12
   

Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 04:06 pm
@Pythagorean,
I believe in speaking up sincerely; I will not be intimidated.






David
cg2028
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 05:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Nicely said David.

To my bashers: If political correctness were not being enforced by the government then there would be no reason for the FCC am I right? There would be nothing called a fairness doctrine or other such controlling things. The truth in the matter is when people let them, the government likes to regulate. Government officials, in my opinion find some kind of "pleasure" in having power over people. I would do it myself if I had the power. Another thing is, psychologically, the whole controlling words to control the people thing is completely plausible. And how are we bigots folks? Just because we believe in a free society where the government doesn't intervene with our daily lives. It's simply not pleasant to have the government controlling ANYTHING. Government is not a business. And my soap box is quite nice actually. Our soul harvesting program is going quite well. Oh yeah and our slave division has raised its quota several times in the last month. Oh yeah one more thing, tomorrow we're going to start 5,000,000 more government programs to control things. Its going to raise taxes 135% so people don't have that much so we're just gonna have to kill them and harness the energy from their bodies in our happy energy camps. Don't say something about the government. We'll have to make a nasty government visit to your hut. Which we are about to repossess with the National Hut Relocation Doctrine. hmmmm.. now IM a bigot. Oh wait. All that stands against everything I believe hmm... maybe I'm not a bigot.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 05:35 pm
@cg2028,
cg2028 wrote:

Nicely said David. If political correctness were not being enforced by the government then there would be no reason for the FCC am I right? There would be nothing called a fairness doctrine or other such controlling things. The truth in the matter is when people let them, the government likes to regulate. Government officials, in my opinion find some kind of "pleasure" in having power over people. I would do it myself if I had the power. Another thing is, psychologically, the whole controlling words to control the people thing is completely plausible. And how are we bigots folks? Just because we believe in a free society where the government doesn't intervene with our daily lives. It's simply not pleasant to have the government controlling ANYTHING. Government is not a business. And my soap box is quite nice actually. Our soul harvesting program is going quite well. Oh yeah and our slave division has raised its quota several times in the last month. Oh yeah one more thing, tomorrow we're going to start 5,000,000 more government programs to control things. Its going to raise taxes 135% so people don't have that much so we're just gonna have to kill them and harness the energy from their bodies in our happy energy camps. Don't say something about the government. We'll have to make a nasty government visit to your hut. Which we are about to repossess with the National Hut Relocation Doctrine. hmmmm.. now IM a bigot. Oh wait. All that stands against everything I believe hmm... maybe I'm not a bigot.


What a crock of ****. What exactly is the point you were trying to convey with such a rant?

I swear to god that people would understand things a lot better if they did even an ounce of research before posting...

I mean, c'mon:

Quote:
If political correctness were not being enforced by the government then there would be no reason for the FCC am I right?


No, you're wrong; because the FCC does a lot more than just police language and such on TV.

Quote:
There would be nothing called a fairness doctrine or other such controlling things.


There isn't such a thing as the Fairness Doctrine. It does not exist.

Here, though, I think we see a little truth come out:

Quote:
I would do it myself if I had the power.


Cycloptichorn
cg2028
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 05:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The Fairness Doctrine was a planned pursuit of the FCC so that all major media hosts had to mention both at negative and positive about someone i.e. Nancy Pelosi if they wanted to say anything at all. The plan was shot down as it was unconstitutional. My post was not saying there was such a thing as the fairness doctrine. Moreover, I meant that there should not even be such a thing considered by the government. With this very rough conversation I say that our right to free speech should not be curbed. If I want to say the f word on public television I very well should be able to. If I wanted to run my telephone at 900 Ghz I should be able to. I could get service in a CAVE. But the FCC feels otherwise. Instead they limit bandwidth and other things to a "standard". If they had any sense they'd let private entities manage everything and the government would just go back to making roads. I mean really, who wants to pave their own roads? I don't mind paying a nominal tax for defense or roads; but national healthcare, FCC, many other controlling government entities, nah. I'll pass.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 05:56 pm
@cg2028,
cg2028 wrote:

The Fairness Doctrine was a planned pursuit of the FCC so that all major media hosts had to mention both at negative and positive about someone i.e. Nancy Pelosi if they wanted to say anything at all.


Oh, that doesn't sound much like the ACTUAL fairness doctrine which used to exist. Per Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced


It had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi at all. You need to start researching things in more depth before spouting off about them if you want to discuss political stuff here, because junior-level **** like this doesn't cut it.

Quote:
The plan was shot down as it was unconstitutional.


Oh, was it?

Once again, from Wikipedia:

Quote:
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[8]


You are full of **** once again. The SC specifically upheld the Fairness Doctrine in this and other cases.
Quote:

My post was not saying there was such a thing as the fairness doctrine. Moreover, I meant that there should not even be such a thing considered by the government.


I don't think you understand what the Fairness Doctrine even is, let alone are qualified to say whether or not the government should be considering such things.

Quote:
With this very rough conversation I say that our right to free speech should not be curbed. If I want to say the f word on public television I very well should be able to.


I agree with this, you should be able to curse all you want.
Quote:

If I wanted to run my telephone at 900 Ghz I should be able to.


I disagree with this, because your use of that bandwidth has effects which reach beyond your personal phone conversation. Bandwidth in the wireless spectrum is a shared resource, not your personal toy. It needs to be regulated or nothing works correctly.

Quote:
I could get service in a CAVE. But the FCC feels otherwise. Instead they limit bandwidth and other things to a "standard". If they had any sense they'd let private entities manage everything and the government would just go back to making roads.


Haha, yeah, that'd be a great idea, watching private companies fight it out for bandwidth, over-riding each others' signals all the time. You obviously haven't thought this through much.

Quote:
I mean really, who wants to pave their own roads. I don't mind paying a nominal tax for defense or roads; but national healthcare, FCC, many other controlling government entities, nah. I'll pass.


You don't get a choice in the matter. You pay up your taxes just like everyone else, and if you don't like what they are spending them on, work to elect people who change those priorities.

Cycloptichorn
cg2028
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Ahhh. Within several hours you have made me reach my own personal revelations about myself. Let me end this sophomoric endeavor by saying that I agreed with you all along, and myself had researched the Fairness Doctrine. It is the kind of one-sided spitting and cussing conquests that many of us pursue and it's simply not right, and leads us to completely irrational ends. I am the founder of my school's local debate team chapter and I am used to sad liquidly destroyable defenses much like the ones I have projected in these posts. I find you to be well versed in your use of argument(although gruff it may be) and end this post with my submission and agreement with your preceding accusations of my fervent irrationality. As a student who has majored in economics and minor in political science and philosophy I find many things to be very wrong with government control of economic matters. I feel you wouldn't agree with me here and I don't believe any of us can actually be "right" as the universe is an ever evolving flux of ideas and matter. Who is to say that there may not be another awkwardly astounding philosophy that may completely elude our attempts at a perfect system of government in the future. Until then I feel compromise and respect are the ways of reaching a better world.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:16 pm
@cg2028,
cg2028 wrote:

Ahhh. Within several hours you have made me reach my own personal revelations about myself. Let me end this sophomoric endeavor by saying that I agreed with you all along, and myself had researched the Fairness Doctrine. It is the kind of one-sided spitting and cussing conquests that many of us pursue and it's simply not right, and leads us to completely irrational ends. I am the founder of my school's local debate team chapter and I am used to sad liquidly destroyable defenses much like the ones I have projected in these posts. I find you to be well versed in your use of argument(although gruff it may be) and end this post with my submission and agreement with your preceding accusations of my fervent irrationality. As a student who has majored in economics and minor in political science and philosophy I find many things to be very wrong with government control of economic matters. I feel you wouldn't agree with me here and I don't believe any of us can actually be "right" as the universe is an ever evolving flux of ideas and matter. Who is to say that there may not be another awkwardly astounding philosophy that may completely elude our attempts at a perfect system of government in the future. Until then I feel compromise and respect are the ways of reaching a better world.


An entirely fair and balanced post. I used to do debate (both CX and LD) in high school and college myself.

I would suggest that you engage the Politics or Economics forum at some point so that we can examine your views re: Government Regulation in further depth, if you like. Sorry if I came off as aggressive; this place sometimes sees way more people spouting off about stuff than do research about it, which is frustrating.

Cycloptichorn
cg2028
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I say that it is perfectly okay. However, sometimes we just get so irritated that rationality and reason go out the window. We must all eventually cool our engines and develop relationships that will allow us to grow and understand each other and not continue with endless bickering like so many people tend to do.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:41 pm
@cg2028,
Quote:
However, sometimes we just get so irritated that rationality and reason go out the window. We must all eventually cool our engines and develop relationships that will allow us to grow and understand each other and not continue with endless bickering like so many people tend to do.
Congress has been moving in the opposite direction for most of my life, you are certainly swimming against the tide. Good luck with that.
cg2028
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Agreed. It's the sad truth that the world is not like that. However much I would like it to be, I don't feel it will ever be that way.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 07:14 pm
@cg2028,
Quote:
Agreed. It's the sad truth that the world is not like that. However much I would like it to be, I don't feel it will ever be that way.
In that case we are finished as a species. I do not share your pessimism. I also don't share in the view that the bickering is a bad thing, though certainly allowing it to get in the way of relationships is the mark of an idiot. There is a lot of that going around. I blame our broken education system as well as the breakdown of the family, when the inability to know the value of things met the inability to sustain relationships we entered some deep ****. I am currently watching the Tea Party because I am now convinced that the solution will come from the bottom, not from the top.
cg2028
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 08:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
I think we agree there. I was stating that I believe that too many people are allowing the bickering to interfere with progress and maybe the bickering is positive in that if congress stays at a stand still then they can do no more harm to the country. Because the evidence of the economic stimuli and the "Summer of Recovery" is just sprawling about right? ha.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 08:38 pm
@cg2028,
Quote:

I think we agree there. I was stating that I believe that too many people are allowing the bickering to interfere with progress
Progress is the key word here. What is progress? For far to many progress is the furtherance of their agenda, the proving of their ideas to be right, the proselytizing of their proclivities , appetites and world view. It is NOT the promotion of the common good, or the providing for the long term best interests of our ourselves and our kids.

This is evidence of a moral problem, this bastardization of the concept of progress, which runs very deep.

At some point we will stop ******* around, at some point we figure out that we are all in this together and that if we don't start working together to solve problems then we are going to be finished as a nation and as a society. We are not there yet.
cg2028
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 08:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
A very angry post indeed. I am going to guess that you feel some kind of resentment for our government? Or people as a whole maybe?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 09:17 pm
@cg2028,
Quote:
A very angry post indeed
How do you get from me talking about misplaced priorities to accusing me of extreme anger and resentment? The majority of Americans think that we are going in the wrong direction, that Washington is broken, it is not like I am being a radical here...Are we all defective in your books?
cg2028
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Aug, 2010 09:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
strange... I was.. agreeing with you? That I am just as angry as you are. Am I that terrible at relaying my thoughts? Perhaps I should not say anything else. I'll stop posting here. I am terribly sorry to have offended you. Good day.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 02:30 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I think we agree there. I was stating that I believe that too many people are allowing the bickering to interfere with progress
hawkeye10 wrote:
Progress is the key word here. What is progress? For far to many progress is the furtherance of their agenda,
the proving of their ideas to be right, the proselytizing of their proclivities, appetites and world view.
For SURE, that is how thay define progress, as if we had a duty to move toward THEIR goals and desires.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 07:08 am
@cg2028,
To your "bashers?"

Oh, poor bay-bee . . . how sad you're so picked on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 07:11 am
@hawkeye10,
More typical Rapist Boy whining . . . web sites are private property, there is a world of difference between being censored in a private venue and being censored in your public speech. I know this is a distinction you don't like to make, though, because your silly self-image of crusading victim for Truth, Justice and the American Way doesn't work without the martyr bullshit.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 07:12 am
@hawkeye10,
Note the verb "attempt," clown.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Thoughts on Political Correctness - Discussion by ebrown p
Lipstick vs. Uppity - Discussion by A Lone Voice
Word for a belief that ... ? - Discussion by Charli
Political correctness - Question by saab
Sports PC Run Amok - Discussion by Advocate
The NFL and political correctness - Discussion by maxdancona
Stormfront is Full of Lies - Discussion by JoeBruno
Nothing wrong with political correctness - Discussion by maxdancona
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.73 seconds on 12/14/2019 at 09:43:02