That's the best plan I've heard! Make sure you strap on an Uzi or two though 
Political Correctness
Sort:
Oct 8, 2014
0
#42
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." - Chet Beates
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
Oh no...I was wrong. Criminals will definitely be sweet on the 2nd option and will flock to the one where everything is legal....and the rest of America will imigrate to Canada or Europe LOL
I would go to the one where everything is legal.
Oct 8, 2014
0
#45
macer75 wrote:
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
Oh no...I was wrong. Criminals will definitely be sweet on the 2nd option and will flock to the one where everything is legal....and the rest of America will imigrate to Canada or Europe LOL
I would go to the one where everything is legal.
You could build a fortress there and be king of your own castle...put up a big 'you mess with me you mess with God' sign :)
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
macer75 wrote:
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
I don't like to discuss about something I don't know anything about so I looked up the meaning and origin of the term "political correctness" in
WIKIPEDIA:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political correctness or political correctitude (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is the attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. Mainstream usages of the term politically correct began in the 1990s by right-wing politicians.
In modern usage, the terms PC, politically correct, and political correctness are generally pejorative descriptors, whereas the term politically incorrect is used by opponents of PC as an implicitly positive self-description, as in the cases of the conservative, topical book-series The Politically Incorrect Guide, and the liberal television talk-show program Politically Incorrect. Disputing this framework are advocates for ending discrimination and scholars on the political Left who suggest that the term was redefined in the early 1990s by conservatives and libertarians for strategic political purposes.
---------------------------------------------------
This in fact belong to this political strategy :
you create a monster for the mob to throw sticks and stones at. As soon as they hear or see "political correctness" the mob goes crazy - pull the plug out of any intelligent dialogue that deals with civil rights.
Same way as how they've successfully demonized the word "feminism" - pull the plug out of any intelligent dialogue that deals with women's rights...turn it into some sort of pariah.
Feminism is about women getting the right to vote, protecting them from getting raped by their own husbands, getting equal pay for equal work....but if you ask any woman today if they are a feminist...they say...no no no I'm not...even if they agree with all the above.
And when you own the media - it is very easy to do ...thousands of talking heads on primetime TV is not match for the few voices of reason.
You mentioned the concept of dicsrimination a couple of times there. My thoughts regarding the subject are going to be highly controversial (or politically incorrect, if you will), but in the spirit of this thread, I'm going to say what I think anyway.
I'm against all anti-discrimination laws in the private sector. A private business can refuse to hire or serve anyone for whatever reason. In turn, those who feel that they are "discriminated" against can protest through strikes, boycotts, etc. Nowhere in the process should the government ever get involved. Whether or not there should be equal pay for equal work should also be worked out between employers and employees themselves.
I agree with you Macer...in spirit...
But this has to be studied in depth to see whether it is possible for government NOT to intervene and still have a CIVILIZED and HUMANE SOCIETY....that is, if that is what Americans want their republic to be.
If in so doing - you will find blacks and homosexuals frozen dead under bridges in winters because they can't find work or housing....
I tend to question whether being civilized and humane is really all that necessary at all; that's just the nihilist/skeptic/lunatic (whatever you want to call it) in me. But that's really not something that I want to debate here, and arguably not something that can be dabated at all.
But yes, assuming that being civilized and humane is a good thing, I do see the practical considerations in your argument.
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
macer75 wrote:
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
Oh no...I was wrong. Criminals will definitely be sweet on the 2nd option and will flock to the one where everything is legal....and the rest of America will imigrate to Canada or Europe LOL
I would go to the one where everything is legal.
You could build a fortress there and be king of your own castle...put up a big 'you mess with me you mess with God' sign :)
I'm actually an agnostic.
Oct 8, 2014
0
#48
Nah, I meant "God" as a figure of speech ...
Like Zod the God, Macer the God....
So make the sign say "You mess with me, you mess with God... maybe."
You could build a fortress there and be king of your own castle... as seinfeld would say, MASTER OF YOUR OWN DOMAIN! here's my $50 bucks, I'm in!
Oct 8, 2014
0
#52
macer75 wrote:
I tend to question whether being civilized and humane is really all that necessary at all; that's just the nihilist/skeptic/lunatic (whatever you want to call it) in me. But that's really not something that I want to debate here, and arguably not something that can be dabated at all.
But yes, assuming that being civilized and humane is a good thing, I do see the practical considerations in your argument.
Well, macer, there are plenty of societies where there is no governance to ensure that it be a civilized and humane society...you just need to look south of the border to Mexico where drug cartels rule and other non-developed countries where warlords, despots and tyrants engage in genocidal micro warfare for turf control....plenty of examples
The PC technique of vilification and intimidation of those who do not comply or conform has been used by all totalitarian systems, including that headed by Hitler, the Red Guards in China, and the re-education camps of Pol Pot, Castro's Cuba and the former Soviet Union.
PC is a form of rot that Americans should reject completely .
"Political Correctness" has one glaring word in it.
Political correctness? Stick it up your ass!
I've got tats and bad habits and the attitude to match.
BlackLeopard-1 wrote:
macer75 wrote:
I tend to question whether being civilized and humane is really all that necessary at all; that's just the nihilist/skeptic/lunatic (whatever you want to call it) in me. But that's really not something that I want to debate here, and arguably not something that can be dabated at all.
But yes, assuming that being civilized and humane is a good thing, I do see the practical considerations in your argument.
Well, macer, there are plenty of societies where there is no governance to ensure that it be a civilized and humane society...you just need to look south of the border to Mexico where drug cartels rule and other non-developed countries where warlords, despots and tyrants engage in genocidal micro warfare for turf control....plenty of examples
What I meant to say there was something more philosphical rather than political (and more theoretical rather than practical). I guess my philosophical view of the world is somewhat similar to what most people call metaphysical nihilism. Thinking in purely philosophical terms, I'm skeptical about the existence anything at all (not in the sense that I don't think anything exists, but in the sense that I can't possibly be sure that anything exists), and the validity of various concepts, even the differentiation between existence and non-existence itself. And, likewise, I also question values including civility and humanity.
In everyday life, of course, I assume that the things we commonly think of as existing do exist (including everyday life itself), even though I'm not 100% sure. I make the same assumptions when having political discussions like these, and my previous comment was me temporarily (and unintentionally) breaking out of those assumptions.
Therefore, I've realized that political threads like these probably aren't the type of thing for me. I probably won't comment on this thread anymore, but I'd just like to make a final point, with regards to what we were talking about earlier regarding discrimination, that in such scenarios the government could help by employing people in the public sector (which would be, by law, free of discrimination), or, if nothing else, through safety-net programs.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I thought I should try to clarify myself a little, even though I do realize that I may be causing more confusion, while making myself look like a complete idiot in the process.
Oct 8, 2014
0
#59
No, macer, I appreciate what you have to say, and far from making yourself look like an idiot, you appear to me to be a thinker.
Philosophy, metaphysics....they hone the intellect...but after which we have to deal with reality - human societies...I'm afraid in a practical way, as you say
Not me.
I'd live in the safe side. So I ain't being robbed. And I know my kids aren't around cigarettes or anything.
And just go to the other side on the weekends.