26 Jul 2008, 6:12 am
26 Jul 2008, 8:25 am
srriv345 wrote:
...
Yes, you've seen it here. The Democratic part is just like the Nazis.
Also, the KKK and Nazis hated others only because other people didn't help them out enough. (Even though many poor people have refrained from lynching people and carrying out genocide.) With the Nazis, you may actually have a point WRT the Treaty of Versailles, but these inflammatory rantings hardly contribute much to historical discussion. Oy. With the KKK, you're just plain wrong. Many prominent members of the KKK were well-to-do, respected men of society. Many were sheriffs and held other positions of power.
Sorry, you can go back to blaming all evils in world history on liberals and Democrats now.
Yes, you've seen it here. The Democratic part is just like the Nazis.
Also, the KKK and Nazis hated others only because other people didn't help them out enough. (Even though many poor people have refrained from lynching people and carrying out genocide.) With the Nazis, you may actually have a point WRT the Treaty of Versailles, but these inflammatory rantings hardly contribute much to historical discussion. Oy. With the KKK, you're just plain wrong. Many prominent members of the KKK were well-to-do, respected men of society. Many were sheriffs and held other positions of power.
Sorry, you can go back to blaming all evils in world history on liberals and Democrats now.
Well, the democrats are just the American equivalent. But why don't you think about it a bit. The KKK and NAZIs started primarily with undereducated and poor people. BOTH where displaced. The KKK and NAZIs were AGAINST foreigners, and the democrats PREFER them.
But HEY, you talk about politics about things like P.C., and it is bound to come up.
BTW the democrats like to think of themselves as so intelligent, but look at their constituency closely sometime! Listen to the KKK sometime. I bet most if not all are democrat!
26 Jul 2008, 8:57 am
26 Jul 2008, 9:02 am
JohnCounsel wrote:
2ukenkerl,
Who are you identifying as "they"?
Who are you identifying as "they"?
When I made no reference, I meant the P.C. crowd.
JohnCounsel wrote:
You make no mention that I can see -- you apparently jumped to some conclusions of your own that triggered an adverse emotional reaction.
Which conclusion?
JohnCounsel wrote:
I'm not questioning your motives or assertions, just wondering who on earth you've assumed that I was referring to.
OK
JohnCounsel wrote:
Some clarification would be helpful. More light, less heat. 
John
John
Well, I HAVE tried to keep the airconditioner on. It's been below 80F.
26 Jul 2008, 9:18 am
26 Jul 2008, 10:15 am
JohnCounsel wrote:
Hi marieclaire
I think the real issue causing confusion here is different interpretations of terms like equality of outcome and social engineering.
Some of that different perception is due to nothing more than different perspectives. We look at the same situation from two different angles and end up with two very different views and conclusions, like the Six Blind Men of Hindustan and the elephant (Kipling?).
Some of what you appear to be referring to as equality of outcome is really equality of opportunity.
Once the focus becomes equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, trouble always ensues. It's an issue fraught with risk, as I explained earlier.
Because it's such an unnatural* concept, it inevitably seems to lead to artificial "solutions" that seem to lead to more and more social engineering aimed at redressing imbalances by compulsion... which never works long term.
Often it's the result of frustration and impatience with the slow rate of change brought about by education, but that's no justification.
John
(*Nature presents us with manifest unfairness, nowhere better demonstrated than by the food chain and by parasites. Life as we know it would cease to exist if we imposed equality of outcome by eliminating these two perfectly natural phenomena. For a start, humans — the top of the food chain, both animal and vegetable — would become extinct in a matter of weeks if strictly applied.)
I think the real issue causing confusion here is different interpretations of terms like equality of outcome and social engineering.
Some of that different perception is due to nothing more than different perspectives. We look at the same situation from two different angles and end up with two very different views and conclusions, like the Six Blind Men of Hindustan and the elephant (Kipling?).
Some of what you appear to be referring to as equality of outcome is really equality of opportunity.
Once the focus becomes equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, trouble always ensues. It's an issue fraught with risk, as I explained earlier.
Because it's such an unnatural* concept, it inevitably seems to lead to artificial "solutions" that seem to lead to more and more social engineering aimed at redressing imbalances by compulsion... which never works long term.
Often it's the result of frustration and impatience with the slow rate of change brought about by education, but that's no justification.
John
(*Nature presents us with manifest unfairness, nowhere better demonstrated than by the food chain and by parasites. Life as we know it would cease to exist if we imposed equality of outcome by eliminating these two perfectly natural phenomena. For a start, humans — the top of the food chain, both animal and vegetable — would become extinct in a matter of weeks if strictly applied.)
Well, a little DIRECT statement is in order. One that, though it relates to this, is not prompted or driving it.
I am AGAINST high taxes, for EVERYONE! If you want it FAIR, you should set it at some minor percentage, say 12% of TAXABLE income, SCRAP the local sales taxes, and BRING BACK DUTIES! There should be a decent floor, say $40,000, and it should increase according to some real measure of inflation.
Donations should be simply a shifting of tax burden! SO, if you make $90,000 and donate $50,000 to a person that is BROKE, YOU pay NO taxes, and they(the person you gave the $50,000 to) pay $1,200.
The minimum wage should be perhaps $5, and it should increase according to some real measure of inflation. It was NEVER meant to be a "living" wage! It was supposed to allow younger people to have a path into the work force. If it goes TOO high, it will limit the people going into other fields, and hurt certain industries.
Just as a matter of disclosure, that would probably mean that I would be paying about the same amount(Although the elimination of the sales tax would be welcome), my father would pay more, and my mother, who is collecting social security, would pay NOTHING! She would FINALLY be allowed to work! There is a stupid law that says you can't work while on social security and you end up losing part of your social security if you do! It would reduce paperwork, so expenses will be LOWER, and people like my father and bill gates are likely to make the tax base HIGHER! The reduction of H1B/H4Bs and duties would do the SAME! ALSO, the duties would encourage more DOMESTIC businesses! And does it make sense to charge tax on money you paid them?
I think they(the US) have PLENTY of laws! They should simply start enforcing the ones they have! Did you know, for example, it has ALREADY been illegal for a felon to own a gun?!?!?!?
They should stop the H1Bs, H4Bs, etc... and, if they continue to have the H1Bs, etc..., THEY(the H1Bs, etc...), as with all non citizens, should be subject to a duty.
They(the US) should provide all CITIZENS with a free education with a cap at perhaps 20 years.(12 years basic instruction, 6 years college, and 2 just for good measure) And it should be done WITHOUT boundaries, collusion, or artificial limits. That means NO using teachers just to have teachers, no keeping bad teachers, using instruction that can go ahead of the current class and be self directed, and NO changing books SIMPLY to get more income.(Did you know that some textbooks will create new "editions" that simply scramble/reformat the chapters to confuse people, so schools have to get people to buy the NEW books to follow the class?)
CITIZENS should have FREE basic insurance. They(the US) currently provide for non citizens, and that is just dumb. By getting rid of the freeloaders, and lowering COSTS in health, it should certainly be doable.
Loans should be CAPPED at 20%, and based on THAT providers experience or, the report WHEN it is started!
Savings accounts should pay 60% of income derived from them.
Fraud should be held to the old blue sky(established in 1933) standard for illegal stock loss! FULL RETURN plus 6% per year!
Heck, forget about the different income levels, and different races, etc... The above plan would work for everyone! People in the GHETTOS would be able to go to college and get good jobs, without putting their families out!
SORRY, if this sounds TOO PC, but you will note that I did NOT say GET RID OF TAXES, or just HAVE FREE EDUCATION! I balanced everything! I ALSO didn't set the income floor too low. Some democrat plans set it at $20,000! $20,000 now is probably poverty level. $40,000 is roughly average. MANY make less or more than that though. Those that make less, or a bit more, benefit, and those that make more may have to pay more.
26 Jul 2008, 10:38 am
26 Jul 2008, 11:41 am
2ukenkerl wrote:
JohnCounsel wrote:
Cas,
What you're talking about tends not to be what most people view as political correctness — it's more in the realm of equality of opportunity and social justice, which are admirable and highly desirable.
The typical PC advocate, in my own experience, is more prone to promoting equality of outcome and social engineering.
Very different things, in much the same ways as democracy vs socialism and free enterprise vs capitalism. One alternative tends to be win-win. The other win-lose or lose-win (it doesn't matter which — they're both just lose-lose posing as a win... until the loser wakes up to reality).
John
What you're talking about tends not to be what most people view as political correctness — it's more in the realm of equality of opportunity and social justice, which are admirable and highly desirable.
The typical PC advocate, in my own experience, is more prone to promoting equality of outcome and social engineering.
Very different things, in much the same ways as democracy vs socialism and free enterprise vs capitalism. One alternative tends to be win-win. The other win-lose or lose-win (it doesn't matter which — they're both just lose-lose posing as a win... until the loser wakes up to reality).
John
That is BULL! They merely CLAIM to promote equality, etc.... They will accuse even a MINORITY company of racism if even one minority is not hired. That is true EVEN if to do so would make them even MORE minority than the overall population, or if they are already. It is true EVEN if the person wasn't hired simply because they weren't capable.
They heavily tax wage earners in ALL ways, and pay a portion to certain OTHER groups.
They CLAIM to protect the public, and make "semiautomatic" weapons sound like MACHINE GUNS, and weapons made solely for war. They use that false belief to outlaw such guns and nearly obliterate the ability to protect yourself.
They give prisoners free food, cable, exercise, etc.... and, while claiming to provide education for all, reduce lower level education, and increase costs of higher education.
HECK! They are primarily the party that ENCOURAGED slavery and yet they speak against the one that destroyed it, at least as the blacks knew it. When faced with ALL the proof, and this question, the other party says it was a rouse to disable the south's strangle hold, and allow them to benefit from technology. Still, that doesn't make THEM look any better, and the blacks were STILL freed.
HECK, they fund groups like "habitat for humanity" to buy HOUSES, while poor wage owners that could better pay for the homes, and deserve them MORE, subsist in places they RENT! If they REALLY cared, they would guarantee loans, and help to POOR people to get better jobs. It would be more fair, easier, help MORE, and be CHEAPER! Perhaps they just want to hurt society.
BTW The KKK and NAZIs were in the lowest group not helped by such supposed charity! If they WERE helped, they would not have had such hatred for others, and so much would have been better. Hitler would probably have rotted in a jail. BTW The NAZI party, and similar ones, really WAS similar to the democrat party. BOTH believed in such socialism, unions, etc... BOTH attacked competitors through half truths and lies.
But NO! They redefined the American Dream, which USED to be merely to have a nice life and retire carefree, to be owning a home, and figure that owning meant having basically some document giving you control of the property. They then extrapolate that the poor must "own" homes. It is truly sad that it really IS an attack on the middle class.
Yet the flip side is that they DO want a commission of sorts, and need complicitors, which they may pay for. That increases inflation and thus devalues any money anyone got and starts the whole cycle all over again.
They NEVER achieve any kind of equality, and judge equality by position and wages anyway. NO thought is given to work, education, or income.
And HECK, I can only trace my family in the US to about 4 generations. No less than HALF of it is irish. Signs were all over saying "irish need not apply". Did those democrats with their "P.C." ever give any of THEM such consideration?
NOW, as for slavery? I work for companies that may, at the drop of a hat, demand I skip lunch or dinner, and may work me long and hard. They may push me in every way that inflames any sensitivities I have. I am lucky if I am offered 2 weeks, but am lucky if I ever really get one. Granted, I may not get beaten physically, but I don't live a wealthy life of luxury some "P.C."s would claim true of ALL white males.
AND, while I am lucky that I don't OFTEN have to skip lunch(though I did 3 times this week), or dinner(though I did twice this week), and I haven't had to work so long lately(though I HAVE worked weeks with only a few hours "rest" inbetween days), the rest is always true. I figure that, in 28 years, I have had perhaps 6-7 real weeks of vacation, TOTAL(all years put together! The longest stretch was in 1989 when I took off 3 weeks to go to Europe. My first, and so far last, such trip.).
Y are you all of a sudden going on a rant about liberals? That seemed to come out of nowhere. And you are making excuses for the KKK and the nazis? I certainly hope you aren't serious.
You want me to say something that may seem very un PC to you. I hate liberal bashers, and you my friend fall under that category.
But I'm a registered democrat so supposedly I'm supposed to be all about being PC.
26 Jul 2008, 12:11 pm
Fossy wrote:
Y are you all of a sudden going on a rant about liberals? That seemed to come out of nowhere.
Because PC IS a democrat term.
Fossy wrote:
And you are making excuses for the KKK and the nazis? I certainly hope you aren't serious.
NOPE! Although to dismiss the truth would be silly.
Fossy wrote:
You want me to say something that may seem very un PC to you. I hate liberal bashers, and you my friend fall under that category.
I doubt I am your friend, or vice/versa, but I expected as much.
Fossy wrote:
But I'm a registered democrat so supposedly I'm supposed to be all about being PC.
Not necessarily, but it sure sounds like it in your case.
26 Jul 2008, 12:35 pm
26 Jul 2008, 4:46 pm
26 Jul 2008, 4:53 pm
26 Jul 2008, 5:12 pm
I am PC and I am very offended by this thread 
Seriously, there is a limit to everything, PC seems to be a degorative term to me, which by that fact seems to be used as a defense mechanism or a defensive response mostly, when being attacked or most likely, confronted for an opinion, mostly opinions made against minorities or against the difference from other people, everyone is entitled to their opinion of any matter and they are freely to express it, however there are some ethical norms on how you should express them, obviously some remarks offends people (dyke and ret*d for example as well as generalizations that diminishes other people just by their category of difference) and other times some people feel offended when they shouldn't. (generally, the ones who have had a bad experience related to some discussion would tend to feel offended by asociation with the experience).
A problem I see in situations like this is that sometimes it gets difficult to tell the intention of people, from an opposite or different point of view, which in some cases results become from misinterpretating the claims and opinons others do, that happens.
Last edited by greenblue on 26 Jul 2008, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
26 Jul 2008, 5:20 pm
sartresue wrote:
Debating guidelines topic
"Politically correct" can mean fairness and/or accuracy in a debate/discussion.
Name calling such as n***** is like a strawman, and denies the legitimacy and validity of what an African American is saying. How can you have a debate with someone who is only interested in bullying?
Also, denying historical facts (The Jewish or Armenian Genocides did not occur) constitutes flaming and is not meant to foster understanding. To even begin a debate such as that is pointless. The only reason anyone would utter such a ridiculous premise is to incite hatred, and to publicize conspiracy theories. This is similar to propaganda, and appeals to the all-too-human fear of uncertainty.
People who deny historical realities (slavery, Autism, sexism, prejudice) are those who view the world in a very narrowly focussed way and often explain away details that do not fit their own political/psychological agendas. Or they may just want to be nasty! Either way, there can be no dialogue if the debate premises/boundaries are not agreed. Like a chess game, there are rules.
I am not immune to name calling, but I can do it without resorting to racial/sexual/religious slurs. I do not need to hit below the belt.
"Politically correct" can mean fairness and/or accuracy in a debate/discussion.
Name calling such as n***** is like a strawman, and denies the legitimacy and validity of what an African American is saying. How can you have a debate with someone who is only interested in bullying?
Also, denying historical facts (The Jewish or Armenian Genocides did not occur) constitutes flaming and is not meant to foster understanding. To even begin a debate such as that is pointless. The only reason anyone would utter such a ridiculous premise is to incite hatred, and to publicize conspiracy theories. This is similar to propaganda, and appeals to the all-too-human fear of uncertainty.
People who deny historical realities (slavery, Autism, sexism, prejudice) are those who view the world in a very narrowly focussed way and often explain away details that do not fit their own political/psychological agendas. Or they may just want to be nasty! Either way, there can be no dialogue if the debate premises/boundaries are not agreed. Like a chess game, there are rules.
I am not immune to name calling, but I can do it without resorting to racial/sexual/religious slurs. I do not need to hit below the belt.
Explain to me what is fair about eliminating autistics?
26 Jul 2008, 6:06 pm
26 Jul 2008, 6:33 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Which way looks correct? |
02 Jan 2025, 11:49 pm |
| What would tech look like if Aspies ran the tech industry? |
28 Nov 2024, 3:48 pm |
