• 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

  • male, and glad I was born when I was born

    Votes: 31 73.8%

  • male, and wish I was born 100 years earlier

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • female, and glad I was born when I was born

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • female, and wish I was born 100 years earlier

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • Total voters
    42
Paleocon said:
The Spanish Inquisition was several hundred years later.

And the Inquisitions only had jurisdiction over Catholics.

So before is the answer to that loaded question.
Click to expand...

OK, assuming you know your medieval history, I won't beleaguer the time and place of inquisition and so on. I'm sure there were plenty of nasty things going on during the dark ages there anyway.

And, assuming you'd be European and not American (you don't mention where you're from) what could possibly be the attraction of Medieval Europe?
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, assuming you know your medieval history, I won't beleaguer the time and place of inquisition and so on. I'm sure there were plenty of nasty things going on during the dark ages there anyway.

And, assuming you'd be European and not American (you don't mention where you're from) what could possibly be the attraction of Medieval Europe?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paleocon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Somehow, the idea of living without modern conveniences or modern medicine and at a time before the idea of all men being created equal was even thought of doesn't appeal to me so much. Vacation time? Paid by whom?
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...



I wouldn't say that 1914 was particularly a moral time. Perhaps more moral in some ways than today; certainly vice and what was considered perversion was kept more out of the public eye, and PUBLIC decency was more of a big deal... but what I've read indicates there was plenty of moral degradation going on, just behind closed doors.

But if you transported me to 1914 with no knowledge of the future, then it wouldn't really matter... I wouldn't know to compare whatever was the "norm" of 1914 to the norms of 2014, lacking such knowledge I'd tend to accept things as they were as the 'norm'.

That would have been my great-grandfather's generation I suppose. They were farmers, poor by modern standards but modestly prosperous by the standards of the time. "Moderately prosperous" of course meant you owned a house and land, had plenty to eat, and had decent clothing suitable for going to town or church.

Life was harder, shorter and there was certainly less entertainment available, but we're talking about morality here rather than technology...

Frankly given the parameters of the question I don't think it really matters. It's one set of problems or another, each with their own upsides and down-sides.
 
tacomancer said:
with the knowledge of engineering and science I currently possess? i would love to go to 1914, i could be quite rich
Click to expand...

The issue is you have the idea but not the tools. It would still be slow as **** and you'd have to get funding and people would be adamant plus the huge-ass stock market crash crushing your hopes and dreams.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Somehow, the idea of living without modern conveniences or modern medicine and at a time before the idea of all men being created equal was even thought of doesn't appeal to me so much. Vacation time? Paid by whom?
Click to expand...

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
 
Goshin said:
I wouldn't say that 1914 was particularly a moral time. Perhaps more moral in some ways than today; certainly vice and what was considered perversion was kept more out of the public eye, and PUBLIC decency was more of a big deal... but what I've read indicates there was plenty of moral degradation going on, just behind closed doors.

But if you transported me to 1914 with no knowledge of the future, then it wouldn't really matter... I wouldn't know to compare whatever was the "norm" of 1914 to the norms of 2014, lacking such knowledge I'd tend to accept things as they were as the 'norm'.

That would have been my great-grandfather's generation I suppose. They were farmers, poor by modern standards but modestly prosperous by the standards of the time. "Moderately prosperous" of course meant you owned a house and land, had plenty to eat, and had decent clothing suitable for going to town or church.

Life was harder, shorter and there was certainly less entertainment available, but we're talking about morality here rather than technology...

Frankly given the parameters of the question I don't think it really matters. It's one set of problems or another, each with their own upsides and down-sides.
Click to expand...

I'd rather live in 2014, otherwise I cant go on kicking the asses of people who sag their pants and when asked why the **** I did it, tell them it was because I thought that was some sort of invitation for my foot.
 
Paleocon said:
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
Click to expand...

Of course the moral state of society was dictated by a powerful church/state combination that allowed for little individual liberty.

And I can't help but wonder whether that time off labor was really time to spend with family and friends, or simply time with nothing to do but hope that the crops didn't fail and bring on a famine.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course the moral state of society was dictated by a powerful church/state combination that allowed for little individual liberty.

And I can't help but wonder whether that time off labor was really time to spend with family and friends, or simply time with nothing to do but hope that the crops didn't fail and bring on a famine.
Click to expand...

Nothing stopped them from spending time with family and friends during their leisure time, so it would be reasonable to assume that that's what most would have done.
 
Paleocon said:
Nothing stopped them from spending time with family and friends during their leisure time, so it would be reasonable to assume that that's what most would have done.
Click to expand...

There was little else to do, unless one of the many wars being fought was raging nearby.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There was little else to do, unless one of the many wars being fought was raging nearby.
Click to expand...

So are you conceding that they would have spent time with family and friends? And are you agreeing that that was a good thing.

Regarding war, the last century has been much more violent than any preceding century.
 
Paleocon said:
So are you conceding that they would have spent time with family and friends? And are you agreeing that that was a good thing.

Regarding war, the last century has been much more violent than any preceding century.
Click to expand...
In the mid east, perhaps, but certainly not in Europe.

Weren't they going off to the Crusades about then, or was that later?
 
Dittohead not! said:
In the mid east, perhaps, but certainly not in Europe.

Weren't they going off to the Crusades about then, or was that later?
Click to expand...

The World Wars were (mostly) fought in Europe. And the Crusades were fought in the Middle East.

Note that at the time soldiers traveling to far distant lands to fight in wars that did not directly concern their own countries was uncommon, now it is commonplace.
 
Paleocon said:
The World Wars were (mostly) fought in Europe. And the Crusades were fought in the Middle East.

Note that at the time soldiers traveling to far distant lands to fight in wars that did not directly concern their own countries was uncommon, now it is commonplace.
Click to expand...
People traveling anywhere for any purpose was not commonplace back before there were cars, planes, boats with motors, and highways.

I have to admit that most of the bad things I've heard about medieval Europe actually happened later than the time period you're interested in, the Spanish Inquisition, the black plague, the hundred years war, and so on, so we're back to whether or not you want to live without modern technology and modern medicine. Back then, you got sick, you either got well or you died, and no one knew why. Louis Pasteur was also centuries in the future.

What about the divine right of kings, was that from a later time as well?
 
Henry Moseley--British physicist killed in 1915 in Gallipoli, Turkey--should have received a Nobel post mortem for his work in 1914.
Xray spectra were used to determine a whole new advanced concept of the time around 1914, ATOMIC NUMBERS.
That Elements have a different number of protons in the nucleus, causing the change in wavelengths of spectra coming from different atoms.

For those of you who have seen it, there is a 1927 photo of all the great Physicists of the World.
It is the best photo I've ever seen of a group of scientists.

Solvay Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice the only woman, M. Sklodowski-Curie, Madame Curie.
To me, the greatest concentration of great thinkers of all time, my academic heroes, and they used the Metric System for advanced measurements.
Too bad Moseley missed it, at a young age of 28 in 1914, so from then on great scientists were put on the back of the lines.
Imagine that, the USA absorbing the Nazi scientists to build the rockets to the Moon.
Paleocon said:
The World Wars were (mostly) fought in Europe. And the Crusades were fought in the Middle East.
Note that at the time soldiers traveling to far distant lands to fight in wars that did not directly concern their own countries was uncommon,
now it is commonplace.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
People traveling anywhere for any purpose was not commonplace back before there were cars, planes, boats with motors, and highways.

I have to admit that most of the bad things I've heard about medieval Europe actually happened later than the time period you're interested in, the Spanish Inquisition, the black plague, the hundred years war, and so on, so we're back to whether or not you want to live without modern technology and modern medicine. Back then, you got sick, you either got well or you died, and no one knew why. Louis Pasteur was also centuries in the future.

What about the divine right of kings, was that from a later time as well?
Click to expand...

Again, my main concern is with morality. I do prefer modern technology and medicine, but I view that as less important than the moral state of society. Although it should be pointed out that medicine existed in medieval Europe, although it was not as effective and accurate as modern medicine, and some correct medical practices were developed in the Middle Ages (for instance, the practice of wrapping up the bodies of those who had died of the plague).

The notion that kings were answerable to God alone and that their will could not be opposed, was of later origin. During the High Middle Ages, the power of monarchs was limited by both the Church and the feudal lords. The Pope even had the power to depose monarchs.
 
Paleocon said:
Again, my main concern is with morality. I do prefer modern technology and medicine, but I view that as less important than the moral state of society. Although it should be pointed out that medicine existed in medieval Europe, although it was not as effective and accurate as modern medicine, and some correct medical practices were developed in the Middle Ages (for instance, the practice of wrapping up the bodies of those who had died of the plague).

The notion that kings were answerable to God alone and that their will could not be opposed, was of later origin. During the High Middle Ages, the power of monarchs was limited by both the Church and the feudal lords. The Pope even had the power to depose monarchs.
Click to expand...

And we are a MUCH moral society now than we were back then.
 
Paleocon said:
How so?
Click to expand...

We're kinder to our poor, to our elderly, to people of differing religions, to people of different races, to people of differing nationalities, there is less crime, less murder, less rape, less slavery, less forced prostitution, need I go on?
 
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.
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...

I, as a general rule, never want to go a single day into the past. I'm till disappointed at the level of technology we've achieved and I only want to go forward. In 1914 there was no internet, no air conditioning, no household refrigerators, and most houses didn't have indoor toilet plumbing. **** that mess.
 
Pioneers traveling through the western deserts.
No penicillin.
No pain killers in the dentists offices.
A saw was a doctors most used tool.
No hygiene worth a damn.
No air conditioning and refrigeration.
I wish I could live to see the next hundred years but I am happy with where in time I am.
 
Your Star said:
We're kinder to our poor, to our elderly, to people of differing religions, to people of different races, to people of differing nationalities, there is less crime, less murder, less rape, less slavery, less forced prostitution, need I go on?
Click to expand...

How are we kinder?

Less crime? Seriously? Then why are a whole percent of Americans serving criminal sentences of some sort?

Less murder? Again, seriously? Five thousand people will be murdered today, and that's not counting the illegal murders.

Rape and forced prostitution were illegal then as now.

Chattel slavery was pretty much non-existent in the high Middle Ages.
 
Paleocon said:
How are we kinder?

Less crime? Seriously? Then why are a whole percent of Americans serving criminal sentences of some sort?

Less murder? Again, seriously? Five thousand people will be murdered today, and that's not counting the illegal murders.

Rape and forced prostitution were illegal then as now.

Chattel slavery was pretty much non-existent in the high Middle Ages.
Click to expand...


Here's an interesting description of 12th. century life in Europe:

People fit into three broad categories:

THOSE WHO WORK
By the 11th and 12th centuries, the vast majority of European men and women were peasants who were the land of their lords. We know very little about these people for the simple fact that the nobility and clergy did not keep written records about them. When the peasantry of Europe was mentioned, it was usually in relation to the obligations they owed their superiors.

In the centuries that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire the line separating slave and serf became less distinct. Of course, both slaves and serf lacked freedom and were subject to the will of the lord. Throughout the long history of medieval serfdom, the serf was required to perform labor services for his lord. Although the number of days devoted to working the lord's land varied from place to place, it was usually three days a week, accepted harvest time, when the lord would expect even more.
Click to expand...

sounds a bit like part time slavery, doesn't it?

THOSE WHO FIGHT
The nobility influenced all aspects of medieval politics, economics, religion, and culture. It is perhaps for this reason alone that European society from about the 12th century on may be termed aristocratic. In fact, the aristocracy continue to hold within its grasp political and social power right down to the eve of the Great War of 1914-1918. Although the nobility of medieval Europe varied from place to place, and from time to time, a few general conclusions can be made.

As the second Estate, the medieval nobility had special legal status. A man who was a member of the nobility was free in his person and in his possessions. His only limitation concerned his military obligation to his lord. As a member of the nobility, he had certain rights and responsibilities: he could raise troops and command them in the field, he held his own courts of justice, he could coined his own money. He was the lord of all those people who settled on his land.
Click to expand...

Owning land and the people who lived on it then depended on one's ability to fight.

THOSE WHO PRAY
At the top of medieval society was the first Estate, the clergy, those who pray. It was the village priest who was to oversee the spiritual life of his flock on the medieval manor. His duties were to administer the necessary sacraments with regularity and consistency. He was also important to absolve men and women of their sins for the act of confession. He was also, as we have already seen, the usual source of secular and ecclesiastical pronouncements. His role, then, in the medieval village was extraordinary. Of course, not all village priests were as dedicated to the holiness of their flock as we would like to believe. However, it was the village priest with whom medieval men and women identified the Church, its teachings, and authority.
Click to expand...

And, of course, the masses were in Latin, the Bible was in Latin, and ordinary people could not read it for themselves.

Not that most of the serfs could read anyway.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Here's an interesting description of 12th. century life in Europe:

People fit into three broad categories:



sounds a bit like part time slavery, doesn't it?



Owning land and the people who lived on it then depended on one's ability to fight.



And, of course, the masses were in Latin, the Bible was in Latin, and ordinary people could not read it for themselves.

Not that most of the serfs could read anyway.
Click to expand...

Chattel slavery wasn't part time. It sounds like getting payed with a place to live.

There were vernacular translations approved by the Church. And there was no ban on literate lay people reading it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom