Political correctness is a cancer. The truth is better, even if it stings a little.
Political Correctness
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
Why thank you!
I'd like to amend my previous comment slightly. I don't question values like civility and humanity on entirely the same grounds that I do existence, in the sense that I think the former can still be questioned assuming that "reality" as we think of it exists. Regarding the current condition in Mexico and other countries with warfare between warlords, there are too many differences between those countries and more developed ones to list, and the difference in values is just one of them. So, because correlation doesn't equal causation, we can't assume that the current condition in those countries is due entirely, or to a significant extent, to a lack of certain values.
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....
that you think so little of free humans not living under the watchful eye of a "benevolent" socially conscious and of course very liberally minded cradle to grave government, is telling of you.
Yes, I agree that it's very telling indeed.
What do you guys think about Civil Forfeiture in this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
If goverment intervening is a sign of "CIVILIZED and HUMANE" society, then USSR, communist china and Nazis were by far most CIVILIZED AND HUMANE societys of history.
I find western european countries the most civilized of all the countries. You can strike a balance...when the populace is highly educated, they know how to benefit from democratic governance...
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
Why thank you!
I'd like to amend my previous comment slightly. I don't question values like civility and humanity on entirely the same grounds that I do existence, in the sense that I think the former can still be questioned assuming that "reality" as we think of it exists. Regarding the current condition in Mexico and other countries with warfare between warlords, there are too many differences between those countries and more developed ones to list, and the difference in values is just one of them. So, because correlation doesn't equal causation, we can't assume that the current condition in those countries is due entirely, or to a significant extent, to a lack of certain values.
What certain values do you speak of? And is it the populace of those countries that lack these "certain values" or the warlords/druglords who are terrorizing them who lack these "certain values"?
@macer
I don't know if an American citizens can claim moral superiority over the peoples of non-developed countries.
Take this example: When as a tourist in Mexico, you're pulled over in your rented car by a cop...he demands money on the spot for some vehicular "violation"...you cry foul - CORRUPTION - abuse by police. And well, most Mexicans would agree that it is corruption. The peoples of Cambodia, Vietnam, Nigeria...would all agree, too.
But how about us Americans? Take our country's law of Civil Forfeiture, we've all but legalized what would be considered corruption/abuse by police in those non-developed countries...see video in #86
Hey balente,
can you tell me what this article says?...
Papa Francesco: eletto per fare la riforma della curia, passerà alla storia per la rivoluzione sessuale nella Chiesa
C’è un solo uomo al mondo, l’unico, che non può chiedere, e chiedersi, “chi sono io per giudicare?”. Sulla sua schedina è assente la x. Non c’è il pareggio. Sulla sua roulette manca lo zero, la zona verde della neutralità. Da quando il Signore consegnò a Pietro le chiavi del Regno, i suoi successori abitano il campo magnetico dell’aut aut. Del sì e del no. Ogni loro parola, ogni loro gesto apre o chiude. Conferma o nega.
E’ il loro dilemma e il loro dramma. Il loro ministero e il loro mistero. La loro cattedra e la loro croce. Da sempre e specialmente nell’era dei media, dato che questi ultimi, a dispetto del proprio nome, non “mediano” ma polarizzano ancora di più.
Sicché la frase fatidica pronunciata da Bergoglio sull’aereo che lo riportava dal Brasile, il 29 luglio 2013, in risposta a una domanda sui gay, ha sortito l’effetto di uno sportello spalancato ad alta quota. Sconvolgendo e destabilizzando, come in un film, la cabina pressurizzata della morale della Chiesa. Svuotando le cappelliere e scaraventando nel vortice un bagaglio di norme e consuetudini, che fino ad allora sembravano fissate in maniera inamovibile. Il “sinodo” nella testa del Papa deve essere decollato in quel momento. Più che un “cammino”, estendendo la etimologia, un volo turbolento verso le terre calde, allontanandosi da un clima etico di freddezza e rigore glaciali. Senza toccare le fondamenta della costruzione, ma immaginando un’architettura più aperta: “per far si che la Chiesa sia la casa paterna dove c'è posto per ciascuno con la sua vita faticosa”, come ha chiosato il cardinale Raymundo Damasceno Assis, presidente dell’episcopato brasiliano, riferendosi alle unioni tra persone omosessuali.
I remember reading that the term Politically Correct began in the old Soviet Union, refering to positions which were considered acceptable by the Party.
The Right Wing later brought it to America, intending for it to be a derogatory term. They were only half-successful.
West europe is simply one gigantic welfare state. When you say "benefit from democratic goverment" of course really what you mean is "vote to themself other peoples money".
One of the best metrics to gauge a nation is how well they care for the less fortunate souls.

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....
that you think so little of free humans not living under the watchful eye of a "benevolent" socially conscious and of course very liberally minded cradle to grave government, is telling of you.