How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

[PRB]

Warring aside, how about a planet so profoundly polluted by the refuse of the great "industrial revolution" that huge swaths of humanity are now faced with the choice of drinking bottled water or poisoning themselves? Fluorides pose yet another threat to the vigor of humans, and those are willfully introduced into the food chain.

How about failed uranium reactors? Weapons of mass destruction? Do you REALLY believe the world is better off with nuclear weapons, particularly when one considers that men the likes of Obama and Putin have their fingers on the buttons?

So it looks like we got ourselves another environmentalist hippie.

 

[PRB]

You will forgive me if I tell you that your view of these things is hair rousingly myopic and, to be very blunt, so apparently self-serving.

Self serving? We're not communists if that's what you're asking.

I would also add that it seems apparent, if I dare make a few well considered assumptions based on my broader life experience with humans in general, that your views are based on a fundamentally flawed tacit assumption that life back in the day was somehow universally wretched.

Universally? No.

Well, for some it was and for some it shall always be. But if we separate and examine "life" by regions and, more specifically, by culture we will note that there is a stark line drawn between empire and non-empire civilizations. Generally speaking, the non-empire people have been far and away freer, healthier, happier, and more prosperous, for a give definition of what it means to "prosper".

I would agree that we should separate lives by region, in the context of this question, we're talking about in this country.

Your opinion and that of all people turns very much precisely on the basic assumptions and the standards by which judgments are made. If you think net.porn is more important than being able to carry with you the means of preserving your life and other property, then you are likely to see this world as superior to the old.

Agreed. And isn't that the point? People today are arguing over the "ability to carry the means of preserving life and other property" something that wasn't a debate in the past. Today it's a bit hard to convince the population that you need a gun to "preserve life and other property" whereas in the past, it was closer to a must. Have you been to countries like Japan, China and Taiwan where guns are only available to law enforcement?

I love my guns, but I must tell you, knowing you can be anywhere, any time, and NEVER EVER have to see or hear a gun, the attacker, rapist can at best hit you with a car or stab you with a knife, takes a lot of fear out of your daily routine. Or to put it simply, people today (especially on this board) fear the police will shoot them anytime they step out a door, is your response to be armed against them or that they don't exist?

If, OTOH, you are like me and value freedom and the greatest degree of self-sufficiency attainable as the greater virtues, then this world might not do so well in comparison with the old.

And in the end the dichotomy posed in the OP is a false one, as I have pointed out previously. Some of the things we have today are indeed fantastic and far superior to that which came before. Medical technologies come to mind - the simple fact that I can go to the local pharmacy and for $10 purchase a pair of of-the-shelf reading glasses so that my 56 year old eyes can read the words that I here type is indeed a fine thing.

What are the things you can have and buy which are illegal, not available, or not cheaper today?

But the presence of those things does not the old-world entirely evil make. There were advantages then compared with now, not the least of which were the self-imposed censorship that the moral frameworks incited in the average man such that he was moved to act with minimal barbarity toward his fellows. How about the fact that people were generally mentally and emotionally tough enough and smart enough to allow others their opinions and preferences... at least within some envelope of choice. Where two people may have disagreed in years past and let it go at that, today we find some ghetto-rat or suburban limper running home for daddy's gun when someone fails to kneel down and service them on demand, the affront being intolerable to their pathetically weak and inflated egos.

What do we do about those ghetto rats running home for his daddy's gun? Take away his gun ? or give him one to open carry?

Yes, we could go on for weeks and years discussing these issues, but there is no real point, save to say that each time has its good points and its bad. For my money, these times are generally worse than those past, but that is only my opinion. Yours is different. I find your apparent basis lacking in gross manner, but that and $3.75 gets me a seriously mediocre latté at that horrid Seattle coffee chain that has spread like a cancer throughout the land.

My real point, I suppose, is that IMO people need a little greater circumspection when forming opinions. We all fail at this, but as I get older I get better at not failing at it and I also see with ever sharper vision just how dangerous those failures can be and how disastrous the results.

which is why I try to ask people what they believe and why.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No inflation, you could safely save for your future.

In 1940:

Average home cost $3920

Median income was $1725

One year's salary was 44% of the cost of a new home.

Seventy years later:

Average home cost $248000

Median income was $26365

One year's salary was 11% of the cost of a new home.

 

[acptulsa]

In 1940:

Average home cost $3920

Median income was $1725

One year's salary was 44% of the cost of a new home.

Seventy years later:

Average home cost $248000

Median income was $26365

One year's salary was 11% of the cost of a new home.

You're not paying attention.

The OP already opined that 'tis better to be homeless in Nome with a working iPhone than to live in a nice, paid-for house with a rotary dial land line.

And he doesn't seem to care who disagrees with that.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I love my guns,...

LOL. You not only own do not own a gun, but you have likely never fired one. You already exposed yourself in the other thread regarding this baloney.

You're not even very good at this. I just found another one of your user accounts. You need to go back to your employer and tell that dumbass to hire me.

 

[PRB]

In 1940:

Average home cost $3920

Median income was $1725

One year's salary was 44% of the cost of a new home.

Seventy years later:

Average home cost $248000

Median income was $26365

One year's salary was 11% of the cost of a new home.

are homes the same size?

 

[PRB]

LOL. You not only own do not own a gun, but you have likely never fired one. You already exposed yourself in the other thread regarding this baloney.

You're not even very good at this. I just found another one of your user accounts. You need to go back to your employer and tell that dumbass to hire me.

I've fired a gun many times. And yes I own guns. You don't have to believe me though.

 

[PRB]

You're not paying attention.

The OP already opined that 'tis better to be homeless in Nome with a working iPhone than to live in a nice, paid-for house with a rotary dial land line.

And he doesn't seem to care who disagrees with that.

who said that? Not me.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I've fired a gun many times. And yes I own guns. You don't have to believe me though.

We confirmed that you own at least four guns in our last conversation. What exactly do you own? Company? type? What type of ammunition do you use? Company? type?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

///

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

who said that? Not me.

You probably said that under one of your other user accounts. TheCount?

 

[PRB]

You probably said that under one of your other user accounts. TheCount?

TheCount isn't my account.

 

[PRB]

We confirmed that you own at least four guns in our last conversation. What exactly do you own? Company? type? What type of ammunition do you use? Company? type?

I already told you I won't talk about details about my guns.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I already told you I won't talk about details about my guns.

Because you have never owned a gun and know nothing about them. You pretty much revealed that in your silly answers to my questions in the other thread.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

TheCount isn't my account.

It's obviously your account. Many people don't pay much attention here, so you don't bother to hide your multiple accounts very much.

 

[PRB]

It's obviously your account. Many people don't pay much attention here, so you don't bother to hide your multiple accounts very much.

I'm denying it every time you bring it up, hardly "not bothering to hide". I guess you're saying I didn't bother to hide, but am in denial now, whatever.

 

[PRB]

Because you have never owned a gun and know nothing about them. You pretty much revealed that in your silly answers to my questions in the other thread.

I know enough to own and shoot one.

So if you don't give me your social security number, you don't have one?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So if you don't give me your social security number, you don't have one?

Well, you got me there because telling someone your social security number is exactly the same thing as telling someone the brand of gun you own.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm denying it every time you bring it up, hardly "not bothering to hide". I guess you're saying I didn't bother to hide, but am in denial now, whatever.

Attempting logic can't even save a liar.

 

[PRB]

Well, you got me there because telling someone your social security number is exactly the same thing as telling someone the brand of gun you own.

as soon as I say brand you'll ask make and model, I'll be giving you more details than I want before i know it.