Why is chivalry good for anyone?

Post Reply New Topic

Sarah, excellent point. "Agism", "racism", "homophobia", etc. are all part of the Deformed Church of Political Correctness. It's the modern manifestation of John Stuart Mill's liberal Religion of Humanity, and a religion I emphatically reject. I'm a proud heretic.

I much prefer the Golden Rule, and chivalry is merely its fullest development.

Eh, racism still exists. Even when it benefits the person being discriminated against. Often, when people believe that a minority individual authored a paper, they will grade them more positively than if they believed the author was white. This patronizing is harmful, however, unlike simply being chivalrous.

Sarah, carry on! When it comes to race relations, and everything else, PC does far more harm than good.

A quick note on discrimination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with discriminating, although certainly it can be bad. A few examples: Let's say you find the love of your life, and decide to be monogamous with this person and start a family. Well, by being monogamous, you are discriminating literally against every other man, woman, and child by refusing to be sex partners with them. And if you had children, you would be discriminating against all children not your own if you took better care of your own children than you did your neighbors' children.

Actually, the very liberals who try to force PC on the rest of us are just as guilty of discrimination. For example, when the National Organization for Women refuses to consider Rush Limbaugh for their president, they are discriminating against him.

Of course, some forms of discrimination are immoral. It's a judgment call as to whether a given form of discrimination is good or bad.

Liberals like to claim that Christianity is bizarre and irrational. But there is nothing more bizarre or irrational than PC--the real religion of all modern liberals.

Yes, if you look at the dictionary definition of discrimination, this applies. However, the conversation itself limits its usage to the socially harmful discrimination, not all discrimination. You discriminate between fruits you buy at a store when you only buy the ones that seem fresh, but no one is going to say that is wrong. It also doesn't really apply to this situation. All I am trying to say is that chivalry is not a form of negative discrimination, and that people are looking for something to argue about when they complain about it. Generally, I wish people practiced it more; often, I will have both hands completely full, and most people will just stand there and wait for me to open the door so they don't have to.

Sarah, you are actually making my point. PC has made people fear the very word discrimination in Pavlovian fashion. If a liberal is losing the argument and wishes to shut down debate, he merely trots out words like discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc. These words are enough to make most people cringe right into silence. PC doesn't want us to--well--discriminate against good and bad forms of discrimination.

I am glad you agree on chivalry.

Regardless as to what people think, this is yet another issue that is unlikely to ever end.

I can say this problem won't be resolved as long as liberalism exists.

When the early liberals formulated their Religion of Humanity as a replacement for Christianity--something they hated--they envisioned something that would help all of mankind. But since the religion of humanity was formulated by fallible human beings, it has become something that works in their best interests, and nobody else's.

I am liberal. Also, this issue belongs in the politics forum.

Sarah, what liberalism has done is to make everything political. It is the essence of the old sixties battle cry that the personal is political. Having said that, liberalism is much more than politics.

If you tell me you are for chivalry, I have to wonder how much you understand your chosen faith of liberalism. Chivalry is anathema to liberalism, and vice versa.

Good luck on sorting things out.

Pretty much summed it up for me, Ann. Thanks!



Chivalry is just the golden rule "cut in half." How is it full in the slightest? If anything it's the antithesis of it as it teaches us to treat certain people (~50% of them) differently.


And if a bigot wants to say something racist/homophobic/ableist, etc they claim the other person is being too PC..........

Also........
The idea that it's "discrimination" not to let Rush Limbauge become president of a feminist organization is like saying it's discrimination to not let Hillary Clinton take over the tea party.........It's absurd, overly literal and shows little comprehension of the actual concept of political correctness.

For the record. There are plenty of liberal zealots but they are no more crazy than all the rightwing crazies. Honestly, the idea that calling out discrimination is somehow bad (or claiming it doesn't exist in the first place) is some extremely delusional Zealotry........

"Chivalry is just the golden rule "cut in half" how is it full in the slightest? If anything it's the antithesis of it as it teaches us to treat certain people (~50% of them) differently."

How so?
Also........
The idea that it's "discrimination" not to let Rush Limbauge become president of a feminist organization is like saying it's discrimination to not let Hillary Clinton take over the tea party.........

I'm glad you agree with me that discrimination isn't always bad.It's absurd, overly literal and shows little comprehension of the actual concept of political correctness.

Since I obviously lack your finesse on this issue, please set me straight.

For the record. There are plenty of liberal zealots but they are no more crazy than all the rightwing crazies. Honestly, the idea that calling out discrimination is somehow bad is some extreme Zealotry.

In my experience, most "rightwing crazies" are actually right-liberals instead of real conservatives. The hatred between right-liberals and left-liberals demonstrates perfectly the irony of the intolerance of the tolerant.

If you can prove your points in a rational and compelling manner, you will have won me over. I challenge you to prove your contentions.

Frankly I find it hard to take the arguments of someone who cites a person like Rush limbaugh seriously in the first place. He's just a fat dude with a big mouth that exploits ignorant people. Liberalism may be a religion in his eyes but his sheep bah just as loud (and play the victim even louder)..........

Actually, I'm no fan of Limbaugh either; he annoys me. Having said this, if Limbaugh were to declare that two and two equals four, would it become false because "he's just a fat dude with a big mouth that exploits ignorant people"? Or should we set aside our prejudices and judge arguments on their own merits, rather than according to who makes them?

The irony is that Limbaugh is a liberal himself--a right-liberal. Because right-liberalism is untenable, left-liberalism developed.

The difference between me and a zealot is that I'm self aware enough to honestly not give a s**t about setting anyone straight. Political arguments are really just people yelling at each other confvinced that thier views are the only right ones (neither truly listening while both thinking of themselves as persecuted victims) until one person gets bored and gives up. I'll never be able to "prove" my contentions to you because my definition of rational and compelling is dyometrically opposed to yours and vice-versa. Same with religous arguments (I'm agnostic for this very reason.)

I've said my piece and now I'm already bored, sorry.

EDIT:
I suppose I am curious about this right/left liberal thing you keep harping on but It sounds like it's own type of BS. Libertarianism has it's fair share of Zeolotry too......

Last edited by Geekonychus on 06 Jun 2013, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For starters, I'm not yelling, and just told you I was willing to listen. It sounds as if you're stereotyping me with others, does it not?

And assuming I won't listen to you, and that what is rational and compelling to you is "dyometrically" (sic) opposed to mine smacks of prejudice, since you are making judgments without the facts.

In any case, if you wish to quit, I will hope you get your thinking straight and bid you a good day.

Fair enough. I don't think you're a zeolot but I disagree with your basic viewpoints. There's nothing wrong with some political correctness just like there's nothing wrong with some "justified" discrimination (i.e. based on the content of one's character and not race, gender, disability, etc.) Unfortunately people have different definitions of what those terms mean and make thier own truth.