Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Debate On Muslim Radicalization

Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 7:20:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it interesting that I didn't find any forum topic about Rep. Peter King's public examination of Muslim extremism in America. So, do you folks think that he should have the right to talk about Muslim extremism at the House Homeland Security Committee? Or do you think that he should have the right to talk about it and not give in to political correctness?

I personally believe that he should have the right to talk about it, considering the recent predicament that we are involved right now. And because political correctness is very wrong and immoral.

That brings another question to mind here. Just curious, how many people here believe in political correctness? I'm curious to know.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:47:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 7:20:00 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:

And because political correctness is very wrong and immoral.

I'd be happy to debate you on your claim that it is immoral once my first round tournament debate is done.

That brings another question to mind here. Just curious, how many people here believe in political correctness? I'm curious to know.

I think political correctness is positive. It's basically just being polite and avoiding offensive language. It's possible to advocate political correctness while still allowing people freedom of speech.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not a fan of political correctness. People shouldn't have to water down their speech in order to avoid offending people(unless it's something obviously really bad such as "let's kill all n*ggers, they're dirty!"). Besides, I like to be honest with myself and say things as I feel.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:46:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:40:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not a fan of political correctness. People shouldn't have to water down their speech in order to avoid offending people(unless it's something obviously really bad such as "let's kill all n*ggers, they're dirty!"). Besides, I like to be honest with myself and say things as I feel.

Where do you draw the line?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 1:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:46:18 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:40:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not a fan of political correctness. People shouldn't have to water down their speech in order to avoid offending people(unless it's something obviously really bad such as "let's kill all n*ggers, they're dirty!"). Besides, I like to be honest with myself and say things as I feel.

Where do you draw the line?

At obvious hate speech like I pointed out, such as similar things as to that of Westboro Baptist Church. What they do is obviously hate speech saying "God hates f@gs" and protesting military funerals. However, it would be fine if they just said "No gay marriage!" or something like that and then gave a logical reason why without protesting funerals.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 6:46:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 1:53:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:46:18 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 1:40:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not a fan of political correctness. People shouldn't have to water down their speech in order to avoid offending people(unless it's something obviously really bad such as "let's kill all n*ggers, they're dirty!"). Besides, I like to be honest with myself and say things as I feel.

Where do you draw the line?

At obvious hate speech like I pointed out, such as similar things as to that of Westboro Baptist Church. What they do is obviously hate speech saying "God hates f@gs" and protesting military funerals. However, it would be fine if they just said "No gay marriage!" or something like that and then gave a logical reason why without protesting funerals.

There isn't any logical basis for that. Where can we decide; "that is obvious hate speech"?
"I hate what you say, but I would die for your right to say it"
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:33:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:47:18 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/16/2011 7:20:00 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:

And because political correctness is very wrong and immoral.

I'd be happy to debate you on your claim that it is immoral once my first round tournament debate is done.

That brings another question to mind here. Just curious, how many people here believe in political correctness? I'm curious to know.

I think political correctness is positive. It's basically just being polite and avoiding offensive language. It's possible to advocate political correctness while still allowing people freedom of speech.

How is political correctness positive? Also, I notice that people will usually think of political correctness whenever a white male/female says something that is considered to be of "offensive language". However, no one will mention political correctness of a person who has been historically abused says something offending. That double standard is actually very common.

How is it possible to advocate political correctness and still allowing freedom of speech?
Political correctness definition: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

If you avoid saying something and/or a specific policy (political correctness) is avoiding you to say something, that is restricting freedom of speech.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 4:47:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:33:03 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 3/16/2011 8:47:18 AM, feverish wrote:

I think political correctness is positive. It's basically just being polite and avoiding offensive language. It's possible to advocate political correctness while still allowing people freedom of speech.

How is political correctness positive?

Offending people is generally negative, therefore avoiding offending people is generally positive.

Also, I notice that people will usually think of political correctness whenever a white male/female says something that is considered to be of "offensive language". However, no one will mention political correctness of a person who has been historically abused says something offending. That double standard is actually very common.

Not with me. I work with young people and I will pull up a black British kid who takes the p1ss out of African imigrants, or a Muslim kid who expresses violent feelings towards Sikhs, or anyone attacking a white person on the basis of race just the same way.

How is it possible to advocate political correctness and still allowing freedom of speech?
Political correctness definition: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

If you avoid saying something and/or a specific policy (political correctness) is avoiding you to say something, that is restricting freedom of speech.

Whut? Comprehension fail.

Avoiding does not equal banning, it refers to personal choice. If I choose to avoid saying something, it doesn't mean I'm not free to say it. The bolded part above makes no grammatical sense. You've looked up political correctness, now try looking up "avoid".