| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/02/2006 09:29:51 PM · #1 |
"Why doesn't the government just step in and make cigarettes and alcohol illegal like marijuana or cocaine? Well, I think I found the answer myself. If I was getting fifty billion dollars a year, I wouldn't do away with anything either. It's greed." (exerpt from start of thread by Deapee.)
1. Political Correctness defines Good & Bad according to the beliefs of the largest majority of people.
2. Political Correctness is situational in application. (i.e. If it's correct for "that" situation, then it's correct.)
3. Political Correctness does not countenance a moral absolute that is true in every thread of life.
4. Political Correctness infects an ever-growing number of hearts through the contagion of the assumed "goodness" of popularity.
5. Political Correctness is the MRSA of thought (i.e. It is resistant to health-giving properties of logic & of principle.)
Why this thread?
Years ago when it became popular to attack the cigarette industry, I became suspicious. "Why...all of a sudden...after centuries of smoking are we hearing about a rush to ban smoking?"
I decided to just keep listening...O,...and...I thought that it was high time I learned how to smoke, if for no other reason than to say, "In your face" to all the evangelists of PC. (If you haven't guessed by now, I despise anyone who talks like a Borg.) Cigars have become my personal favorite!
Result?
Research has proven my suspicions. "The LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Put another way "The HAVES & the HAVE-NOTS both love money."
Cigarette companies = Money! (The HAVES!) Ban-Smoking Evangelists = Don't have cigarette money! (The HAVE-NOTS!)
Application is unequal because abortion remains legal because of agreement with the hearts of Ban-Smoking Evangelists.
Abortion clinics = Money! (The HAVES!) Pro-Life Movement = No Money! (The HAVE-NOTS...with one caveat...They don't care about money. They care about LIFE!)
One statement will connect this apparently incongruous argument.
"If abortion-rights activists scream long & loud, 'Get your Moralizing Hands off my body!,' then why do many of those same people think they have the right to get their 'Moralizing Hands' all over the bodies of smokers?"
Ah, the schizophrenia of Political Correctness! :)
|
|
|
|
08/02/2006 09:36:01 PM · #2 |
Hmmmmmm interesting viewpoint. I'm guessing this gets shifted to "Rant". Just a guess.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2006 09:36:19 PM · #3 |
I like your rant, but I can't swallow this statement:
"Political Correctness defines Good & Bad according to the beliefs of the largest majority of people."
In my experience in the last couple decades in the US, political correctness has been a definition of good/bad (mainly in the sense of written/spoken words) as defined by a vocal minority whose sole interest is supposedly preventing some other helpless group of people from being offended.
For example, it is politically incorrect to describe something as 'gay'. The homosexual community doesn't represent a majority in this country, yet this term is deemed offensive and politically incorrect. There are other examples, I picked an easy one.
Other than that, rant on.
Edit to add: the obvious answer to what you pose will be that smoking hurts other people while abortion advocates would say abortion does not. I'm not taking sides, as I lack a uterus and do happen to smoke, but there it is.
Message edited by author 2006-08-02 21:40:24. |
|
|
|
08/02/2006 09:38:23 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Hmmmmmm interesting viewpoint. I'm guessing this gets shifted to "Rant". Just a guess. |
You must have a sixth sense for these things. :P |
|
|
|
08/02/2006 09:39:44 PM · #5 |
PC: "I am having a cigarette"
unPC: "I am having a fag"
I get it :^) |
|
|
|
08/03/2006 09:48:04 AM · #6 |
Thank you for some well-conceived logic so far. Also, thanks for the humor, like Lozza.
Point well taken & received from routerguy666. I am willing to amend my original supposition to include "In my experience in the last couple decades in the US, political correctness has been a definition of good/bad (mainly in the sense of written/spoken words) as defined by a vocal minority whose sole interest is supposedly preventing some other helpless group of people from being offended." I am reminded of the truth of that statement as I think back over the decades of my life.
As to rank, I willingly bear that moniker if need be, since I almost posted there anyway. I confess that I do believe in one Moral Absolute and always have from my young childhood. My beliefs have been so unbending and so tied to this Moral Absolute that even the Christian minority with which I have the most in common considers my beliefs to be minority.
"Ravings of a Madman"? Possibly...but even that cannot be proven nore disproven with 100% accuracy in this life (unless, of course, one considers their own belief to be a moral absolute.;)
What I have found intriguing is this...when others encounter my belief system the vast majority "write me off" as a "closed-mind recluse whose whole goal in life is offending people." This is a tragic bit of irony, since it appears that logically a "closed-mind" is required to take one very heart-felt aspect of my World View and apply its admittedly "unbending" stance to all aspect of human interaction.
Simply put. I have strong beliefs about Faith. I do not expect others (who hold other beliefs) to act nor to think as I do. I am willingly to listen & to ponder other beliefs. Ultimately, I am willing to choose the strongest belief (i.e. the belief that most closely matches the Standard of Truth.) (Yet, even "Standard of Truth" is a matter of Faith.)
Finally, Thanks routerguy666 for helping me to clarify my viewpoint. You stated, "Edit to add: the obvious answer to what you pose will be that smoking hurts other people while abortion advocates would say abortion does not. I'm not taking sides, as I lack a uterus and do happen to smoke, but there it is."
I am well aware that abortion advocates would say abortion does not "hurt anyone." When I became a Reagan Republican in 1980, it was because of the Pro-Life issue. Maybe contemplation over the number of women who have died from abortions in legalized clinics would moderate that viewpoint. Pro-Choice advocates pride themselves on protecting the rights of women. That is commendable! I believe in protecting the rights of women as well as...I humbly submit to you that I only expand that compassion to include the rights of "unborn women" and "unborn men" (I have enough compassion for them as well.)
Please Pardon me, but Death in the womb does not logically appear to be "No harm!"
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 10:00:29 AM · #7 |
| IMHO, the "vocal minority" is largely the media. TV is a very powerful tool. People tend to believe what they hear and see on TV, no matter how idiotic it is. |
|
|
|
08/03/2006 10:28:31 AM · #8 |
Interesting.
The roots of political correctness are not particularly objectionable, I think, though it is always a question of degree as to how far political correctness should be applied. For example, there are a number of phrases applied to distinguish between people of different colour skin. Using the more offensive words is, for the most part, socially unacceptable or "politically incorrect". The reasoning is good: using words that denigrate people as a consequence of their skin colour perpetuates racism that is socially and economically harmful.
So, applied moderately, political correctness can be quite a positive force, improving society. However, people will apply it to different degrees.
Some will worry too much, and apply political correctness to an extreme beyond the mainstream social thinking (eg, calling a cleaner a "hygiene operative" when in reality the word "cleaner" is generally unobjectionable). This gives the concept of political correctness a bad name.
Some will disagree with its the change in mainstream social thinking that is reflected in a moderate politically correct approach. Some will (misguidedly) blame the concept of political correctness for making their behaviour unacceptable, rather than the changes in social thinking.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 10:42:50 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
"Why...all of a sudden...after centuries of smoking are we hearing about a rush to ban smoking?" |
If you want one of the main reasons, it is because research in the last 5 or so years has demonstrated the dangerous effects of second hand smoking. There have been several cases of this being effectively prosecuted. Given the danger, governments must be seen to act.
I agree, however, that cigars (good Cuban ones, mind!) are an excellent way to finish an evening.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:02:57 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Please Pardon me, but Death in the womb does not logically appear to be "No harm!" |
The conceptual difference is that you treat a particular collection of cells at any stage as being fully fledged life, entitled to full rights to life. Pro-choice supporters think that the same collection of cells starts off with no rights, but gradually attains that status.
If, hypothetically, you were to accept that the right to life forms gradually (a matter of shades of grey, rather than being a black and white issue), then you might accept that there is a logical reason behind the pro-life movement. The reasoning being that the mother has certain rights, and as the foetus' develops from nothing, its right to life must at some point intersect with, and overtake, the mother's right to control her body. Before that stage, the mother's right to control is more important than the foetus' right to life.
There is another whole argument as to the point at which the two rights intersect.
As I said, this rational explanation depends entirely on you accepting hypothetically that rights attaching to life increase gradually from none to full. I accept that you do not think that this is the case.
There are a lot of arguments on both sides as to why life should be considered fully protected from the moment of conception (or even before!), or why its rights should be viewed as growing incrementally. There are very few (maybe no?) logical reasons in favour of either of these arguments.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:10:12 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
So, applied moderately, political correctness can be quite a positive force, improving society. |
I would disagree (as we often seem to do heheh), and I will voice an opposing opinion here while at the same time expressing my disinterest in participating in a protracted debate on the topic.
Poltical correctness fosters an environment of fear and paranoia, underneath which boils resentment in people who still believe that speech should be free.
I should be able to use the term 'gay' to describe something that I don't like. Because the term gay also refers to a homosexual does not by default mean that I am denigrating homosexuals by calling a song, or a movie or whatever 'gay'. But because of political correctness I take a risk if I choose to call something gay. I risk getting a lecture about offending gay people, I risk being labeled a homophobe, etc. All entirely dependant on who happens to be within earshot at the time. All because I used a 3 letter word that has a specific meaning in my mind to express an emotion I want to express.
This is wrong. People should be free to say what they want without fear of social stigma. I should be able to call something gay without fear of someone else interpreting it in the way most offensive to them. I should be able to refer to someone as black without someone getting bent out of shape that I have not referred to them as a hyphenated american, etc.
It is very easy for adults to determine if someone is purposely being offensive in their speech. Righteous indignation at purposely offensive speech is merited. Misconstruing intent when you hear other people talk and then trying to force upon society a culture wherein the litmus test for appropriate speech is to interpret it in the worst way possible to see if there is a chance that someone might be offended is insanity.
There's my rant.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:14:14 AM · #12 |
the biggest problem I have with the Pro Life movement is that it is not taking the best strategy to achieve their purported goal. To reduce abortions, reduce the stigma of having a baby out of wedlock, reduce "unwanted" pregnancies with birth control, reduce the financial strain of having a baby
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:18:29 AM · #13 |
Sounds to me like (both of) you are using the term "political correctness" to rob the humanity of the person you are offending. That person was personally offended. S/he was not some vast conspiracy, just a single individual whose feelings you hurt. Offense and hurt feelings are as old as speech.
If you want to talk about how institutions oppress free speech, go ahead. You haven't yet.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:23:23 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
If you want to talk about how institutions oppress free speech, go ahead. You haven't yet. |
I gave two examples of how speech is oppressed by the social instituion known as political correctness.
Some other examples - pick a large corporation and they will have a published guideline for what words are considered inappropriate for use in corporate communications. These lists do not just include swear words and blatantly sexual/racist terms. They include all sorts of words in common use that may offend an individual or small group.
My university newspaper had a similiar list.
You do not have a right to only hear and read things that do not offend you. You do have a right to free speech. |
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:27:06 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Poltical correctness fosters an environment of fear and paranoia, underneath which boils resentment in people who still believe that speech should be free.
I should be able to use the term 'gay' to describe something that I don't like. ... |
I agree with you: it is over applied, and it should not be applied unreasoningly. A lot of people over-concern themselves with these things (and I think that the US is one of the worst culprits!). I think that it is a consequence of society placing emotional awareness over rational, intellectual and logical thought. I too think that the balance there is wrong.
Personally, I have never heard the word "gay" being thought of as politically incorrect. But then in the UK it is also okay to refer to someone as "black" (which I understand is not so good in the US). My grandmother still refers to "coloureds", which is not really very acceptable because it is derogatory, but reflects the changes in social thinking/acceptability over time.
However, I presume that there are some words that you do not think are socially acceptable? If I called every woman a whore, or every black person a nigger, is that socially acceptable? You are allowed to say it, but it is politically incorrect, and people generally will not tolerate it because denigrating all women because of their sex, or all black people because of their skin colour, are concepts that are outdated, irrational, and we have worked hard to eliminate them from society. If you do think that people should tolerate you using those words, then I suggest that your complaint is not with political correctness, but the changes in society.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:30:39 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
pick a large corporation and they will have a published guideline for what words are considered inappropriate for use in corporate communications. These lists do not just include swear words and blatantly sexual/racist terms. They include all sorts of words in common use that may offend an individual or small group. |
I'm not crazy about such lists, but you should realize that an employee has never enjoyed free speech in the workplace. Usually this restricted speech has been in place to please the high-ups. When rules are added to make the work environment more pleasant for the little people, THEN the complaints come about "political correctness." And by the way, in my actual experience in corporations, of which I have far too much, I've never been given such a list. I have been occasionally given "training" in how not to sexually harrass people. It seemed more like common sense and courtesy than oppression.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 11:53:13 AM · #17 |
To a certain extent it seems to me that many/most Americans do not understand the "freedom of speech" issue. Here's the actual text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that the amendment does NOT address in any substantial way what is or is not protected speech; it simply states that the FEDERAL government may not restrict it. "Free speech" in the sense that some people define it ("You can't stop me from saying whatever I want to say") is a myth; it has never existed nor has it ever been protected by law. An individual, in other words, has the right to restrict "freedom of speech" by those who are on his property, just to give one example.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2006 12:04:44 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To a certain extent it seems to me that many/most Americans do not understand the "freedom of speech" issue. Here's the actual text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that the amendment does NOT address in any substantial way what is or is not protected speech; it simply states that the FEDERAL government may not restrict it. "Free speech" in the sense that some people define it ("You can't stop me from saying whatever I want to say") is a myth; it has never existed nor has it ever been protected by law. An individual, in other words, has the right to restrict "freedom of speech" by those who are on his property, just to give one example.
R. |
Property rights are codified in laws. Laws are created by Congress. Congress can not pass laws that abridge freedom of speech, therefore freedom of speech is not dependant on where you happen to be standing.
No law "abridging the freedom of speech" quite clearly means that you absolutely have a right to say what you want. What you describe, 'what is or is not protected speech' implies an abridgement of speech. The constitution is quite clear. Why else a supreme court fight over yelling fire in a theater??
edit: However, what is more interesting and more relevant to the discussion is how a social construct such as so-called political correctness can operate as some sort of quasi-law in that it modifies behaviour under threat of punishment (law suit, social stigma, etc), and how and why this was allowed to happen.
Message edited by author 2006-08-03 12:12:23. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 12:09:48 PM · #19 |
As a universal concept, the freedom of speech is more closely linked to the right to express political views without being oppressed by the state. It is not generally intended, say, to permit someone to cause havoc and personal injury in a theatre, or to cause economic damage through slander.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 02:05:48 PM EDT.
