Sci-fi and politics

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AthenaC
You say this, yet I have never seen you do this. All I see from you is subjective statements and vague references to trends you claim to see.

amazon.com/Noise-Media-saturated-Dominates-Dismantles-Families/dp/1932927948

amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342667557&sr=1-1&keywords=marketing+of+evil

Peace,
Ed

Unless you wrote those books Ed, simply linking to them in no way counts as evidence.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

See the Adventures of Superman series that ran from 1952 to 1958. That is what I aspire to as a science fiction writer. One of my current main characters in development will be closer to that than what we have on TV now.

Peace,
Ed

LOL

Oh Ed you certainly live up to my expectations.

Superman is *practically perfect in every way *to an even greater extent than Mary Poppins (at least in most depictions). A creature utterly lacking human weakness or frailty, who only pretends to be human.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Point One: And since when did the choir, as you call it, become the majority? Any TV show that promotes abortion as a good is automatically crossed off my list. I used to watch TV for entertainment, not preaching. There are religious channels for that. The show is lame and I’ve seen some stupid stuff on it. Example: Two fighter pilots coming back from a mission and one wants to “clear my guns.” Bullets on a space fighter? Seriously? And if a weapon jams, you can’t clear it by forcing another bullet through. The totally ridiculous insertion of a few wires into a female Cylon to alter the navigation capabilities of a number of spacecraft? She’s missing and even if presumed dead, you don’t leave your internal security that vulnerable. My missing “the good” goes like this. Dad tells his kids he’s going to make some brownies. The kids are happy, until dad tells them he’ll be adding a very tiny amount of excrement from the family dog. He insists they won’t be able to smell or taste it. The brownies sit on the table and the kids refuse to eat them.

Point Two: Your mom gave you bad advice? More details would be required to give you an answer. I grew up in a highly Conservative, mostly Christian, and devout neighborhood. It was at the very least, 95% fully functional. We didn’t live in family cocoons. We had fathers and grandparents and aunts and uncles and a living neighborhood where people shared advice all the time. I also heard and saw my friends acting on the advice of their parents. And I also heard my peers tell me things at school as well. It’s not my fault that too many people live in cocoon communities today, and even in cocoon households where the kids pay little attention to what mom or dad say. Or that they only have one parent who is too busy working to spend much time with their child/teenager. That’s going to have to change by the way.

Point Three: Showing alcoholism as ‘just one of those things’ is again, a reason to cross the show off my list, even if people get called on it. I know the age demographics of TV shows like this. It’s a bad example to young and old. Authentic feel regarding the f word? That’s just wrong.

Point Four: One of the biggest falsehoods ever perpetrated by Hollywood and the television industry is the idea that ratings mean anything. They don’t. And the Mature label is a complete lie. There is zero difference between the words you were taught were bad as a kid and the same words as a mature adult. If they were wrong when you were a kid, they’re still wrong when you’re an adult. The same with all sins.

**When I was growing up, cussing and swearing, especially on TV, was forbidden. The only time I heard it openly, was usually when two hot-headed teenagers were trying to start a fistfight with each other. At home parties, if any of the women heard any bad language from their husbands, someone, like my mom, would walk up to them and say, “Don’t you dare talk like that around the kids.” And the men listened

Point Five: My dad was a World War II vet and he knew a lot of vets and people who lived through the war in our neighborhood. They were just doing their job and defending their country. Even the Catholic Church would agree that war was the only option. I could probably fit on one page all the things my Dad mentioned to me about the war. They wanted to forget what they went through, be happy and raise families, which they did**.

The books my company produces are always from the defend your country standpoint. I had the honor and privilege to meet some young men and women who were about to be deployed to Iraq when we were at war and to other locations. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

What I’m talking about is violence for the sake of violence. Where the “hero” is actually a murderous vigilante (Dirty Harry) or Jodie Foster in The Brave One, summarized here:

"Jodie Foster in Yet Another Movie Where She Kills People

“The Brave One premiere. Rose Theater, Time Warner Center, 1325 Sixth Ave., nr. 53rd St., 7 p.m. Stars Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard are expected. The movie involves Foster’s character shooting the hell out of anyone who does her wrong. It’s similar to our life, if you replace the shooting with meekly walking away and thinking of a mildly cutting remark a couple hours later.”

continued…

You raise a good point Ed (although probably not the one you meant to).

The era that you idealize (the 1950s) was in many ways a Culture of Silence.
People simply didn’t talk about things like domestic abuse, lynchings, or pedophilia.
So victims often suffered in silence, because you* just didn’t talk about things like that.*

 

[misterelm]

Frankly I don’t recall the subject of Birth coming up very often in the Star Trek series period. Frankly I think it would be difficult story wise. I mean you wouldn’t expect a movie with a US Aircraft Carrier to have a Pregnant Captain that undergoes all the natal sufferings and decisions. The Enterprise with all its social matters and values still had the air of a military ship and behind the scenes you could expect that the characters were encouraged not to try and birth/raise a child in conditions where the ship gets nearly destroyed every third episode. Take that how you will.

ST is not without its social problems though. Essentially volunteer suicide because a computer has told you it is time to die. Euthenisation of the sick. Data’s constant search for a soul and human understanding. The death penalty has come up several times as well. I don’t think that they avoided abortion moreso as the subject didn’t really have an appropriate place in the storyline. Most under-developed civilizations the crew encountered were struggling with procreation, or they had child armies, or whatever, and when they appeared in the series, it was about that civilization as a whole, not just one single component of childbirth.

 

[edwest2]

You raise a good point Ed (although probably not the one you meant to).

The era that you idealize (the 1950s) was in many ways a Culture of Silence.
People simply didn’t talk about things like domestic abuse, lynchings, or pedophilia.
So victims often suffered in silence, because you* just didn’t talk about things like that.*

You’ve created a term with no evidence - culture of silence. Even as kids in the early 1960s, we we knew about such things: lynch mobs (especially regarding blacks), domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about the violence being done to black people. But you know what, instead of splattering such things over all available media outlets - except for the magazine Confidential, which can be best described as a lurid gossip rag - we went to our priests, to the police, to our relatives. We followed what the Church taught us: If you heard about an abused wife, your only concern was finding out if she was being helped, NOT telling everybody what you imagined happened. That is called gossip and that is sinful, It’s also illogical: if you don’t have all the facts, then you don’t know. You kept your mouth shut because your only goal was to make sure your neighbor was getting help. And the only truthful answer you could give to any who asked was: “She’s doing fine now, or she’s with her brother now.” You did not create fantasy stories - you stuck to the facts.

From the late 1950s on, we were taught: “Don’t talk to strangers.” The example we were given most often is if a car with a man in it stopped near you and he offered you candy to get in, to run away. Tell your parents exactly what happened so they could alert all the neighbors and the police, if necessary.

We were also taught to avoid calumny: “The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation; slander.”

Our reputation and the reputation of our family and our neighbors depended on the truth, not gossip. Not somebody insisting, with no proof that “I know what’s really going on in that house.”

Your good name, meaning someone who practiced virtuous behavior, and strived to continue meant you avoided lying or ‘imagining’ things about other people. It was reasonable. It was logical.

And you did not get revenge or get even. You avoided fistfights. And yes, because we were NOT perfect, we sometimes did those things but we knew two things: they were wrong and we were never to do them again.

We knew about the home for wayward girls that was run by nuns, but the nuns did not regale us in class in class with all the dirty, sordid details. They were being taken care of, the rest was none of our business.

Even if you knew one your neighbors was an alcoholic, the person to try to help him was a close friend or his brother, otherwise, it was none of our business.

As neighbors, we could offer help. WE DID NOT need to know all the sordid details. If someone told you something in confidence, it was not to be repeated to others. OR, if you heard that someone planned to do something someone you knew, but it resulted in no harm, and it was told to you in confidence, you did not burden/hurt your friend about something that did not happen - planned but did not happen - and hurt them by disclosing it.

DISCRETION. NO GOSSIP. NO DYING TO FIND OUT EVERY PERSONAL DETAIL ABOUT SOMEONE"S PRIVATE LIFE.

Lying was a sin.
Making up false stories to ruin or damage another’s reputation was a sin.
Revenge was a sin.

What is modern media and waaay too many people “open” about? Sin.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’ve created a term with no evidence - culture of silence. Even as kids in the early 1960s, we we knew about such things: lynch mobs (especially regarding blacks), domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about the violence being done to black people. But you know what, instead of splattering such things over all available media outlets - except for the magazine Confidential, which can be best described as a lurid gossip rag - we went to our priests, to the police, to our relatives. We followed what the Church taught us: If you heard about an abused wife, your only concern was finding out if she was being helped, NOT telling everybody what you imagined happened. That is called gossip and that is sinful, It’s also illogical: if you don’t have all the facts, then you don’t know. You kept your mouth shut because your only goal was to make sure your neighbor was getting help. And the only truthful answer you could give to any who asked was: “She’s doing fine now, or she’s with her brother now.” You did not create fantasy stories - you stuck to the facts.

From the late 1950s on, we were taught: “Don’t talk to strangers.” The example we were given most often is if a car with a man in it stopped near you and he offered you candy to get in, to run away. Tell your parents exactly what happened so they could alert all the neighbors and the police, if necessary.

We were also taught to avoid calumny: “The making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation; slander.”

Our reputation and the reputation of our family and our neighbors depended on the truth, not gossip. Not somebody insisting, with no proof that “I know what’s really going on in that house.”

Your good name, meaning someone who practiced virtuous behavior, and strived to continue meant you avoided lying or ‘imagining’ things about other people. It was reasonable. It was logical.

And you did not get revenge or get even. You avoided fistfights. And yes, because we were NOT perfect, we sometimes did those things but we knew two things: they were wrong and we were never to do them again.

We knew about the home for wayward girls that was run by nuns, but the nuns did not regale us in class in class with all the dirty, sordid details. They were being taken care of, the rest was none of our business.

Even if you knew one your neighbors was an alcoholic, the person to try to help him was a close friend or his brother, otherwise, it was none of our business.

As neighbors, we could offer help. WE DID NOT need to know all the sordid details. If someone told you something in confidence, it was not to be repeated to others. OR, if you heard that someone planned to do something someone you knew, but it resulted in no harm, and it was told to you in confidence, you did not burden/hurt your friend about something that did not happen - planned but did not happen - and hurt them by disclosing it.

DISCRETION. NO GOSSIP. NO DYING TO FIND OUT EVERY PERSONAL DETAIL ABOUT SOMEONE"S PRIVATE LIFE.

Lying was a sin.
Making up false stories to ruin or damage another’s reputation was a sin.
Revenge was a sin.

What is modern media and waaay too many people “open” about? Sin.

Peace,
Ed

I find it amusing how you keep touching on areas that prove you wrong Ed.

The Catholic Church of the 1950s often took care of ‘bad girls’ by isolating and abusing them. This is more or less common knowledge at this point, but if you require proof, here’s a news story on the subject: cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-567365.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

Right, but Star Trek has frequently presented situations that have a suspicious analogy to a “real world” issue. In Voyager, there was an episode in which two characters (Tuvok and Neelix) were fused into a single person, and the captain had to decide whether or not to separate them back out, which would kill the new person, “Tuvix.” That struck me as most likely an attempt to tackle the abortion issue in a disguised form.

Edwin

Tuvok said in Voyager episode innocence, ‘It is illogical for a society to kill its own children’

 

[edwest2]

I find it amusing how you keep touching on areas that prove you wrong Ed.

The Catholic Church of the 1950s often took care of ‘bad girls’ by isolating and abusing them. This is more or less common knowledge at this point, but if you require proof, here’s a news story on the subject: cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-567365.html

And I find it amusing that you ignore all the other things I write about.

Peace,
Ed

 

[adrift]

I find it amusing how you keep touching on areas that prove you wrong Ed.

The Catholic Church of the 1950s often took care of ‘bad girls’ by isolating and abusing them. This is more or less common knowledge at this point, but if you require proof, here’s a news story on the subject: cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-567365.html

You need to distinguish between what the Church does and the members do. Often is an overstatement. Your link is specific to Ireland. You need more than that to substantiate your “often”. It was a horrible crime that happened but in no way can you claim it as an aciton of the Catholic Church nor can you claim it as being often. It was done by misguided Catholic members.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I find it amusing how you keep touching on areas that prove you wrong Ed.

The Catholic Church of the 1950s often took care of ‘bad girls’ by isolating and abusing them. This is more or less common knowledge at this point, but if you require proof, here’s a news story on the subject: cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-567365.html

You need to distinguish between what the Church does and the members do. Often is an overstatement. Your link is specific to Ireland. You need more than that to substantiate your “often”. It was a horrible crime that happened but in no way can you claim it as an aciton of the Catholic Church nor can you claim it as being often. It was done by misguided Catholic members.

I was speaking of Western society in general (during the 1950s).
I specifically mentioned the Church because Ed was going on about how *pure and awesome *the Catholic Church was back then.

 

[Contarini]

You need to distinguish between what the Church does and the members do. Often is an overstatement. Your link is specific to Ireland. You need more than that to substantiate your “often”. It was a horrible crime that happened but in no way can you claim it as an aciton of the Catholic Church nor can you claim it as being often. It was done by misguided Catholic members.

But I think the bigger issue is that edwest claimed that folks of his generation didn’t need to think about this “sordid” stuff because it was “taken care of.” And angryatheist has pointed to one particularly disturbing instance in which the “taking care of” was done in a really abusive way.

Without arguing over how often this happened, I think one can reasonably argue that if the Catholic community as a whole had expected to have more direct (name removed by moderator)ut on the “taking care of,” those abusive patterns would have been less likely to develop.

When you essentially say, “We don’t want to have to look at these people who have done ‘sordid’ things, because it will interfere with our ‘innocence’–please take them away and take care of them so they don’t mess up our nice pristine society,” then you are practically asking for abuse to occur.

And that’s just one example of why the kind of morality edwest argues is actually immorality.

Trying to ignore the darkness and brokenness of the world has very destructive consequences.

At the same time, I’m not entirely in disagreement with edwest–our society has indeed swung to the other extreme and is fascinated with what is sordid and disturbing.

I disagree with him when he holds up the society of the 50s as a model, but it certainly had virtues that our society lacks.

Edwin

 

[edwest2]

But I think the bigger issue is that edwest claimed that folks of his generation didn’t need to think about this “sordid” stuff because it was “taken care of.” And angryatheist has pointed to one particularly disturbing instance in which the “taking care of” was done in a really abusive way.

Without arguing over how often this happened, I think one can reasonably argue that if the Catholic community as a whole had expected to have more direct (name removed by moderator)ut on the “taking care of,” those abusive patterns would have been less likely to develop.

When you essentially say, “We don’t want to have to look at these people who have done ‘sordid’ things, because it will interfere with our ‘innocence’–please take them away and take care of them so they don’t mess up our nice pristine society,” then you are practically asking for abuse to occur.

And that’s just one example of why the kind of morality edwest argues is actually immorality.

Trying to ignore the darkness and brokenness of the world has very destructive consequences.

At the same time, I’m not entirely in disagreement with edwest–our society has indeed swung to the other extreme and is fascinated with what is sordid and disturbing.

I disagree with him when he holds up the society of the 50s as a model, but it certainly had virtues that our society lacks.

Edwin

Thank you for your reply, Edwin. Assuming things about what I write is never a good thing, asking for clarification is.

Your “nice, pristine society” assumption is uncalled for. And assuming that at least one poster here believes something, not you, that he knows nothing about, or the past was pristine - which I never said it was, then I respectfully encourage all involved to please stop it.

If the Catholic community knew more then things would have been hunky-dory, or better yet - perfect, or 99% better. Or that the past was, you know, like some posters here claim, different than what I describe, or backward, unlike our Modern so-called society.

I’ve got bad news about “modern society.”

"A 2004 U.S. Department of Education report reported that “the most accurate data available” reveals that “nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”

This result prompted Hofstra University’s Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the author of the study, to opine in 2006, “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

Some people will write anything to cast Catholic life during the period I grew up in in a certain - very narrow - light. We knew there were people who were not Catholics, and people who were abused. Every Lent, the nuns told us about the poor and desperate in detail and asked us to give up something and fill a container with money so as to help them. Once again, it was not perfect, but here are a few facts:

1. We did not lock our doors at night.
2. We knew what an ICBM was and we knew about its destructive power, In 1962, I watched President John F. Kennedy on TV telling the American people that Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles had been deployed on the island of Cuba, and he warned the Russians that any nuclear attack anywhere would be viewed as an attack on the United States and result in an immediate response.
3. We didn’t lose a second of sleep about ICBMS. We had great times in the late 1950s and 1960s.
4. My sponsor at my Confirmation was an usher at our Church. One day, I came over to his garage because he had a work bench there and he was doing something. We started talking and I noticed a box of books by one wall. I asked him about the books. He said, he bought the books at garage sales and took them to people in old folks’ homes to read. Each person was offered one book of his or her choosing. He even offered me one.

Now, today, the graphic ugliness of CSI, Dexter and other programs is right in our faces. Did Catholics ask for this? No.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Thank you for your reply, Edwin. Assuming things about what I write is never a good thing, asking for clarification is.

Your “nice, pristine society” assumption is uncalled for. And assuming that at least one poster here believes something, not you, that he knows nothing about, or the past was pristine - which I never said it was, then I respectfully encourage all involved to please stop it.

If the Catholic community knew more then things would have been hunky-dory, or better yet - perfect, or 99% better. Or that the past was, you know, like some posters here claim, different than what I describe, or backward, unlike our Modern so-called society.

I’ve got bad news about “modern society.”

"A 2004 U.S. Department of Education report reported that “the most accurate data available” reveals that “nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”

This result prompted Hofstra University’s Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the author of the study, to opine in 2006, “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

Some people will write anything to cast Catholic life during the period I grew up in in a certain - very narrow - light. We knew there were people who were not Catholics, and people who were abused. Every Lent, the nuns told us about the poor and desperate in detail and asked us to give up something and fill a container with money so as to help them. Once again, it was not perfect, but here are a few facts:

1. We did not lock our doors at night.
2. We knew what an ICBM was and we knew about its destructive power, In 1962, I watched President John F. Kennedy on TV telling the American people that Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles had been deployed on the island of Cuba, and he warned the Russians that any nuclear attack anywhere would be viewed as an attack on the United States and result in an immediate response.

**3) We didn’t lose a second of sleep about ICBMS. We had great times in the late 1950s and 1960s. **

1. My sponsor at my Confirmation was an usher at our Church. One day, I came over to his garage because he had a work bench there and he was doing something. We started talking and I noticed a box of books by one wall. I asked him about the books. He said, he bought the books at garage sales and took them to people in old folks’ homes to read. Each person was offered one book of his or her choosing. He even offered me one.

Now, today, the graphic ugliness of CSI, Dexter and other programs is right in our faces. Did Catholics ask for this? No.

Peace,
Ed

You have said a lot of stuff since I came to CAF that I found unrealistic or unjustified Ed, but I believe that statement may be at the top of the list.

Virtually all the news reports concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis talks about how terrified everyone was, many of the movies, books, and TV shows from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s are directly about the threat of nuclear war/holocaust. In fact, the classic film Planet of the Apes is about human civilization being destroyed by nuclear war.

I was personally touched by the Cold War, because The Church Universal and Triumphant (the cult my parents were a member of when I was little) taught that a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America would end the world as we knew it.

Even if you were really able to sleep soundly through the Cold War, that says more about you than anything else.

 

[adrift]

You have said a lot of stuff since I came to CAF that I found unrealistic or unjustified Ed, but I believe that statement may be at the top of the list.

Virtually all the news reports concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis talks about how terrified everyone was, many of the movies, books, and TV shows from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s are directly about the threat of nuclear war/holocaust. In fact, the classic film Planet of the Apes is about human civilization being destroyed by nuclear war.

I was personally touched by the Cold War, because The Church Universal and Triumphant (the cult my parents were a member of when I was little) taught that a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America would end the world as we knew it.

Even if you were really able to sleep soundly through the Cold War, that says more about you than anything else.

In the 50’s people were building bomb shelters. I didn’t know any of them. We had drills for evacuation of the school. Television had ads that instructed people to have water storage. Were people terrified? When I asked my parents about the water they were not concerned. None of my friends family had stashes of water. I don’t think they were much concerned. The practice drill was just fun. The adults seemed only to be going through the motions not really concerned. I remember my brother commenting that if we truly needed to evacuate that the drill was worthless.
We have tons of stories about Vampires so it doesn’t say anything when we have tons of stories about nuclear war. What television shows in the 50’s and 60’s are directly about the threat of nuclear war/holocaust? I do remember shows on Communism and World War II but the threat of nuclear war:shrug:
What news reports are you referring too? I remember the Cuban crisis. There was concern about would happen I remember no terror. I remember that what was talked about was if it would end up with us nuking them. I don’t think that if there were people who were afraid that they would have said so on the news anyway.

Even if you were really able to sleep soundly through the Cold War, that says more about you than anything else

I know of no one who said that they were unable to sleep because of the Cold War. Did you really loose sleep? I will have to mark that down since your the first I have ever heard of who couldn’t sleep. It lasted from about 1947–1991. That is a long time not to sleep.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In the 50’s people were building bomb shelters. I didn’t know any of them. We had drills for evacuation of the school. Television had ads that instructed people to have water storage. Were people terrified? When I asked my parents about the water they were not concerned. None of my friends family had stashes of water. I don’t think they were much concerned. The practice drill was just fun. The adults seemed only to be going through the motions not really concerned. I remember my brother commenting that if we truly needed to evacuate that the drill was worthless.
We have tons of stories about Vampires so it doesn’t say anything when we have tons of stories about nuclear war. What television shows in the 50’s and 60’s are directly about the threat of nuclear war/holocaust? I do remember shows on Communism and World War II but the threat of nuclear war:shrug:
What news reports are you referring too? I remember the Cuban crisis. There was concern about would happen I remember no terror. I remember that what was talked about was if it would end up with us nuking them. I don’t think that if there were people who were afraid that they would have said so on the news anyway.

I know of no one who said that they were unable to sleep because of the Cold War. Did you really loose sleep? I will have to mark that down since your the first I have ever heard of who couldn’t sleep. It lasted from about 1947–1991. That is a long time not to sleep.

I have trouble taking this post seriously.

 

[GKC]

I have trouble taking this post seriously.

Give it another try. I was 5 when the 50s began, hence 17 during the missile crisis. Two neighbors built bomb shelters; they were items of curiosity. Folks varied as to the concern; some felt a vague uneasiness from time to time, most paid the subject little everyday attention. Perhaps others watched the Doomsday Clock on the cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Don’t know the exact time it registered during the missile crisis, but it properly would have been near to “midnight” in the late fall of 1962. The military in that period were quite concerned, as I learned when I started my 20 year military career 6 years later.

But the general populace varied during the Cold War. Some joined SANE, some obsessed with the situation. Most didn’t and lived their lives normally, with varying amounts of concern or interest in the subject. Which didn’t include not sleeping.

No doubt mileage varies, among folks who recall the years.

GKC

 

[adrift]

I have trouble taking this post seriously.

No doubt mileage varies, among folks who recall the years.

GKC

This is undoubtedly true. I am sure those in Florida would have a different take than those in Alaska.

 

[edwest2]

You have said a lot of stuff since I came to CAF that I found unrealistic or unjustified Ed, but I believe that statement may be at the top of the list.

Virtually all the news reports concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis talks about how terrified everyone was, many of the movies, books, and TV shows from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s are directly about the threat of nuclear war/holocaust. In fact, the classic film Planet of the Apes is about human civilization being destroyed by nuclear war.

I was personally touched by the Cold War, because The Church Universal and Triumphant (the cult my parents were a member of when I was little) taught that a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America would end the world as we knew it.

Even if you were really able to sleep soundly through the Cold War, that says more about you than anything else.

All my neighbors felt the same way, as well as my classmates. We grew up in a peaceful, much less crime ridden area than what it gradually became, starting in the 1970s. No one built any bomb shelters. Most of us dreamed of getting married and raising children. The future was not dimmed by even 1%. And a few of us went on to seminaries and one girl wanted to be a nun.

Since I was consumed by an interest in science from an early age, I went to the library and read scholarly publications. I was fascinated by the fact that the Russians could, at a slightly later date, put multiple warheads in one ICBM nose cone. They were called MIRVs, Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles. That meant that once the ICBM was in space, the nose cone, in this case, a shround, was jettisoned. This exposed at least 4 or more conical warheads that sat on a circular platform called a bus. As the bus tilted, each separate nose cone was released to fall on a different target. I was also fascinated by the protection our own missile silos received, including the Terminal Defense System, which was designed to knock the warhead off course or possibly, detonate it a few miles from its intended target so that the explosive overpressure would not shatter the concrete and steel silo cover.

People sat on their front porches on the cooler summer days as families, we went to the park, we played.

Peace,
Ed

 

[GKC]

This is undoubtedly true. I am sure those in Florida would have a different take than those in Alaska.

During the 1962 missile crisis, the most generally perturbed were the military. Followed closely, I’d expect, by Floridians, sure. But the range of the IRBMs in Cuba far exceeded the state borders; the threat didn’t stop at the Georgia line.

And the possibility existed for a general conflict arising in that crisis. As Kennedy said, any nuclear attack from Cuba, anywhere in this hemisphere, would have been considered a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, resulting in a full retaliatory response on the USSR. Eventually, things calmed down. But generally, during the Cold War, the atmosphere in this country was as I said: variable, and not particularly high-key, except among the markedly unhinged, the doctrine pacifists, or similar groups.

GKC

 

[AngryAtheist8]

All my neighbors felt the same way, as well as my classmates. We grew up in a peaceful, much less crime ridden area than what it gradually became, starting in the 1970s. No one built any bomb shelters. Most of us dreamed of getting married and raising children. The future was not dimmed by even 1%. And a few of us went on to seminaries and one girl wanted to be a nun.

Since I was consumed by an interest in science from an early age, I went to the library and read scholarly publications. I was fascinated by the fact that the Russians could, at a slightly later date, put multiple warheads in one ICBM nose cone. They were called MIRVs, Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles. That meant that once the ICBM was in space, the nose cone, in this case, a shround, was jettisoned. This exposed at least 4 or more conical warheads that sat on a circular platform called a bus. As the bus tilted, each separate nose cone was released to fall on a different target. I was also fascinated by the protection our own missile silos received, including the Terminal Defense System, which was designed to knock the warhead off course or possibly, detonate it a few miles from its intended target so that the explosive overpressure would not shatter the concrete and steel silo cover.

People sat on their front porches on the cooler summer days as families, we went to the park, we played.

Peace,
Ed

So what?

Your entire argument Ed, seems to be built on the assumption that, because the 50s were a better time for you, they were for everyone else (or at least most people) too.