you say that our society was traditionally based upon the concept of nuclear family. That is so, but why should it remain so? Marriage, family, these institutions are not static, but evolve (that is the reason why they have endured for thousands of years). Marriage and family are undergoing evolution, change, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.