Why the HELL do old people think that things are getting worse?

[LeiZaK]

Short answer: the media

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Mwilding
In the good old days blacks sat in the back of the bus.
In the good old days, the flu killed more people than World War I
In the good old days, stock market speculation caused a world wide depression that lasted for years
In the good old days, they didn't have infant car seats
In the good old days, they couldn't diagnose cancer until it was too late
In the good old days...

People are better educated, wealthier, healthier, and have more opportunity than ever before. These are the good NEW days.

In the good new the gays and straights are fighting the same discrimination as the blacks
In the good new days, abortions due to sexual disresponsability kill more babies than any natural cause ever has
In the good new days, middle east unrest rumors caused a world wide oil price panic that lasted for years
In the good new days no one takes responsibility for their own safety and problems, instead they sue everyone else
In the good new days, children have difficulties dealing with broken (single parent and same sex parent families) homes and have late life emotion problems and mental breakdowns
In the good new days, parents are afraid to discipline and instill respect into their children (because of abuse lawsuits), and they end up taking guns to school and mass murdering fellow students
In the good new days, the number of cancer and disease cases has now multiplied tenfold because of all the chemicals and pollutants we have released into the environment.

Oh yeah...were in the good new times.

LOL, well just think how much better/worse thew future will be:laugh:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: sao123
In the good new days, abortions due to sexual disresponsability kill more babies than any natural cause ever has

I some how doubt that...what was the survival rate of children under 2 or so even 200 years ago? Its not like women are just going in every month and having an abortion instead taking birth control pills. Sounds like a made up statistic to me.

Actually, a lot of that sounds made up.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: sao123
In the good new days, abortions due to sexual disresponsability kill more babies than any natural cause ever has

I some how doubt that...what was the survival rate of children under 2 or so even 200 years ago? Its not like women are just going in every month and having an abortion instead taking birth control pills. Sounds like a made up statistic to me.

Actually, a lot of that sounds made up.

According to statistics, there are approximately 126,000 abortions per day, approximately 46 million per year. (Worldwide - every year)

the worst influenza epidemic ever... (see 1918-19 spanish flu) killed 50 million over 2 years (One time only)

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

which age are we talking about? dowry's? you mean the middle ages when NO ONE except the "land lords" owned land? but wait that would mean only land lords got married.

you mean 1700's in the US? mb.

you have a very short version of "the past".

you do realize of course that the past extends to at least 10,000 yrs of recorded human existence. and the farther back we go, the earlier women got pregnant.

but again, it's about leisure time, the idea of romance was different too, people didn't go on "dates". people didn't "hang out".

you found someone your age or you parents did and you did it and that was marriage. there wasn't as much of a selection, shoot you were lucky to find anyone in your village close enough in age to you.

the idea of "choice" only matters when there is a big selection process. given the size of towns and villages of 300 to 400 yrs ago, that was rarely an issue.

Oh settle down. All I said was that I don't think women were ever really expected to own anything before getting married whereas men often were. So it seemed to me that his statement that everyone was always in their 20s when getting married didn't sound plausible for at least one of the sexes. Even today men are usually older, and women expect them to be established before they want to marry them. Back when women had little economic or political power, I'd hazard to guess that, once they were old enough and met some one they married off. Thats all I was saying. But thanks for the history lesson, dad.

quote everything junior the context does make a difference.

the discussion was about weather girls are getting pregnant younger than they used to and i was saying along with another person in that nest of quotes that no, girls married younger in the past than they do today.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

which age are we talking about? dowry's? you mean the middle ages when NO ONE except the "land lords" owned land? but wait that would mean only land lords got married.

you mean 1700's in the US? mb.

you have a very short version of "the past".

you do realize of course that the past extends to at least 10,000 yrs of recorded human existence. and the farther back we go, the earlier women got pregnant.

but again, it's about leisure time, the idea of romance was different too, people didn't go on "dates". people didn't "hang out".

you found someone your age or you parents did and you did it and that was marriage. there wasn't as much of a selection, shoot you were lucky to find anyone in your village close enough in age to you.

the idea of "choice" only matters when there is a big selection process. given the size of towns and villages of 300 to 400 yrs ago, that was rarely an issue.

Oh settle down. All I said was that I don't think women were ever really expected to own anything before getting married whereas men often were. So it seemed to me that his statement that everyone was always in their 20s when getting married didn't sound plausible for at least one of the sexes. Even today men are usually older, and women expect them to be established before they want to marry them. Back when women had little economic or political power, I'd hazard to guess that, once they were old enough and met some one they married off. Thats all I was saying. But thanks for the history lesson, dad.

quote everything junior the context does make a difference.

the discussion was about weather girls are getting pregnant younger than they used to and i was saying along with another person in that nest of quotes that no, girls married younger in the past than they do today.

Try replying to the guy you whose points you want to discuss then to avoid confusion. When you reply with quote to a person's post, then you are assumed to be talking to them. I delete extra nest quotes in my post because no one else does.

 

[Triumph]

The "good old days" never existed. It's all about people's perception (or misperception) of reality.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

which age are we talking about? dowry's? you mean the middle ages when NO ONE except the "land lords" owned land? but wait that would mean only land lords got married.

you mean 1700's in the US? mb.

you have a very short version of "the past".

you do realize of course that the past extends to at least 10,000 yrs of recorded human existence. and the farther back we go, the earlier women got pregnant.

but again, it's about leisure time, the idea of romance was different too, people didn't go on "dates". people didn't "hang out".

you found someone your age or you parents did and you did it and that was marriage. there wasn't as much of a selection, shoot you were lucky to find anyone in your village close enough in age to you.

the idea of "choice" only matters when there is a big selection process. given the size of towns and villages of 300 to 400 yrs ago, that was rarely an issue.

Oh settle down. All I said was that I don't think women were ever really expected to own anything before getting married whereas men often were. So it seemed to me that his statement that everyone was always in their 20s when getting married didn't sound plausible for at least one of the sexes. Even today men are usually older, and women expect them to be established before they want to marry them. Back when women had little economic or political power, I'd hazard to guess that, once they were old enough and met some one they married off. Thats all I was saying. But thanks for the history lesson, dad.

quote everything junior the context does make a difference.

the discussion was about weather girls are getting pregnant younger than they used to and i was saying along with another person in that nest of quotes that no, girls married younger in the past than they do today.

Try replying to the guy you whose points you want to discuss then to avoid confusion. When you reply with quote to a person's post, then you are assumed to be talking to them. I delete extra nest quotes in my post because no one else does.

again, context. sometimes i delete the nested quotes if i feel context doesn't make a difference but sometimes the post itself really doesn't make sense without the context.

and mb i misunderstood your quote as well. 😉

 

[TitanDiddly]

Moral decay is everywhere. Decency is becoming rare.

 

[captains]

cuz they are

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

which age are we talking about? dowry's? you mean the middle ages when NO ONE except the "land lords" owned land? but wait that would mean only land lords got married.

you mean 1700's in the US? mb.

you have a very short version of "the past".

you do realize of course that the past extends to at least 10,000 yrs of recorded human existence. and the farther back we go, the earlier women got pregnant.

but again, it's about leisure time, the idea of romance was different too, people didn't go on "dates". people didn't "hang out".

you found someone your age or you parents did and you did it and that was marriage. there wasn't as much of a selection, shoot you were lucky to find anyone in your village close enough in age to you.

the idea of "choice" only matters when there is a big selection process. given the size of towns and villages of 300 to 400 yrs ago, that was rarely an issue.

Oh settle down. All I said was that I don't think women were ever really expected to own anything before getting married whereas men often were. So it seemed to me that his statement that everyone was always in their 20s when getting married didn't sound plausible for at least one of the sexes. Even today men are usually older, and women expect them to be established before they want to marry them. Back when women had little economic or political power, I'd hazard to guess that, once they were old enough and met some one they married off. Thats all I was saying. But thanks for the history lesson, dad.

quote everything junior the context does make a difference.

the discussion was about weather girls are getting pregnant younger than they used to and i was saying along with another person in that nest of quotes that no, girls married younger in the past than they do today.

Try replying to the guy you whose points you want to discuss then to avoid confusion. When you reply with quote to a person's post, then you are assumed to be talking to them. I delete extra nest quotes in my post because no one else does.

again, context. sometimes i delete the nested quotes if i feel context doesn't make a difference but sometimes the post itself really doesn't make sense without the context.

and mb i misunderstood your quote as well. 😉

😛 Well I feel like a bit of an ass. I just was skimming through the first time and clamped onto the post I replied too as something that didn't sound totally true. Then I came in and preceived you as attacking me for statements I didn't even make. Sorry for the miscommuncation.

Anyway, I usually just chop down to a single quote unless I forget. Most people never cut them out...even when you get a horizontal scrollbar or like 1 word per line in the middle of the mess. I figure if people need the context they can scroll up!

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Ned
Moral decay is everywhere. Decency is becoming rare.

Decency is for the weak! The Romans knew that, and their empire lasted for 1000 years. Then they started acting decent and the whole place fell apart!

 

[MikeMike]

ok, its not getting worse, its just that now there are ways to communicate throughout the world.

how did you communicate 100 years ago? it would take months to get the information we now get in minutes.

its all because of the age of information.

 

[imported_Pablo]

Originally posted by: captains
cuz they are

NEFF much?