• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2014 or 1914 - Your Preference

I am

  • female, and wish I was born 100 years earlier

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
Do you wish you could have been born 100 years earlier than you were?

Do I always have to be the weirdo in these polls? I voted, Male I wish I would have been born 100 years earlier.
 
I'm American, but like most Americans my cultural roots (on the span of several centuries) are European rather than Native American.

Medieval Europe was great. The culture and government was Catholic. Civil laws were based on morality. And the Church was recognized as superior to the state. Also, on a much less important level, there was an abundance of vacation time for laborers.

You were also prone be to be drafted by a Feudal lord into fighting a war that often made no sense and unless you were a Noble, you were at the bottom. Medicine was primitive. Disease rampant. Taxes were often confiscatory and the law was less evenly applied than it is now. Dictatorships were everywhere. Women were basically property.

You sure about this?
 
Definitely today. If I was born 100 years ago I would be dead right now :)
No seriously, I would not have lived as long as I have already. Even without the war, I would be dead today without modern medicine.
Also as others have said, AIR CONDITIONING!
 
You were also prone be to be drafted by a Feudal lord into fighting a war that often made no sense and unless you were a Noble, you were at the bottom. Medicine was primitive. Disease rampant. Taxes were often confiscatory and the law was less evenly applied than it is now. Dictatorships were everywhere. Women were basically property.

You sure about this?

Taxes were confiscatory? As opposed to?

Nowadays it's legal to kill people under a certain age, that seems pretty unequal to me.

Dictatorships? Autocracies didn't appear until later.

Women weren't property.

Yes I'm sure.
 
Taxes were confiscatory? As opposed to?

How is 35% top tax rate the same as leaving you with barely enough grain to survive the winter?

Nowadays it's legal to kill people under a certain age, that seems pretty unequal to me.

A king could decide to execute someone for crime A, but let person who did the same crime get away because he needed them.

At least in our system we make both go through a trial, but it's not as blatant. I don't think you even had a notion of what life was like back then.

Dictatorships? Autocracies didn't appear until later.

Really? Ever heard of a concept of a KING?

Women weren't property.

Yes I'm sure.

Actually they were. They could not own property. They could not inherit. They were sold essentially to other families for alliances as breeding stock. They had functionally no rights themselves.
 
The Progress--ive Era, set-up by both T. Roosevelt and WJ Bryan from both parties, is the reason why we have so many of the great things we have today .
 
This thread title always makes me think of this song.

 
Do you think your life would be more enjoyable and more pleasurable if you'd have been born 100 years earlier than when you were born?

I keep hearing about how society has gone down the tubes, and morals have all gone to hell in a hand-basket.

So if you could chose between being the age you are today, but have it be the year 1914 instead of 2014, which would you chose?

And no, you don't get to know what you know today, but be transported back in time. This is not science-fiction time travel stuff here.

Also, there's a poll involved. Looking to see if there's a difference in opinion between males and females.

Do you wish you could have been born 100 years earlier than you were?

I wish you had an included an option for a hundred years in the future because I would love to bear witness to the glorious advances of civilization in the 22nd Century. Life in 2014 is infinitely better than in 1914 and I look forward to what the future has to offer. There has never been a better time to be alive.
 
Ummmmmm, degradation of moral behaviors tend to make life LESS enjoyable. That's pretty much one of the problems with strict moral codes, and the reason that people like to see them disappearing. Being born in 1914 would almost certainly make life less enjoyable, because expectations of individuals were higher.

If I had to choose a time to be born, I'm not sure. It's something I would need to think about for awhile, because there are pros and cons to each.

Degradation of moral behaviors makes life SO MUCH more enjoyable. Think about it. And expectations were higher? In what way?

I'm American, but like most Americans my cultural roots (on the span of several centuries) are European rather than Native American.

Medieval Europe was great. The culture and government was Catholic. Civil laws were based on morality. And the Church was recognized as superior to the state. Also, on a much less important level, there was an abundance of vacation time for laborers.

It was 'great?' Sure, if not getting the Plague, hunted by Crusading Christians, dying from a scrape you got, not bathing, no real medicinal practices, no iPhone, no MacBook Pro. Civil laws weren't based on morality. Civil laws were based on what the swindlers in the churches / castles decided. I think it's safe to say you want the Church > State. So, how's that theocracy working for you?

Modern technological advancements are good, but my concern is mainly with the moral state of society.

The idea that all people are equal existed then, it just wasn't considered to mean that everyone was equivalent.

By vacation time, I meant time off labor, not vacation in the sense of travel.

Medieval peasants got a lot more vacation time than you: economist | New York Post

The moral state of society now > then. We have more liberty now than they did, I'd say.

I like now a lot. Except maybe the music. I wouldn't mind being born in the mid 50s to be young in the late 60s/early 70s for the music. But otherwise, today is better than yesterday, and tomorrow will be even better.

Plus the drugs and the cars. :2razz:
 
How is 35% top tax rate the same as leaving you with barely enough grain to survive the winter?



A king could decide to execute someone for crime A, but let person who did the same crime get away because he needed them.

At least in our system we make both go through a trial, but it's not as blatant. I don't think you even had a notion of what life was like back then.



Really? Ever heard of a concept of a KING?



Actually they were. They could not own property. They could not inherit. They were sold essentially to other families for alliances as breeding stock. They had functionally no rights themselves.

It's not. What does that have to do with medieval Europe?

They had trials back then too, and juries today have the same power. Besides, there's a difference between an inequitably applied death penalty and killing the undeniably innocent.

Yes. A medieval king's power was limited by the Church and the aristocracy.

No they weren't.

It was 'great?' Sure, if not getting the Plague, hunted by Crusading Christians, dying from a scrape you got, not bathing, no real medicinal practices, no iPhone, no MacBook Pro. Civil laws weren't based on morality. Civil laws were based on what the swindlers in the churches / castles decided. I think it's safe to say you want the Church > State. So, how's that theocracy working for you?



The moral state of society now > then. We have more liberty now than they did, I'd say.

There's still deadly diseases today. Yes I want the Church's superiority over the state to be recognized, although I don't know what theocracy has to do with anything.

Yes, we have much more liberality than they did.
 
There's still deadly diseases today. Yes I want the Church's superiority over the state to be recognized, although I don't know what theocracy has to do with anything.

Yes, we have much more liberality than they did.

Yes, but now disease like gonorrhea, dysentery, the flu, malaria, typhoid, syphilis, leprosy, measles, and smallpox are either not around or are VERY treatable. Why should the Church have superiority over the state? If you want the Church to run the state, that's a theocracy.

Oh, how clever. /sarcasm. Way to not address the rest of the post, either. :shrug:
 
It's not. What does that have to do with medieval Europe?

They had trials back then too, and juries today have the same power.

Come again? Juries have the same power as they did in Medieval Europe? Are you off your rocker? You do realize that the Aristocracy could simply overrule them to get what they wanted? Jurors did what their nobles want them to do. Which is not even remotely comparable to today.

Besides, there's a difference between an inequitably applied death penalty and killing the undeniably innocent.

Yes. A medieval king's power was limited by the Church and the aristocracy.

Which in many places meant there was no limit.

And women were property. Simply because you don't want to accept it does not mean I am wrong. Tell me, could women inherit property? Control their own finances?
 
"I wish I was born 100 years ago", said no black person ever.

"I wish I was born 100 years ago", said no Jewish person ever.
"I wish I was born 100 years ago", said no Asian person ever.
"I wish I was born 100 years ago", said no South American person ever.
"I wish I was born 100 years ago", said no Feminist ever.
 
I wish you had an included an option for a hundred years in the future because I would love to bear witness to the glorious advances of civilization in the 22nd Century. Life in 2014 is infinitely better than in 1914 and I look forward to what the future has to offer. There has never been a better time to be alive.

We do not know what the future will be like in a hundred years from now.The world could be ruled by total dictator.Civilization could decline.There might be massive viral outbreak or a word war that kills hundreds of millions of people. So I do not think that option will be even better.
 
We do not know what the future will be like in a hundred years from now.The world could be ruled by total dictator.Civilization could decline.There might be massive viral outbreak or a word war that kills hundreds of millions of people. So I do not think that option will be even better.

I think those options are so unlikely as to not really be worth considering as far as I'm concerned. I see a generally positive trajectory ahead.
 
We do not know what the future will be like in a hundred years from now.The world could be ruled by total dictator.Civilization could decline.There might be massive viral outbreak or a word war that kills hundreds of millions of people. So I do not think that option will be even better.

The world could run out of oil and not find an alternative.
 
Yes, but now disease like gonorrhea, dysentery, the flu, malaria, typhoid, syphilis, leprosy, measles, and smallpox are either not around or are VERY treatable. Why should the Church have superiority over the state? If you want the Church to run the state, that's a theocracy.

Oh, how clever. /sarcasm. Way to not address the rest of the post, either. :shrug:

Having superiority=/= running.

I addressed the part of the post which was addressed to me.

Come again? Juries have the same power as they did in Medieval Europe? Are you off your rocker? You do realize that the Aristocracy could simply overrule them to get what they wanted? Jurors did what their nobles want them to do. Which is not even remotely comparable to today.



Which in many places meant there was no limit.

And women were property. Simply because you don't want to accept it does not mean I am wrong. Tell me, could women inherit property? Control their own finances?

Please try to pay attention. Juries today have the same power to decide who gets executed that medieval kings did.

Not in the High Middle Ages.

A woman who owned property (widows, heiresses without brothers, seamstresses, etc.) could manage her own finances.
 
Please try to pay attention. Juries today have the same power to decide who gets executed that medieval kings did.

All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Off with his head!" and the order will be carried out, with no trial, no indictment, no presumption of innocence, no appeal?

Wow! With that sort of power, the crime rate should go down. Of course, a lot of heads will roll er.. must have been rolling.. too.
 
All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Off with his head!" and the order will be carried out, with no trial, no indictment, no presumption of innocence, no appeal?

Wow! With that sort of power, the crime rate should go down. Of course, a lot of heads will roll er.. must have been rolling.. too.

No. I didn't say juries could do that.
 
Back
Top Bottom