DescentBB

Foil wrote:

Heretic wrote:...but I say PC is...

Thank you for clarifying your own definition.

As long as you understand that your definition isn't necessarily shared by everyone in the conversation, we'll be fine.

So is that some kind of veiled threat? Here I looked it up for you.

Definition of POLITICALLY CORRECT

: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Source Webster's dictionary.

Let us not talk about any thing that may have to do with race or sexual discrimination thus side stepping any real debate on the issue.

Spidey wrote:But yet, they still conveniently blame the parents when something goes wrong.

Someone's been eating his Wheaties. :P

Heretic wrote:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:03 pm
Factual incorrectness is the root of PC ie Blind is visually challenged which is a Oxymoron since a blind person can do nothing visually.

Just like Afro American is used to refer to Black Americans where as all blacks are not decedent from Africans.

I find this one example funny as hell.

PC says I'm not fat, I am weight and height disproportionate so why don't we go get another Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal and super size it.

Define PC all you want but I say PC is just another way to side step the debate about inequalities and discriminatory issues of our time.

I could go on all day with all the examples and how they're stupid. Like how "Asians" aren't the only Asians, and you can't call them Oriental because they're not rugs.

Well here's a bit of PC run amuck:

\"The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. \"They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’\"

so which one is \"parent one\" and which one is \"parent two\"???

EVERYONE has a Mother and a Father. not everyone has a parent. this is assanine PC.

Ha Ha Ha, the new argument…like hyphenated names…sooner or later, you will have to start dropping some of them.

Now we will have to figure out who is parent one.

I feel that we're getting closer to a logically consistent definition of what some people in this thread call PC. This is a lot harder than it should be *sigh*. And i wish you people would stop rubbing eachother's backs for a minute and help build a logically consistent definition of PC so this thread can actually go somewhere. I swear it's like most of you people don't understand the concept of accurate communication and why it's important.

Heretic wrote:-Definition of POLITICALLY CORRECT-
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.
-Source Webster's dictionary.-

Let us not talk about any thing that may have to do with race or sexual discrimination thus side stepping any real debate on the issue.

Is this Thunderbunny's definition too? He was talking about political action... or something (it doesn't seem logically consistent).

CUDA wrote:so which one is "parent one" and which one is "parent two"???

EVERYONE has a Mother and a Father. not everyone has a parent. this is assanine PC.

This does not allow for family oddities, such as ADOPTION for example. Should the passport have the biological parents on it, or the adopted parents? The biological father, or even the biological mother (in case of adoption) may not be known. Also what about invitro fertilisation into surrogate mothers - in that case the biological mother and birth mother are different people!
I could go on...

The point to a lot of such changes to our society's language and customs is that our modern society is increasingly complex and unable to be defined by our language of the past. Some people just hate change and they try to defend their hatred ideologically, it's silly though because it's based on a spurious assumption that old is good. It's kinda like a big selfish ★■◆●-you to all of societies technological and ethical progress.

Heretic wrote:Factual incorrectness is the root of PC ie Blind is visually challenged which is a Oxymoron since a blind person can do nothing visually.

Incorrect. There are multiple levels of blindness. Even most "legally blind" people can still see a little.
Also people don't say Visually Challenged, we say Visually Impaired.

Heretic wrote:Just like Afro American is used to refer to Black Americans where as all blacks are not decedent from Africans.

All American "Blacks" are not descended from Africa? Can you please give an example to clarify.

Heretic wrote:I find this one example funny as hell.

PC says I'm not fat, I am weight and height disproportionate so why don't we go get another Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal and super size it.

No, that's actually a joke. We're talking about reality here, you're doing it wrong.


Guys if you want to talk about this specific kindof aspect of PC, could you make sure you call it something specific like "redefining terms" or "reframing" or something? It's a lot more helpful for the flow of conversation than just saying "PC". We clearly need to get to expand our vocabulary if we're going to talk about this to any end.
Otherwise all we're doing is marklar up the marklar with the marklar, i'm sick of this marklar.

PC is -Cultural Marxism-
Replace 'economics' in marxism with 'culture', then you get Political Correctness.

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of- ... rrectness/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9495797236#

Roid wrote:
This does not allow for family oddities, such as ADOPTION for example. Should the passport have the biological parents on it, or the adopted parents? The biological father, or even the biological mother (in case of adoption) may not be known. Also what about invitro fertilisation into surrogate mothers - in that case the biological mother and birth mother are different people!
I could go on...

The point to a lot of such changes to our society's language and customs is that our modern society is increasingly complex and unable to be defined by our language of the past. Some people just hate change and they try to defend their hatred ideologically, it's silly though because it's based on a spurious assumption that old is good. It's kinda like a big selfish ****-you to all of societies technological and ethical progress.\"

So Roid, you think it is proper that people become designated a numerical entity in a Borg like hive society? Where all trace of individuality are erased? The problem with that sort of thinking is after time a \"norm\" will be established and any entity exhibiting a deviation from the \"norm\" will be purged as non conforming. The question will be, \"Who will be the ones to determine what the norm is?\"

As signs of a individual are slowly stripped away, what will be done to promote a healthy conformal population. Your technology has already developed microchips that can be implanted to track your where about. There is ongoing studies for micro chips to be brain implanted to control extreme behavior. So Roid, at what point do you think your technology becomes a danger to the freedom of expression and thought?

I don't know about the rest of you, but being designated a 1 or a 2 sounds an awful lot like what you do when you go to the bathroom. I've spent 23 years being a father to my daughter, somehow for a governmental agency to strip my father status away because some gay type might be offended by the word \"father\" is...well, offensive to me.

Always with the pleading for the conversation to go your way, Roid...

Roid wrote:This does not allow for family oddities, such as ADOPTION for example. Should the passport have the biological parents on it, or the adopted parents? The biological father, or even the biological mother (in case of adoption) may not be known. Also what about invitro fertilisation into surrogate mothers - in that case the biological mother and birth mother are different people!
I could go on...

For a minute there I thought you had a point, but then I realized your argument is immaterial. It doesn't matter how they're the child's father or mother, in this instance. The airline isn't requesting a family history. Sure looks like you're trying to superimpose your own reasoning onto this, and it doesn't fit.

Roid wrote:The point to a lot of such changes to our society's language and customs is that our modern society is increasingly complex and unable to be defined by our language of the past.

Woodchip wrote:"The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

Points to anyone for an original source/link for the "gender neutral" part. Are we going somewhere yet?

And then...

Roid wrote:Some people just hate change and they try to defend their hatred ideologically, it's silly though because it's based on a spurious assumption that old is good. It's kinda like a big selfish ****-you to all of societies technological and ethical progress.

Assume, generalize, simplify, and dismiss. Ethical progress!

I'll let my original statement about PC stand. "Visually Impaired" and "African American" are not so much more effective than the terms they have replaced. Actually it seems to me that they are both subject to equal or greater inaccuracy in the subjects they're meant to describe. No... Accuracy is clearly not the goal.

Back to the wacked-out progressive nutcase drawing-board, Roid. And no crayons this time...

roid wrote:This does not allow for family oddities, such as ADOPTION for example. Should the passport have the biological parents on it, or the adopted parents? The biological father, or even the biological mother (in case of adoption) may not be known. Also what about invitro fertilisation into surrogate mothers - in that case the biological mother and birth mother are different people!
I could go on...

I'm sure you could...

Mother in this context would be the person with parental rights…the “biological” mother is not relevant, and has no place on the passport.

So much for that argument.

woodchip wrote:

roid wrote:This does not allow for family oddities, such as ADOPTION for example. Should the passport have the biological parents on it, or the adopted parents? The biological father, or even the biological mother (in case of adoption) may not be known. Also what about invitro fertilisation into surrogate mothers - in that case the biological mother and birth mother are different people!
I could go on...

The point to a lot of such changes to our society's language and customs is that our modern society is increasingly complex and unable to be defined by our language of the past. Some people just hate change and they try to defend their hatred ideologically, it's silly though because it's based on a spurious assumption that old is good. It's kinda like a big selfish ****-you to all of societies technological and ethical progress.

So Roid, you think it is proper that people become designated a numerical entity in a Borg like hive society? Where all trace of individuality are erased?

no

and what's that got to do with what i wrote?

woodchip wrote:The problem with that sort of thinking is after time a "norm" will be established and any entity exhibiting a deviation from the "norm" will be purged as non conforming. The question will be, "Who will be the ones to determine what the norm is?"

I guess the answer to that is 'someone new who is actually willing to expand the notion of "norm"', and that's clearly not the Conservatives.
The conservatives want to preserve the restrictive old way of categorising people - yes? A binary world of only "Fathers" & "Mothers" and no-one else. "You have 2 Mothers you say? Oh too bad you're up ★■◆● creek."
The alternative is this new LESS RESTRICTIVE way of categorising people that greatly EXPANDS the acceptable "norm".

The conservative reason for resisting change in these passports is to force the rest of us to conform to their childishly simplistic nuclear family ideals, to the exclusion of everything else.
Just how on earth you've interpreted these new MORE INCLUSIVE categorisations as MORE RESTRICTIVE... boggles my mind.

woodchip wrote:As signs of a individual are slowly stripped away, what will be done to promote a healthy conformal population. Your technology has already developed microchips that can be implanted to track your where about. There is ongoing studies for micro chips to be brain implanted to control extreme behavior. So Roid, at what point do you think your technology becomes a danger to the freedom of expression and thought?

These are textbook paranoid delusional conspiracies, and I suggest you discuss them in a topic all on their own rather than me laugh in your face.

woodchip wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but being designated a 1 or a 2 sounds an awful lot like what you do when you go to the bathroom. I've spent 23 years being a father to my daughter, somehow for a governmental agency to strip my father status away because some gay type might be offended by the word "father" is...well, offensive to me.

I dunno what to tell you man, maybe you should be looking to something other than your PASSPORT to tell you who you are as a person. I mean wtf, it's not your mission statement & epitaph - it's a passport.

In mail my bank routinely spells my name wrong without it giving me an identity crisis.

Sergeant Thorne, to you i would say that ethical progress is the expanding society's ethics beyond the scope of your religious text. Society is secular, and will not be governed by your Sharia Law.

Although the new parental passport system has other advantages, to me it seems that the main reason for it is to be inclusive to LGBT families.
And that's a good thing, why on earth would we want to exclude gay families from owning passports?
Personally i'm surprised they didn't also take the opportunity to expand the numbers to more than just TWO parents (i don't know maybe they did?).

If they felt that accuracy was really important in this case then they would have added more info to the passport. They could have added extra info for each parent, such as gender, sex, sexual orientation, defining features, etc. But they didn't, so i guess they didn't think it was necessary information for a passport. Do you think it's necessary information for a passport?

The passport ppl (?) with their limited space to work with, in their wisdom have opted for Inclusiveness rather than Verbose Accuracy. Apparently they have deemed the gender of each of your parents to be not important for a passport. Seems reasonable to me.

I dunno what you guys are going to do, but I'm letting my wife know right now that I got dibs on being parent one. :P

Roid wrote:Sergeant Thorne, to you i would say that ethical progress is the expanding society's ethics beyond the scope of your religious text. Society is secular, and will not be governed by your Sharia Law.

That's not true. Expanding? The ethics--the morality set forth in the Bible is not limited in scope. It's answers and warnings are just entirely at odds with your "ethical progress", and people's hearts are darkened to the point where they can't see the protection and the benefit for mankind in the principles it sets forth.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Roid wrote:Sergeant Thorne, to you i would say that ethical progress is the expanding society's ethics beyond the scope of your religious text. Society is secular, and will not be governed by your Sharia Law.

That's not true. Expanding? The ethics--the morality set forth in the Bible is not limited in scope. It's answers and warnings are just entirely at odds with your "ethical progress", and people's hearts are darkened to the point where they can't see the protection and the benefit for mankind in the principles it sets forth.

Better stop eating shellfish.

I don't think political correctness is what's stopping most people from seeing Islam's \"threat.\" I think it's ignorance and lack of interest.

Once again.... religion is dumb and makes me facepalm.

Let's not talk about religion... or atheism for that matter. 9_9

Grendel wrote:Part of PC is respect to others. Surely a concept worth spreading.

Grendel that's a beautiful pearl in this otherwise interesting conversation.

It's like I said somewhere else "Do you choose to respect yourself and others or not?"

KoolBear wrote:

Grendel wrote:Part of PC is respect to others. Surely a concept worth spreading.

Grendel that's a beautiful pearl in this otherwise interesting conversation.

It's like I said somewhere else "Do you choose to respect yourself and others or not?"

-And what I'm saying is: You don't NEED PC to have respect for others. All you need is human empathy. For some reason proponents of PC seem to want to substitute it (and their agenda for good or ill) for basic human empathy for others.

ThunderBunny wrote:

KoolBear wrote:

Grendel wrote:Part of PC is respect to others. Surely a concept worth spreading.

Grendel that's a beautiful pearl in this otherwise interesting conversation.

It's like I said somewhere else "Do you choose to respect yourself and others or not?"

-And what I'm saying is: You don't NEED PC to have respect for others. All you need is human empathy. For some reason proponents of PC seem to want to substitute it (and their agenda for good or ill) for basic human empathy for others.

And I agree! PC and our laws will be the death of America!

It's all about manipulation of the masses by dictating a brand of morality as the standard you are expected to follow if you want to be held in the good graces of the people judging you.
The only difference between the religion of, say the Catholic Church, and the religion of PC is the Pope only asks you to check in for an hour or so every Sunday morning and Bill Marr and company expect you to tune in nightly and Bill doesn't wear a funny hat.

That and we have laws protecting us from the rules of the church while on the other side we have the left trying to install as many PC laws as fast as possible!

what are some of these PC laws you are talking about?

stay informed ...

http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/take ... asp?id=384

I was watching a show the other day on PBS, this guy was saying that it’s very possible a great deal of the verses in the Koran have been Mis-Translated/Mis-Interpreted.

One example…the 72 virgins thingy, he says the actual verse may go more like this…

“If you kill in God’s name, you will face the many grapes of wrath” (God’s Wrath). (paraphrased)

A far cry from getting a reward.

KoolBear wrote:stay informed ...

http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/take ... asp?id=384

Yes, and if people still followed the Old Testament letter-for-letter, we'd be stoning adulterers in the streets. I don't know that I see us doing that.

Stay misinformed, you mean.

roid wrote:what are some of these PC laws you are talking about?

can someone answer this

roid wrote:

roid wrote:what are some of these PC laws you are talking about?

can someone answer this

good luck

roid wrote:

Heretic wrote:Just like Afro American is used to refer to Black Americans where as all blacks are not decedent from Africans.

All American "Blacks" are not descended from Africa? Can you please give an example to clarify.

Also this, can i get an answer to this please.

lol