Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

You seem to have rights and respect confused, as well.

Your candor is appreciated as much as your humor... but it does serve to prove my point. :wink:


Not sure where I picked that up, to be honest with you (Set maybe?). Anyway, I was thinking a cross between verbally bullied/challenged or something to that affect. I'll try to use real words in the future. :wink:

No Lash, my answers make perfect sense to me and create no contradictions. Stop behaving like... well... um... an aggravated liberal for a moment; and TRY to read the answers from my perspective. I know damn well you can do it if you want to. Too incredulous to even fathom extremes don't suit you well.

Give your answer, Bill.

How odd--in 1989, Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas, and was almost unknown outside the region. Yet you assert that liberals did back-flips because Governor Clinton of Arkansas did not speak out against the Tiananmen Square massacre (in fact, he did speak out, but people don't pay much attention to Governors of Arkansas).

As it happens, i lived in southern Illinois in the 1980s, and the local affiliate of the NBC television system was located in Pine Bluff, Arkansas--otherwise, i would have been like everyone else in the country, sublimely indifferent to the very existence of Clinton.

I submit that you are just making things up, now.


As for what assumptions i made, or that you made, you wrote:



You say that you're surprised that there isn't more animosity toward Clinton for signing the Defense of Marriage Act--so it is not unreasonable infer that you assume both that Clinton was liberal, and that he relied upon liberals for his support. Otherwise, what the hell is "liberals doing back-flips" supposed to me.

Frankly, i strongly suspect that you were simply airing the rather typically dull-witted assumption of conservatives in the United States that all Democrats are liberals, and that all liberals support everything that any Democrat proposes, or gasp in horror at anyone who steps out of line. Any way you look at it, your remarks demonstrate a simple-minded view of politics, politicians and political opinion in this country.

Just to clarify, once again, Clinton was first sworn-in as President three and half years after the Tiananmen Square massacres--once again, just to clarify, i think you're making sh*t up.




To the extent that religious people actually wish to confer less rights to gays (other than use of the term "marriage") I would agree it is out of bigotry and would not support it. Again, give the term back to the church where it belongs.[/quote]

The biggest problem I have with gay marriage is that they might reproduce more of themselves. Actually, as my mum used to say, if we had more mixed marriages, we would have fewer mixed marriages.

I did want to return to make sure I noted the difference between respecting individual's rights to worship as they choose--and respect for the religious tradition (one of the singular most damaging traditions known to man, imo). I uphold and revere the former and depise the latter.

In case anyone is missing the point, same-sex marriage is not a liberal vs. conservative controversy. There are people who would otherwise be called liberal who oppose it, and people who would otherwise be called conservative who support it. Even the evidence at this site is that there are conservatives who think the government has no business attempting to regulate this.

Caught me in error with the Tiananmen Square backlash, Set. Why you would assume this error is a lie, I'm not sure, but I'm used to that kind of abuse from you. Do you assume I "made up" the reaction, or deliberately misplaced the blame on Clinton at that time? I submit you offer your submission for the sole purpose of insult and incite. What's new? The balance of you assumptions remain your assumptions... and remain just as false. This discussion has been crossing standard Left/Right lines on A2K at least since the Mary Cheney thread, years ago. It is confused (by me at least) as a liberal Vs conservative thing as you imagine it, only in your imagination. The statement you quoted to justify your error (or intentional misinterpretation for the purpose of providing a platform to insult) was comparing Lash's reaction to Liberal Reaction. Are you under the impression I've mistaken Lash for a liberal? Or do you think it's possible I expect more overreaction from liberals than I do from Lash? (Which was obviously my point, to those not fixated on fragmenting it to demonstrate their imaginative, but never the less false, assumptions).

Telling that child is not encouraging homosexuality. Telling straight kids, who haven't asked, is. Where's the contradiction?

Bill, there is no measuring stick that miraculously divines whether a child is gay or straight. Many young people struggle with this for years. Some can never come to terms with the truth about their orientation. Some kill themselves because of the crushing stigma associated with being gay. You are creating that stigma.

If you tell a "straight kid" it's ok to be gay, do you really think he'll repress his attraction to girls and go find a boy to screw?

Look at nimh's question.

"Is telling people growing up and fearful about admitting they're homosexual that it's OK to be gay - as OK as it is to be straight - "encouraging homosexuality"?"

You said no. Who is it that we need to hide this information from? How will you and the religious community decide who can know this information? The fact that you want to hide this information from "straight kids" loudly informs the gay kids that you are lying about it being ok. Why do that to them? What have they done to you?

The very ones you "shield from the truth" about gayness being ok--Those people may be viewed by you and their parents as "straight," but many of them aren't. They are the ones who need to know society will not reject them because of a circumstance of their birth. These are the ones you commit to a life of misery.

You answer is contradictory and heartless.

Refusing to acknowledge that gayness is ok just creates more homophobes and contributes to the suicide of young gay people.

No, I do not. Nor do I care what's written in a book that was translated umteen times before King James. This isn't my fight. However, unlike you; I can see room for balance between religious freedom and gay rights. Gay kids have parents to tell them it's OK to be gay, Bob has two moms and why, Johns father is a crackhead, Jakes mom smokes pot, Jim's dad has 5 wives, Jane's mom loves gambling, Josh's dad likes prostitutes, etc. While all of these things may be true, none of them need to be taught in our schools. It doesn't matter that, through no fault of Joe's, his father is a NAMBLA member. Every kid doesn't need to know about it and why. If you think your children do; tell them... but don't presume to tell 25th generation Christians what their kids need to know or when. While I'm not a religious man, and I have no children of my own; I don't believe a 7 year old necessarily needs to be burdened with the trials of life still to come.

That little Joe is gay, is no reason every kid needs to see two dad's in his childhood stories. That little Joe was molested, is no reason every kid needs to read that there's child Molesters. That little Joe doesn't always get enough to eat, is no reason every kid needs to read about starvation. That little Joe's mom gambles away the welfare check, is no reason every kid needs to read about gambling. That little Joe's dad drinks beer, is no reason every kid needs to read about alcohol. That little Joe's mom smokes pot, is no reason every kid needs to read about pot. That little Joe's Dad is on Death Row for a murder he didn't commit... probably because he's Black in a racist community, is no reason every kid needs to read about murder and racism. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

Little Joe has parents to decide which of life's realities to teach him and when. I would want to teach my child about all of these things to prepare him/her for adulthood. But not necessarily at the age of 7. YOU have no right to intercede. Religious people have every right to raise their children as they see fit. In this country; parents have the right to teach their children love, hate, tolerance or intolerance. When you presume to legally regulate which ideals should be thrust upon everyone's children; you're standing on a slippery slope. Why can't the schools teach about the benevolent Supreme Being? Is it going to harm little Joe in some way that his peers worship the invisible man? Probably not... but I think we both agree that this kind of lessen is up to little Joe's parents to decide.

While in your mind it is simply noble to introduce your ideals to everyone's child; you stand adamantly against religious people from doing the same. This is the contradiction. You simply have no right to decide what little Joe's friends should learn about or when. Fortunately for you, neither does little John's parents, who believe in God's word and polygamy.



You don't want gay kids to learn that a great number of people believe they're doomed to eternal damnation... do you? Are you prepared to give equal time to the opposing opinions? Why do you presume to have the right to make that call for everyone? Some religious folks are equally certain of the existence of a Supreme being who requires our lives to be lived by a certain doctrine in order to pass into the next life in good standing. Is it necessary for all children to be exposed to these values, so that their children feel comfortable with themselves? Why... or why not?

A child born into certain religions will carry similar burdens; ask any Mormon. Through no fault of the child's, he/she will frequently be subject to ridicule and be rejected by society in much the same way. Does this child require that every child be subject to his parent's ideals to avoid the stigmas inherent in his plight as well? Why is this child's feelings of not fitting in with mainstream society any less compelling? If you don't advocate a similar awareness campaign; what do you think appropriate to comfort this child's feelings?

Your answers are equally contradictory and that is the very reason we need to respect each others rights to believe in different ideals, if not the ideals themselves. You can not presume to superimpose your ideals over anyone else's, without recognizing the contradiction in not recognizing their desire to do the same. If you don't want them to do it; you shouldn't either.

Be that as it may; refusing to acknowledge that polygamy is accepted by the Lord just creates more religious intolerance. That this is true as well, in no way suggests believers of same have some right to remedy that supersedes anyone else's beliefs, right to their own ideals, or freedom to teach their children as they see fit. You have no more right to teach Joe's children that it's OK to be gay, than Joe has to teach your children that the bible says gay kids are going to hell. Regardless of how certain either of you are of the righteousness of your positions; you are both wrong when you presume to superimpose your beliefs on the other's children. Both you and Joe do have the right to teach your own kids whatever you see fit. This, Lash, is freedom.

Until you can recognize the rights of a man standing center stage, advocating at the top of his lunges that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours; you haven't figured out what freedom is all about. Yes, sometimes it hurts... but would you really have it any other way?

In addition to your emphatic remarks about Clinton's reaction to the Tiananmen Square massacre, complete with reference to your classic liberal sister, you seem to lack reading skills. You were the one that suggested that liberals would go ballistic at Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act, to which i responded by pointing out that it is not a liberal v. conservative thing.

And what's really pathetic is that when confronted with your confusion, and your fairy tale memories, you attempt to dodge your failure by accusations about my behavior. Poor, long-suffering, oh so noble Bill. What a crock.

Bill

You entered into a discussion between me and someone else, which is always fine if you know what we're talking about.

You didn't, but I was happy to open a dialogue with you--but this lumbering, off topic blob of curiosity doesn't resemble any issue I was addressing.

Equal rights for everyone is what I am discussing and advocating.

If you are in agreement--good.

If not, I disagree with you.

The rest seems intended for someone other than me.

It is NOT freedom to deny someone equal rights under the law--no matter how you spin it.

It need not be a Liberal Vs Conservative thing for liberals to go ballistic on Clinton... or anyone else. Your imagination is the only place you're pointing something out.

I attempted to dodge nothing. I stated in plain language that you caught me in error. That you would capitalize on that fact to falsely accuse me of lying; I'm sure comes as a surprise to no one.

Another PC issue in the news.

Is this bad?
If so, how bad is it?

Saying it in the first place is pretty insensitive and I can understand the reaction... but denying he said it is just as bad? If I said I never called my X a whore, is that the same as calling her one? I think not. Frankly, I was unaware that Faggot was that bad of a term in the first place. Is it really so bad that it's one of those words that should never be spoken, like the N word?

Well, I use it as a word to describe small pieces of wood all the time, and had no idea that it was offensive to gays. And now that I do know, I intend to keep using the word at my leisure, because why should I be responsible for what some super-sensitive, PC freaks say? It's just another example of some victim-minded people trying to put artificial limits on freedom of speech.

Huh? Obviously it's offensive Snood; that wasn't my point. My question was one of degree. If I am indeed ignorant of the extent of the insult, I'd like to know... so that I too can hyperventilate and freak out at its every utterance. Alternately, if it's only halfway up the offensive scale; a simple may suffice. Kidding aside; an ill timed use of the N-word or C-word will make my hair stand up and my blood boil and I'd like to know if this F-word belongs in the same category. In certain circumstances, I know it does from experience, having been nose to nose with a bigot on behalf of a friend before. But, to date, the N and C words have always seemed to be in a class by themselves.

Well, that's your opinion, Bill. And mine is that I shouldn't be restricted by the PC police in my useage of a word that is perfectly harmless in certain contexts, especially since I had no idea that anyone could ever take the word "faggot" as an offense. It's a part of history - you can find it in novels and texts.