Avgvsto
(?)Community Member
Dapper Reveler
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:24:35 +0000
Alright so we had a sort of debate think in a class of mine and my teacher didn't like my paper so maybe you guys would like it better. I'll readdress certain issues using a footnote style so that I can make some points more clearly felt with and more easily debatable. And yeah i know my subscripts look silly as s**t. For those of you who have any interest the topic question was "has political correctness gone to far?"
Before all else it should be mentioned that the specific topic of "socially acceptable behavior" is quite an opinionated and controversial field which is much more than likely completely fruitless to get into. In all actuality I've recently come to the opinion that social fluctuations of any sort should not at all be considered stigma but this whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support and stands agains most modern science regarding that field. What can be stated pretty easily are the basic rights attributed to certain organizations. For instance, I can hardly see an appropriate counter argument to my claiming that it is a negation of terms for a government which has its basis in tenants consisting of a first amendment right guaranteeing freedom of thought as well as a separation of church and state1 to firstly have a hand in an education system which is enforced and further to have power in both media2 and acceptability of opinions3. That said I find nothing wrong with the concept of a healthy and untouched political correctness and media should be able to base its opinions on any reason it so chooses as it has been given those rights of exersizing free thought and perspective as previously stated. Thusly, my conclusion is this: any form of opinion and acceptance thereof in accord to pure business or societal preference is lawfully acceptable as long as not forcibly mandated, yet any organization funded or directly subservient to Government established indoctrination or censoring is simply an act of treason and should be dealt with on legal punishment of firstly exile and secondly a certain debt of the people's choosing.
1 Firstly it must be clear that I am speaking on the behalf of the United States of America and am not attempting any further arguments on a universal scale- Europeans and stuff can GTFO. "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." - This is according to a website that is .Gov and i think it's pretty much right. If you believe this fact is irrelevant than i will also present this statement from the Declaration of Independence which established the legitimacy of the USA sovereignty- "....--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"..... That said, why would a government that has decided to ignore its tenants for existence be any more sovereign over a untied states citizen than the previous British government. Why should I pay attention to someone who doesn't even pay attention to their own laws?
2 I must admit I'm too lazy to do much research but I'm pretty sure this is true. Quickly look up the funding into our prominent news sources and i doubt (and kind of hope so i don't link like an idiot) that it will be too far away from federal funding. If I'm wrong you can disregard this happening currently but I believe the concept still holds. Oh and duh, public schools should be illegal as thats the dumbest form of media ever. Explain to me how public schooling can possibly be (or at least as it is currently) fit into freedom of thought.
3 I don't know if this is reliable at all but i think it justifies the concept that gov has some control on "acceptable opinions" if you really want to get on my case about this then you're just dumb because I'm obviously going to have legal issues if i say something quite rude about blacks or something of the matter. Who gets the right to control our moral acceptivness especially when church and state are supposed to be separated.
TLDR For all you punks who don't like reading, Should Political correctness monitored by the gov be considered an act of treason. Don't make an argument that is dumb though.
The Deal With Political Correctness
Before all else it should be mentioned that the specific topic of "socially acceptable behavior" is quite an opinionated and controversial field which is much more than likely completely fruitless to get into. In all actuality I've recently come to the opinion that social fluctuations of any sort should not at all be considered stigma but this whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support and stands agains most modern science regarding that field. What can be stated pretty easily are the basic rights attributed to certain organizations. For instance, I can hardly see an appropriate counter argument to my claiming that it is a negation of terms for a government which has its basis in tenants consisting of a first amendment right guaranteeing freedom of thought as well as a separation of church and state1 to firstly have a hand in an education system which is enforced and further to have power in both media2 and acceptability of opinions3. That said I find nothing wrong with the concept of a healthy and untouched political correctness and media should be able to base its opinions on any reason it so chooses as it has been given those rights of exersizing free thought and perspective as previously stated. Thusly, my conclusion is this: any form of opinion and acceptance thereof in accord to pure business or societal preference is lawfully acceptable as long as not forcibly mandated, yet any organization funded or directly subservient to Government established indoctrination or censoring is simply an act of treason and should be dealt with on legal punishment of firstly exile and secondly a certain debt of the people's choosing.
1 Firstly it must be clear that I am speaking on the behalf of the United States of America and am not attempting any further arguments on a universal scale- Europeans and stuff can GTFO. "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." - This is according to a website that is .Gov and i think it's pretty much right. If you believe this fact is irrelevant than i will also present this statement from the Declaration of Independence which established the legitimacy of the USA sovereignty- "....--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"..... That said, why would a government that has decided to ignore its tenants for existence be any more sovereign over a untied states citizen than the previous British government. Why should I pay attention to someone who doesn't even pay attention to their own laws?
2 I must admit I'm too lazy to do much research but I'm pretty sure this is true. Quickly look up the funding into our prominent news sources and i doubt (and kind of hope so i don't link like an idiot) that it will be too far away from federal funding. If I'm wrong you can disregard this happening currently but I believe the concept still holds. Oh and duh, public schools should be illegal as thats the dumbest form of media ever. Explain to me how public schooling can possibly be (or at least as it is currently) fit into freedom of thought.
3 I don't know if this is reliable at all but i think it justifies the concept that gov has some control on "acceptable opinions" if you really want to get on my case about this then you're just dumb because I'm obviously going to have legal issues if i say something quite rude about blacks or something of the matter. Who gets the right to control our moral acceptivness especially when church and state are supposed to be separated.
TLDR For all you punks who don't like reading, Should Political correctness monitored by the gov be considered an act of treason. Don't make an argument that is dumb though.
