georgeob1 wrote:Diest TKO wrote:People (
most commonly Right wing people in my experience), misuse and mistake "political correctness" for decency, then argue angaist it. Ultimately in the end all they argue agaist is decency.
I've been absent from this thread for sometime, but to see the introduction of science into this arguement is... interesting.
Francis wrote:I find, indeed, that the new "politically correct" is the secular religion of this century.
I hate hearing things like this. It's as if all religionists, think that averyone MUST be a part of a religion, and therefore the absence of religion is a religion. Reducing things to simple terms may be convieniant, but it's far from honest.
Question: What do you call people who argue for equal rights, and cultural promotion without the veil of religion?
T
K
O
What if, instead of "religionists", you directed these rather sweeping condemnations and comments against (say) black homosexuals over 50 years of age? Do you think the "politically correct" response might be a little different?
If you can answer that question truthfully, then you will have discovered the difference between PC and "decency".
LOl.
Your question which you ask for my honesty is a quite literally a "what if." There is no answer I could give you to your satisfaction. The question itself is poorly constructed.
Next, the use of the word "religionists" is the absence of say me specifically targeting a specific religion. I don't see the problem. I'm sure there are non-religious people out their trying to act out the oxymoronic dance of making non-religion a religion, but those fools are free to dance on their own.
Last, I'll give this one consolation prize as far as PC goes. It's not just the Right that uses it incorrectly, the left pushes forward some of the most obtuse things as being an issue of PCness, but in fact they are not. This convolution of what PC means is just as much the fault of the Left.
All that aside, reread my post especially the blue text before accusing me of sweeping condemnations.
Lastly, I was kind enough to answer your questions, please answer mine.
Question: What do you call people who argue for equal rights, and cultural promotion without the veil of religion?
Thank you
K
O
It is you who persistently hides behind vagueries. Now I see that it is not just "the right" that misunderstands PC, "The Left" misunderstands it too. Evidently only you are blessed with the right understanding of this elusive condition.
I have no idea what you mean by metaphorical phrases like "the veil of religion" or others, for that matter, like "equal rights" or "cultural promotion". Not all rights are equal and a fundamental feature of all legal systems is an attempt to pragmatically rank them in various situations. Not all cultures are equal either, unless you are willing to assert that (say) NAMBLA, as an identifiable subculture should have equal standing with (say) the NAACP.
What do you mean by "decency"?
georgeob1 wrote:
It is you who persistently hides behind vagueries. Now I see that it is not just "the right" that misunderstands PC, "The Left" misunderstands it too. Evidently only you are blessed with the right understanding of this elusive condition.
I'm not blessed, and I'm not lucky either. It's not the condition that is elusive.
georgeob1 wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by metaphorical phrases like "the veil of religion" or others, for that matter, like "equal rights" or "cultural promotion".
Not my job to reconcile this for you.
georgeob1 wrote:
Not all rights are equal and a fundamental feature of all legal systems is an attempt to pragmatically rank them in various situations.
What nonsense are you babling about? When did I create a hierarchy of rights?
georgeob1 wrote:
Not all cultures are equal either, unless you are willing to assert that (say) NAMBLA, as an identifiable subculture should have equal standing with (say) the NAACP.
You're awesome. I make no assertion, but just because I don't, it doesn't illegitimize the need for cultures like the Native Americans needing promotion etc.
georgeob1 wrote:
What do you mean by "decency"?
In this context, I'd be refering to motive in the selection of the language you use when addressing a person/people. A "PC" would be the motive to offend nobody. Decency would be the motive to be a better person; not to be ingenuine to yourself and your fellow human.
T
K
O
P.s. - It's not hard to answer my question, you're just making it hard.
No, you are merely spouting nonsense and wiggling out of any attempt to get you to pin your meaning down. Perhaps you can find someone who enjoys the game. I don't.
georgeob1 wrote:No, you are merely spouting nonsense and wiggling out of any attempt to get you to pin your meaning down. Perhaps you can find someone who enjoys the game. I don't.
Look at the evidence in this thread.
You pose questions that I answer.
I pose questions that you still haven't answered.
You're in position to point fingers.
T
K
O
awright awright calm down lads
ere wats all this about the Sun in Polish?
(shurely shome mishtakesky...ed)
The (London)
Evening Standard is notoriously stoking fears about the "huge" immigration to Britain (and London)
So, today on page 4:
But the surpring facts only to be found in the last chapter:
Online version
Hey I found this letter on the BNP website- a site I have never visited before today, and may never again....
"Advice to Muslims
This may sound strange, coming from a Jew who was born and bred in London, but I understand and sympathise with a lot of what you say, as well as much of what the Muslims say.
Allow me to clarify: like the Muslims in the UK, I have lived as a minority, and know what it is to be inherently different from the majority surrounding culture. I understand and sympathise with the Muslims who feel that they are sidelined - they celebrate different festivals, eat different food, dress differently, and have names that immediately mark them out from the indigenous inhabitants.
That is where my sympathy with the Muslims ends. At school and university, I brought my own packed lunches, because it would never have occurred to me to demand kosher food in a non-Jewish environment. When I worked in a local supermarket to pay my way through university, I would never have dreamed of trying to impose my (Jewish) ideology on customers by refusing to serve non-kosher food.
When I eventually decided that I would rather live in a Jewish environment, and when I realised that I would be more comfortable in a country where I would have the right to demand Jewish standards in public life, I emigrated to Israel - the only country on God's earth where I have the right to demand a Jewish ethos in public life.
I would advise every Muslim to consider two points:
1) If you are going to live as a minority (religious, racial, ethnic, national, or anything else) somewhere in the world, then Britain is the country to choose. Britain is more tolerant of diversity, and more generous in welcoming outsiders, than just about any other country in the world. If you're a Muslim in Britain, then thank Allah that you or your parents or grandparents chose as they did.
2) If, in spite of this, you would rather live under Sharia law, if you do not want to be marked out as different because you celebrate Ramadan and Eid el-Fidr rather than Christmas and Easter, if you want to have the right to demand that public institutions provide you with halal food, if you want to ban women from displaying their faces and their arms in public - then do as I, and more than 5,000 other British Jews, have done in the last decade or so: move to a country in which you will be part of the majority culture. But do not, under any circumstances, outstay your welcome and abuse your hosts' generosity by trying to impose your ideology on your adopted country.
Jonathan Feldheim, formerly London, now Jerusalem "
Might be or not.
The Ministry of Immigrant Absorption's last published (online) figurs only give the statistics for Western Europe and specify France only.
From 1989 until 2004:
Western Europe: 46,428
Thereof: France: 27,424
From a recent report in the
European Jewish Press:
Quote:Under a new campaign for 2008, the immigration and absorption ministry said it was looking to repatriate 15,000 Israelis living abroad and bring in 20,000 new Jewish immigrants next year.
[...]
The rate of immigration is set to fall this year to the lowest level since 1988, with only 14,843 new immigrants since January 2007 compared to 19,624 in 2006, according to ministry statistics.
[...]
Since the beginning of this year, 14,843 Jews settled in Israel, including 4,671 from the former Soviet Union, 2,661 from Ethiopia, 2,412 from the US and 2,301 from France.
I thought this was higher, but then again I'll have to check the Jerusalem Post ( back issue ).
Miller wrote:
I thought this was higher, but then again I'll have to check the Jerusalem Post ( back issue ).
Well, if you tink their numbers to be more correct than the official by the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption - no problem.
But they've the same numbers: 16 Oct 2007, page 4
Miller wrote:I thought this was higher, but then again I'll have to check the Jerusalem Post ( back issue ).
And? Did they print a special copy with different figures for you? :wink:
While Diaspora Jews may be going to Israel, Israelis are oftentimes headed to the U.S. I have no statistics, but I think those that have financial resources occasionally like to have an apartment in NYC, preferably Brooklyn.
I've read that some Israelis can suffer from claustrophobia, living in a country the size of New Jersey and usually hot.
Perhaps, Israel is, unbeknownst to many, the unofficial 51st state?
Outcasts: Italy turns on its immigrants in wake of a murder
These are the first victims of a brutal Italian crackdown on immigrants. As thousands await deportation without trial, are we entering a new era of intolerance across Europe?
By Peter Popham in Rome
Published: 03 November 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3124253.ece
The Roma have been in Europe thousands of years. Do they qualify as an immigrant group, considering there is no Roma nation?
Why doesn't the UN give them a nation? Where? Do they want a nation?
Why were they living in shanty town shacks? The problem sounds deeper than just xenophobia.
