Political Correctness

[Weretindere]

Avgvsto

Weretindere

What is "healthy and untouched" political correctness and by whose definition other than yours? Furthermore, how can political correctness ever be seen as being "healthy" by anything other than a claim, made by yourself, that states, "the whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support." If it's difficult to support the claim, then why make a medieval claim that those under a certain case should be "exiled"?

Legally people can have biases, states can not, therefore claiming that a state should have a bias should be treason as it corrupts an end. I am not skirting around the question, to me, people have the authority to hold a bias and businesses can half that authority as well but if that business is funded by the sate it must have absolutely no room to call something "hate speech" because it does not have that that authority. People are allowed to have opinions and bias's or political correctness, businesses are not allowed to be legally reprimanded for it.

Then that's what the argument should have been. The thing you wrote sounded like what happens when you go into this personality zone that switches your words into an argument that cannot make heads or tails out of itself, because I guess it sounds... politically incorrect?

[Posties]

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

False Dichotomy

Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.

Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.

You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.

No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

Given the competitive circumstances of this technological race, yeah it is.
Public schooling = societal increase of intelligence = higher employment = more $$$$ = comfort
They solemnly don't. You kind of had the right idea, if you would have went more for the reformation of public schooling.

[Avgvsto]

Posties

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

False Dichotomy

Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.

Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.

You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.

No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

Given the competitive circumstances of this technological race, yeah it is.
Public schooling = societal increase of intelligence = higher employment = more $$$$ = comfort
They solemnly don't. You kind of had the right idea, if you would have went more for the reformation of public schooling.

What is intelligence? Further, monetary happiness is an opinion that you aren't obliged to give anyone else.

[Posties]

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

False Dichotomy

Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.

Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.

You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.

No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

Given the competitive circumstances of this technological race, yeah it is.
Public schooling = societal increase of intelligence = higher employment = more $$$$ = comfort
They solemnly don't. You kind of had the right idea, if you would have went more for the reformation of public schooling.

What is intelligence? Further, monetary happiness is an opinion that you aren't obliged to give anyone else.

I never gave such a thing, complain to the largest majority of society.

[Avgvsto]

Weretindere

Avgvsto

Weretindere

What is "healthy and untouched" political correctness and by whose definition other than yours? Furthermore, how can political correctness ever be seen as being "healthy" by anything other than a claim, made by yourself, that states, "the whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support." If it's difficult to support the claim, then why make a medieval claim that those under a certain case should be "exiled"?

Legally people can have biases, states can not, therefore claiming that a state should have a bias should be treason as it corrupts an end. I am not skirting around the question, to me, people have the authority to hold a bias and businesses can half that authority as well but if that business is funded by the sate it must have absolutely no room to call something "hate speech" because it does not have that that authority. People are allowed to have opinions and bias's or political correctness, businesses are not allowed to be legally reprimanded for it.

Then that's what the argument should have been. The thing you wrote sounded like what happens when you go into this personality zone that switches your words into an argument that cannot make heads or tails out of itself, because I guess it sounds... politically incorrect?

I attempted to make that argument to the best of my ability. If you could not see it I don't blame myself much further though ill try to learn rhetoric in more plain terms for next time. The begging was me not addressing what should be politically correct, the middle was who should be allowed to deem what is politically correct and the end was what the punishment for those who are inappropriate in dealing with the matter.

What is your assertion on the matter?

[Avgvsto]

Posties

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

Posties

You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.

No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

Given the competitive circumstances of this technological race, yeah it is.
Public schooling = societal increase of intelligence = higher employment = more $$$$ = comfort
They solemnly don't. You kind of had the right idea, if you would have went more for the reformation of public schooling.

What is intelligence? Further, monetary happiness is an opinion that you aren't obliged to give anyone else.

I never gave such a thing, complain to the largest majority of society.

If the mob can compromise the law then there is no proper sovereignty, I made that argument in my terrible first footnote. Even a majority can't impede on constitutional rights, in fact that was probably the point in making the constitution.

[Avgvsto]

Posties

If there is legal accredited criteria for truth and conceptual intellect then there is a breach in separation of church and state, as Government shouldn't become it's own morality.

[Weretindere]

Avgvsto

Weretindere

Avgvsto

Weretindere

What is "healthy and untouched" political correctness and by whose definition other than yours? Furthermore, how can political correctness ever be seen as being "healthy" by anything other than a claim, made by yourself, that states, "the whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support." If it's difficult to support the claim, then why make a medieval claim that those under a certain case should be "exiled"?

Legally people can have biases, states can not, therefore claiming that a state should have a bias should be treason as it corrupts an end. I am not skirting around the question, to me, people have the authority to hold a bias and businesses can half that authority as well but if that business is funded by the sate it must have absolutely no room to call something "hate speech" because it does not have that that authority. People are allowed to have opinions and bias's or political correctness, businesses are not allowed to be legally reprimanded for it.

Then that's what the argument should have been. The thing you wrote sounded like what happens when you go into this personality zone that switches your words into an argument that cannot make heads or tails out of itself, because I guess it sounds... politically incorrect?

I attempted to make that argument to the best of my ability. If you could not see it I don't blame myself much further though ill try to learn rhetoric in more plain terms for next time. The begging was me not addressing what should be politically correct, the middle was who should be allowed to deem what is politically correct and the end was what the punishment for those who are inappropriate in dealing with the matter.

What is your assertion on the matter?

Stating the extent of the punishment in any terms seems unnecessary, especially exile, although that's an example that I don't disagree with.

What you're saying is not something I would disagree with. If the terms were actually seen as being completely understandable, the question of whether or not a funded opinion on political correctness should be punished, possibly such as your own teacher's, would be seen as being a threat against their opinion that they should have government assistance in their teachings, thus the teacher would tell you what you said didn't make sense.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Yeah!

Hell damn fart!

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Avgvsto

False Dichotomy

Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.

Also I'm pretty sure hate speech is illegal.

Hate speech is legal, but asking for death of someone else is not.

Death threats are illegal, no matter in what manner their made; if a person points a gun at you and says "do it or else", that is illegal.

Now he never actually said "what else" is; it could have been a puppy! But that does not in fact mitigate the gun pointed at you.


So a person can *say* whatever they want, they just can't do whatever they want.

So if a person goes around making serious death threats all the time, verbal or not, he'll get arrested, it's just the way things go. xp

[Aporeia]

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

False Dichotomy

Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.

Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.

You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.

No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

You can always put your child in a private school.

[Posties]

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

Posties

Avgvsto

Posties

You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.

No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

Given the competitive circumstances of this technological race, yeah it is.
Public schooling = societal increase of intelligence = higher employment = more $$$$ = comfort
They solemnly don't. You kind of had the right idea, if you would have went more for the reformation of public schooling.

What is intelligence? Further, monetary happiness is an opinion that you aren't obliged to give anyone else.

I never gave such a thing, complain to the largest majority of society.

If the mob can compromise the law then there is no proper sovereignty, I made that argument in my terrible first footnote. Even a majority can't impede on constitutional rights, in fact that was probably the point in making the constitution.

The mob? What are you babbling about.
Consensus rule.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Yeah, that OP is about as clear as Georgia clay and has the flow of molasses.

Work on your articulation and cogency, then re-post. At this point, I have no idea what you are really discussing.

[Posties]

Avgvsto

Posties

If there is legal accredited criteria for truth and conceptual intellect then there is a breach in separation of church and state, as Government shouldn't become it's own morality.

Jesus Christ your lack of knowledge about Democracy, government and the relation between society is appalling.
-It's not treasonous for people to be forced into public education.
-Democracy isn't completely free.
Majority rules with the governments permission.
-The stereotypical criteria for being intelligent is to be studious.
-The legal requirement for being intelligent doesn't exist, unless you want to refer to the insufficient IQ tests.
-Even if there was an authorized legal for criteria for intelligence it would not be relative to church and state.
-The government under socialized democracy makes it more probable for the government to become amoral.
-None of your points are even relative to each other.

[HeIIraiser]

In a way I do agree, however I think that if certain things weren't monitored by the government then you would have a lot more hate organizations out in the open, as opposed to their own advertising.

Then again my philosophy is that not enough people are taught their rights to be able to know that they have them.
Especially in public schools, when we are children we only learn what we are taught, I think that this is what our government wants, is to make sure we're oblivious to certain things.

I find school or any form of organized funding as you said, is like indoctrination.
If you really think about it.

Personally I don't believe half of what the media says because I know that they will fabricate lies to sell a story.
The government is the same way.

The government will create hysteria, and then collect on it.