Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Politically Correct People

Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 11:24:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've noticed how so many people could not make a logical argument when defending a politically correct stance, especially when it comes to rape and race. Political correctness demands sympathy; however, it is too absurd - almost cult-like - seeing people defend PC stance, almost as if there are more psychological reasons as to why people go as far as to sending death threats to those who oppose their views even slightly.
Here are some reasons I could come up with using my limited knowledge of psychology:
Group Polarization - Spending too much time with similar minded individuals leads to more extreme views and opinions. Doesn't explain the hostility.
Overuse of a heuristic - Explains logical fallacies; heuristics don't allow an opportunity for an algorithmic reasoning. Again, doesn't explain the hostility.
Psychological need for an In-group bias - This is pretty obvious; everyone needs to feel belonged, some by forming a group with strong ideology that would allow them to exclude others and feel a secure bond. This has multiple causes, but may explain hostility because opposition may erode the bond within the group.

Why do you think people become so hostile when defending a "politically correct" stance?
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 11:27:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What stances are you talking about specifically?

Every feminists stances
Pro-life stance
Defending Blackface
Opposing Illegal Immigration
Mediating Date-rape cases...
I'm not saying I'm against being pc, but there are always both sides to an argument and I try to address it but all I get is "Go die in a hole u fuckn retard" responses.
Not in debate.org but mostly when I debate with feminists.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 1:10:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Is it rooted in racial prejudice?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 1:17:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Because it's racist. More clearly, it's the paradigm that gives rise to such opposition that's racist... or at least more than likely so. But that's not to say that that automatically invalidates such an opinion. It's just a motivation that needs to be brought to light.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 1:21:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 1:10:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Is it rooted in racial prejudice?

No, I just believe in a functional legal system. What is wrong is wrong no matter what race you are or what motivation you had.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 1:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 1:21:37 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:10:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Is it rooted in racial prejudice?

No, I just believe in a functional legal system. What is wrong is wrong no matter what race you are or what motivation you had.

Ok. So what is your plan for opposing illegal immigration?
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 1:41:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 1:24:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:21:37 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:10:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Is it rooted in racial prejudice?

No, I just believe in a functional legal system. What is wrong is wrong no matter what race you are or what motivation you had.

Ok. So what is your plan for opposing illegal immigration?

Strengthen the check for job market and deter employment of illegal immigrants as much as possible, while simultaneously end the war on drugs and put pressure on mexico to inch towards a less corrupt govt, a program to aid mexican economy, and their education system. It can't be done unless we fix our problem first, but I don't think just letting the illegals in US fosters the right notion for our law.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:32:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What's yer issue with illegal immigration?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:44:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 1:24:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:21:37 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:10:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Is it rooted in racial prejudice?

No, I just believe in a functional legal system. What is wrong is wrong no matter what race you are or what motivation you had.

Ok. So what is your plan for opposing illegal immigration?

Here's a novel idea, Enforce the law. It is the law that anyone who is in this country who is not a citizen must carry proof of identity at all times and must produce it when asked without cause or warrant any time there are asked by any law enforcement entity or face deportation. Anyone entering this country agrees to this before entering. Non citizens "do not" have the same rights as citizens.

http://www.visaservices.duke.edu...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 2:55:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:44:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:24:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:21:37 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 1:10:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:49:47 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

I don't know why but I get called racist when I oppose illegal immigration..

Is it rooted in racial prejudice?

No, I just believe in a functional legal system. What is wrong is wrong no matter what race you are or what motivation you had.

Ok. So what is your plan for opposing illegal immigration?

Here's a novel idea, Enforce the law. It is the law that anyone who is in this country who is not a citizen must carry proof of identity at all times and must produce it when asked without cause or warrant any time there are asked by any law enforcement entity or face deportation. Anyone entering this country agrees to this before entering. Non citizens "do not" have the same rights as citizens.

http://www.visaservices.duke.edu...

And that final statement is what we'd call politically ultranationalistic, which is usually shortened to the term "racist". Half the problem is that it has no name, and the other half is that we stick the word "racist" on where it doesn't apply. To be clear, it does not apply here.

My point for bringing it up, however, is the major reason why anti-illegal immigration or things are called "racist": people look for an emotive word to characterise their feeling of outrage, and they pick a preused one rather than being creative or even using the ones we have already.

Again, to be clear, it isn't that the idea being expressed is that someone has a prejudice against race, but like the boo-hurrah theory goes, it is just expressing outrage.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 3:23:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:55:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

people look for an emotive word to characterise their feeling of outrage, and they pick a preused one rather than being creative or even using the ones we have already.

... So it creates a chicken and egg situation where people can't figure out weather the word choice matched the worsened situation, or an extreme word was used to exaggerate the current situation. Also, maybe the latter keeps repeating itself thereby escalating the irrational hostility
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 4:25:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.

Yes and opposing Obama's policies is not racist.
People use political correctness to avoid addressing issues that are uncomfortable. It's usually those that are easily offended while claiming they are tolerant.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 6:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 4:25:05 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.

Yes and opposing Obama's policies is not racist.
People use political correctness to avoid addressing issues that are uncomfortable. It's usually those that are easily offended while claiming they are tolerant.

I didn't realize the irony until now.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 6:56:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 3:23:38 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 2:55:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

people look for an emotive word to characterise their feeling of outrage, and they pick a preused one rather than being creative or even using the ones we have already.


... So it creates a chicken and egg situation where people can't figure out weather the word choice matched the worsened situation, or an extreme word was used to exaggerate the current situation. Also, maybe the latter keeps repeating itself thereby escalating the irrational hostility

It's symbiotic, I think is the word you're looking for. It generally arises from someone using it to criticize the opposition in a large debate. "Omnishambles" is an example in British politics of this (we're more polite than our American cousins I believe :P )

"Racist" as a word has been applied very broadly, however. In a fair few situations I think it is fair, but in reality a word which can be applied in many situations has had its meaning twisted.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 7:10:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

well because unless you are Native American, you could be considered an illegal immigrant.....
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 7:24:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 7:10:58 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

well because unless you are Native American, you could be considered an illegal immigrant.....

Well that's not true because a law restricting immigration did not exist
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 7:29:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 7:24:59 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 7:10:58 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
Opposing Illegal Immigration
What's wrong with Opposing Illegal Immigration?

well because unless you are Native American, you could be considered an illegal immigrant.....

Well that's not true because a law restricting immigration did not exist

and soon there won't be one again sooooo..lmao
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 8:13:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 2:32:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
What's yer issue with illegal immigration?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:05:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 6:49:19 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 4:25:05 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.

Yes and opposing Obama's policies is not racist.
People use political correctness to avoid addressing issues that are uncomfortable. It's usually those that are easily offended while claiming they are tolerant.

I didn't realize the irony until now.

Hmmm...I think the idea is that what was once considered unoffensive speech was actually quite offensive and extremely intolerant - examples would be cross-burning and lynching. So, PC aims to rectify this by having zero tolerance for such offensive behavior.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:42:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 12:05:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/20/2013 6:49:19 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 4:25:05 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.

Yes and opposing Obama's policies is not racist.
People use political correctness to avoid addressing issues that are uncomfortable. It's usually those that are easily offended while claiming they are tolerant.

I didn't realize the irony until now.

Hmmm...I think the idea is that what was once considered unoffensive speech was actually quite offensive and extremely intolerant - examples would be cross-burning and lynching. So, PC aims to rectify this by having zero tolerance for such offensive behavior.

The problem is, everything offends everyone so by that logic zero-tolerence would mean they wouldn't tolerate anything.. shows like Southpark would not even exist. They say they're more tolerant then others but in actuality they are exactly the same as everyone else. They want the world to be catered their way (which is what everyone wants, obviously) hence "tolerant" is an ironic word.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:58:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Political correctness is lovely if it's something that someone willfully chooses, but problems begin when people begin to think that they have a right not to be offended.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 1:48:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 11:27:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What stances are you talking about specifically?

Every feminists stances
Pro-life stance
Defending Blackface
Opposing Illegal Immigration
Mediating Date-rape cases...
I'm not saying I'm against being pc, but there are always both sides to an argument and I try to address it but all I get is "Go die in a hole u fuckn retard" responses.
Not in debate.org but mostly when I debate with feminists.

Tell me, how does one act in a non-PC manner when mediating a date-rape case? Suggesting the woman deserved it? Wanted it unconsciously? Shouldn't have assumed men around her would rape her if she didn't let them violate her?
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:51:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 12:05:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/20/2013 6:49:19 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 4:25:05 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.

Yes and opposing Obama's policies is not racist.
People use political correctness to avoid addressing issues that are uncomfortable. It's usually those that are easily offended while claiming they are tolerant.

I didn't realize the irony until now.

Hmmm...I think the idea is that what was once considered unoffensive speech was actually quite offensive and extremely intolerant - examples would be cross-burning and lynching. So, PC aims to rectify this by having zero tolerance for such offensive behavior.

In the process if legislation is made based on the PC mentality it ends up violating the first Amendment. Lynching is wrong because of it's violent nature. Cross burning is offensive but should be protected by the first Amendment.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 10:01:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:51:25 AM, BennyW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 12:05:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/20/2013 6:49:19 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 4:25:05 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 6/20/2013 3:23:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm certainly not PC but all racist statements must be harshly condemned to the highest degree.

However, people need to understand what's racist and what's not. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, calling someone Chinese or Jewish isn't racist, and opposing aspects of the Civil Rights Act isn't racist.

Yes and opposing Obama's policies is not racist.
People use political correctness to avoid addressing issues that are uncomfortable. It's usually those that are easily offended while claiming they are tolerant.

I didn't realize the irony until now.

Hmmm...I think the idea is that what was once considered unoffensive speech was actually quite offensive and extremely intolerant - examples would be cross-burning and lynching. So, PC aims to rectify this by having zero tolerance for such offensive behavior.

In the process if legislation is made based on the PC mentality it ends up violating the first Amendment. Lynching is wrong because of it's violent nature. Cross burning is offensive but should be protected by the first Amendment.

Not if it's on someone else's lawn and/or intended to intimidate someone.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:29:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 1:48:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 11:27:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What stances are you talking about specifically?

Every feminists stances
Pro-life stance
Defending Blackface
Opposing Illegal Immigration
Mediating Date-rape cases...
I'm not saying I'm against being pc, but there are always both sides to an argument and I try to address it but all I get is "Go die in a hole u fuckn retard" responses.
Not in debate.org but mostly when I debate with feminists.

Tell me, how does one act in a non-PC manner when mediating a date-rape case? Suggesting the woman deserved it? Wanted it unconsciously? Shouldn't have assumed men around her would rape her if she didn't let them violate her?

I say that the world isn't just black and white. If a person walks the dark ally at night, he or she probably have at least 10% chance of getting jumped, raped or mugged. If a person is cognizant of that fact, the person is then 10% responsible for his or her misfortune. Same with the drinking. The more you drink the more risk you take. A normal girl in the who parties know she might be rufied, her stuff stolen, have a dick drawn on her forehead or taken a naked picture of her. However, it's considered inconceivably unethical to apply the same logic of distribution of responsibility used in virtually every other crime - to me, saying that rapists are 100% responsible and that any and all suggestions that may shift the responsibility even slightly to the victim's side is "supporting the rapists" is irrational.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 11:42:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 11:29:17 AM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/21/2013 1:48:34 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:22:35 PM, Delucha wrote:
At 6/20/2013 11:27:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What stances are you talking about specifically?

Every feminists stances
Pro-life stance
Defending Blackface
Opposing Illegal Immigration
Mediating Date-rape cases...
I'm not saying I'm against being pc, but there are always both sides to an argument and I try to address it but all I get is "Go die in a hole u fuckn retard" responses.
Not in debate.org but mostly when I debate with feminists.

Tell me, how does one act in a non-PC manner when mediating a date-rape case? Suggesting the woman deserved it? Wanted it unconsciously? Shouldn't have assumed men around her would rape her if she didn't let them violate her?

I say that the world isn't just black and white. If a person walks the dark ally at night, he or she probably have at least 10% chance of getting jumped, raped or mugged. If a person is cognizant of that fact, the person is then 10% responsible for his or her misfortune. Same with the drinking. The more you drink the more risk you take. A normal girl in the who parties know she might be rufied, her stuff stolen, have a dick drawn on her forehead or taken a naked picture of her. However, it's considered inconceivably unethical to apply the same logic of distribution of responsibility used in virtually every other crime - to me, saying that rapists are 100% responsible and that any and all suggestions that may shift the responsibility even slightly to the victim's side is "supporting the rapists" is irrational.

That's basically because it is "inconceivably unethical" to do so. Yer equivocating causal and moral responsibility. One can go back in hindsight and show how so and so was causally responsible for X yet not responsible in any more relevant way (e.g. morally). Take an alley rape for instance. A woman walking down a dark alley might in some sense causally lead to her being raped just because the rape couldn't have occurred if she hadn't been there in the first place. But to suggest anything more than that (and the suggestion of causal responsibility really is meaningless) is grossly disrespectful to the victims of rape. There's no "distribution" of responsibility in the way yer using the term. It is 100% on the person who chooses to find someone to physically and sexually assault and suggesting anything else is entirely deserving of being called "inconceivably unethical".
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.