The politically incorrect thread

[The Senator]

I sense your blood pressure has gone up. The internet is not a good place to be if patenetly absurd and im
nflammatory posts (posted for whatever reason) enrage you. Please be rational or gain a sense of humour.

Yeah, sure, I will definitely learn to find blatant insults and ignorant remarks about homosexuals hilarious

 

[Whirlysplat]

Yeah, sure, I will definitely learn to find blatant insults and ignorant remarks about homosexuals hilarious

You know it makes sense I also enjoy Sasha Baron Cohen.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm not saying we should completely quit caring about people's feelings, or stop treating folks with the basest decency and human respect. However, there often come times in life when standing for a just principle is far more important than worrying about who you'll be offending.

As American citizens, we need to start realizing that doing what's best for the country is sometimes more important than avoiding confrontation. We need to quit saying to ourselves, "Oh, I can't say or do that, because what would they think?" Guess what, people? Some issues can only be resolved through confrontation, be it moral, physical, or idealogical. Far too often, we avoid conflict like it's the plague, and this country (if not much of the world) has worsened because of it.

Which issues need to be political incorrect to reach a confrontational resolution?

Gay marriage? Do we need to be down right nasty to gays even to have an agenda?

Let me ask you this, when has someone treated you in a politically incorrect manner and to what end did they do it? Was it worth being offended to get their point across?

Frankly it's not. I'm sure that if I use you as an example of backwards Christian bigotry to get my point that we shouldn't consider ourselves a Christian nation I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think that was good use of being politically incorrect.

That's the thing, unless your point is offensive it shouldn't offend anyone. If your point is offensive then you should **** because you're being a jerk.

 

[The Senator]

You know it makes sense I also enjoy Sasha Baron Cohen.

Yeah, that's right-- it makes complete sense to trash an entire group of people and compare them to despicable monsters.

Good to know me and my friends are equivocal to child molesters.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Gay marriage? Do we need to be down right nasty to gays even to have an agenda?

No, I'm not advocating personal attacks on homosexuals themselves. But we as a nation should be taking an active stance against the practice itself. Just because something is socially accepted doesn't mean it's morally right. The problem arises not only because of religious people who are truly bigoted (I've known a few), but also because many homosexuals take any stance against their way of life as an inherently personal attack. We can (and should) constructively address our stances on the topic, without any harmful intent. But on the other hand, we must also recognize that if a homosexual man or woman gets offended anyway, that's on them...not us. We can't control others' responses.

Let me ask you this, when has someone treated you in a politically incorrect manner and to what end did they do it? Was it worth being offended to get their point across?

I was offended when the Ten Commandments were removed from public display, simply because of their Christian connection. I was angry when Christian crosses were removed from Christmas displays, and when some stores started a policy of "employees can't say "Merry Christmas" to customers".

That's the thing, unless your point is offensive it shouldn't offend anyone. If your point is offensive then you should **** because you're being a jerk.

I can choose not to be deliberately offensive, but I can't control the recipient's actions. If I do my best to honorably speak the truth with integrity, and people still get ticked...that's their concern, not mine.

 

[Schlosser85]

I still am not sure what, if anything, Whirlysplat is talking about. I seriously hope he/she/it is being satirical when equating homosexuals and pedophiles, but I don't know what the point of this thread is supposed to be (although I can see it's on its way into another neverending debate about Christianity and homosexuality).

 

[Whirlysplat]

Yeah, that's right-

Good to know me and my friends are equivocal to child molesters.

You are? Please continue.

 

[The Senator]

No, I'm not advocating personal attacks on homosexuals themselves. But we as a nation should be taking an active stance against the practice itself. Just because something is socially accepted doesn't mean it's morally right. The problem arises not only because of religious people who are truly bigoted (I've known a few), but also because many homosexuals take any stance against their way of life as an inherently personal attack. We can (and should) constructively address our stances on the topic, without any harmful intent. But on the other hand, we must also recognize that if a homosexual man or woman gets offended anyway, that's on them...not us. We can't control others' responses.

Yeah, here we go.

YOU believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but those beliefs are ONLY subjected to YOUR personal opinion. As is anyone's stance on the issue. The only thing you are basing your beliefs on is the Bible, but guess what? We live in a secular society where that book should be considered as worthless as "Harry Potter" when it comes to dictating domestic policy. You have N.O.T.H.I.N.G. other than your religious beliefs which says that homosexuality is immoral, and therefore we as a nation have no real reason to make same-sex marriage illegal or the act of homosexuality illegal.

And yes, saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry IS a personal attack on their lives, the fact that you can't see this proves once again how blind you are.

I was offended when the Ten Commandments were removed from public display, simply because of their Christian connection. I was angry when Christian crosses were removed from Christmas displays, and when some stores started a policy of "employees can't say "Merry Christmas" to customers".

The Ten Commandments HAD to be removed because of their Christian connection. Again, you fail to see that the United States is not allowed to endorse any one religion, and therefore NO religious displays should be allowed anywhere on judicial or governmental property, UNLESS they are being displayed in a museum. But to display something of a RELIGIOUS nature in front of a building where religion is NOT supposed to be practiced is absurd and goes against our Constitution and decisions by the Supreme Court.

 

[Whirlysplat]

(although I can see it's on its way into another neverending debate about Christianity and homosexuality).

Yes, the new Godwins law. I tried the old one earlier in this thread.

 

[The Senator]

You are? Please continue.

When did this forum allow fourth graders such as Whirlysplat to post here?

 

[Whirlysplat]

When did this forum allow fourth graders such as Whirlysplat to post here?

Your Momma! Good one!

 

[The Senator]

Congratulations, Whirlysplat, you have become the fourth poster to earn a coveted place on my ignore list!

 

[Whirlysplat]

Congratulations, Whirlysplat, you have become the fourth poster to earn a coveted place on my ignore list!

You have the right to ignore what you don't like. After all you are politically correct?

 

[Majic Walrus]

No, I'm not advocating personal attacks on homosexuals themselves. But we as a nation should be taking an active stance against the practice itself. Just because something is socially accepted doesn't mean it's morally right. The problem arises not only because of religious people who are truly bigoted (I've known a few), but also because many homosexuals take any stance against their way of life as an inherently personal attack. We can (and should) constructively address our stances on the topic, without any harmful intent. But on the other hand, we must also recognize that if a homosexual man or woman gets offended anyway, that's on them...not us. We can't control others' responses.

You're not just making a rational decision about something it becomes a personal attack when you start saying "You shouldn't be the way you are and because of that we want the government to try and stop you."

I was offended when the Ten Commandments were removed from public display, simply because of their Christian connection. I was angry when Christian crosses were removed from Christmas displays, and when some stores started a policy of "employees can't say "Merry Christmas" to customers".

According to you that's your own damn fault. Also when have the Ten Commandments been removed from "public display" or Christian crosses removed from Christmas displays and as for the stores making their decisions that's entirely different level of offense.

That's you being offended by someone else's actions. We're talkign about you offending people because you want to restrict their actions. No gay person is offended by your straight man ways. They are offended when they're told they shouldn't be gay.

If a store, place, or other business decides not to post christian things that's their choice and once again you're telling them that they shouldn't and you're making their choices for them. They have the right to make their own choices without having you tell them they're wrong.

I can choose not to be deliberately offensive, but I can't control the recipient's actions. If I do my best to honorably speak the truth with integrity, and people still get ticked...that's their concern, not mine.

That's the FIRST thing you've left up to them.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

You're not just making a rational decision about something it becomes a personal attack when you start saying "You shouldn't be the way you are and because of that we want the government to try and stop you."

In terms of things which are out of an individual's control, that'd likely be true. For example, racism is 100% wrong, because you're unjustly judging someone based on their skin color (which they cannot consciously control). But wghen dealing with a drug dealer, for example, that person is perfectly capable of choosing otherwise. As such, telling him his actions are wrong isn't a personal attack; it's a criticism of the path he's chosen, not the dealer himself.

According to you that's your own damn fault.

No, that'd only be the case if displaying crosses and such wasn't right to begin with. To the best of my knowledge, there's no mandatory law in this country against displaying a cross in a public place. If there were, all the folks walking around with crosses on their necklace would be hauled off to court.

Also when have the Ten Commandments been removed from "public display" or Christian crosses removed from Christmas displays

During the last few years, many judges have been unjustly ruling that such symbols are a deliberate infringment against nonbelivers, or people of other faiths. I always found it rather strange that only Christian symbols "inherently offend", while Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish displays are left alone.

and as for the stores making their decisions that's entirely different level of offense.

How so? Some of these places literally instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", even if a customer greets them with the latter first. The warped reasoning behind this is the retailers don't want to offend non-Christians. Then when the Christians get offended, they're ignored. Where's the justice in that?

That's you being offended by someone else's actions. We're talkign about you offending people because you want to restrict their actions. No gay person is offended by your straight man ways. They are offended when they're told they shouldn't be gay.

As far as I know, I've never said to anyone, "You can't be gay." That's their choice. What I have said is, "Homosexuality, in and of itself, is wrong and a sin against God". There's a difference.

They have the right to make their own choices without having you tell them they're wrong.

The Constitution never guarantees any American that right, be it corporate or otherwise. People do not have any legal or moral right to a lack of accountability.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Yeah, sure, I will definitely learn to find blatant insults and ignorant remarks about homosexuals hilarious

If you can learn to find blatant insults and ignorant remarks about Christianity and Christians hilarious, you can probably learn to do the same with anybody.

 

[UA-Archangel]

I think being politically correct is a waste of time.

I believe in being reasonably polite with other people, but that politeness should not inhibit me from being truthful.

 

[Whirlysplat]

If you can learn to find blatant insults and ignorant remarks about Christianity and Christians hilarious, you can probably learn to do the same with anybody.

Well done for highlighting the hypocrisy of the politically correct!

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I think being politically correct is a waste of time. I believe in being reasonably polite with other people, but that politeness should not inhibit me from being truthful.

I'm with ya 100% on this one.

 

[The Senator]

If you can learn to find blatant insults and ignorant remarks about Christianity and Christians hilarious, you can probably learn to do the same with anybody.

Insulting a religious belief is different than insulting the person who believes it. I find most religion to be horse ****, but I believe that people have the right to rub that horse **** all over their body and call it "bathing" if they want to.

Of course, I have not insulted posters for simply being Christian. I have criticized and attacked what I consider to be the key flaws of Christianity as a faith, as well as those who have become Christian extremists and have exhibited that Christian extremism here on the forums. And usually, I'm fighting fire with fire; these posters often force their beliefs on others and say incredibly ignorant things about non-Christians and homosexuals... and as far as I'm concerned, that gives me free reign to go after them with as much verbal ferocity as I wish.

 

[The Senator]

I think being politically correct is a waste of time.

I believe in being reasonably polite with other people, but that politeness should not inhibit me from being truthful.

I do not see how you can be "reasonably polite" with others yet stop being politically correct.

You need to provide an example to clarify this.

 

[Whirlysplat]

Insulting a religious belief is different than insulting the person who believes it. I find most religion to be horse ****, but I believe that people have the right to rub that horse **** all over their body and call it "bathing" if they want to.

Of course, I have not insulted posters for simply being Christian. I have criticized and attacked what I consider to be the key flaws of Christianity as a faith, as well as those who have become Christian extremists and have exhibited that Christian extremism here on the forums. And usually, I'm fighting fire with fire; these posters often force their beliefs on others and say incredibly ignorant things about non-Christians and homosexuals... and as far as I'm concerned, that gives me free reign to go after them with as much verbal ferocity as I wish.

Internet Tough suff Of course you can't read this as you have me on ignore. "Action speak louder than words, don't be decieved by those fancy talkers." - Jimmy Cliff

 

[Majic Walrus]

In terms of things which are out of an individual's control, that'd likely be true. For example, racism is 100% wrong, because you're unjustly judging someone based on their skin color (which they cannot consciously control). But wghen dealing with a drug dealer, for example, that person is perfectly capable of choosing otherwise. As such, telling him his actions are wrong isn't a personal attack; it's a criticism of the path he's chosen, not the dealer himself.

You're comparing homosexuality to drug dealing? WTF is wrong with you?

No, that'd only be the case if displaying crosses and such wasn't right to begin with. To the best of my knowledge, there's no mandatory law in this country against displaying a cross in a public place. If there were, all the folks walking around with crosses on their necklace would be hauled off to court.

But you're saying that stores shouldn't do that, why not they have the right to choose not to.

During the last few years, many judges have been unjustly ruling that such symbols are a deliberate infringment against nonbelivers, or people of other faiths. I always found it rather strange that only Christian symbols "inherently offend", while Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish displays are left alone.

When has there been an unjust ruling that removes symbols from private display? I'll go ahead and let you google it. That's right, never.

How so? Some of these places literally instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", even if a customer greets them with the latter first. The warped reasoning behind this is the retailers don't want to offend non-Christians. Then when the Christians get offended, they're ignored. Where's the justice in that?

And it's those place right to be politically correct it's good freaking business. They aren't replacing it with Happy Chaunucka (No idea how to spell that) or Happy Kwanza (That either) they're replacing it with something that is universally not offensive.

Trust me, from a business standpoint alienating a large population of customers is not good. Now it's every business' right to say whatever they want. Hell they could say "Happy Festivus and go to hell you happy Christian MFers" but that would be rude and probably not get a lot of business.

Why do you assume that they're out to get Christians just because they want to be nice and try not to single anyone out.

As far as I know, I've never said to anyone, "You can't be gay." That's their choice. What I have said is, "Homosexuality, in and of itself, is wrong and a sin against God". There's a difference.

You can't be gay, but it is wrong. Is just as bad as saying you can't be gay.

The Constitution never guarantees any American that right, be it corporate or otherwise. People do not have any legal or moral right to a lack of accountability.

It's not only constitutional right it's a basic human right to be able to make choices that are not against the law without being unresonably judged because of you race, religion, creed, sex, age, or lifestyle choice. I think that's called discrimination. I think discrimination is against the law.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

It's not only constitutional right it's a basic human right to be able to make choices that are not against the law without being unresonably judged because of you race, religion, creed, sex, age, or lifestyle choice. I think that's called discrimination. I think discrimination is against the law.

Discrimination would be refusing to hire someone for a job exclusively because they're black, white, gay, straight, Christian, atheistic, whatever. However, if there's another reason that merits such action, there's no discrimination (i.e., their resume doesn't qualify, or they don't have the necessary work experience).

When dealing with morals, though, it becomes a little more complex. For example, would it be discriminatory for the manager of a Christian bookstore to request a employee's resignation if they tell him they're gay? I don't think so, because according to Christianity, homosexuality is wrong, and for that person to remain employed there would serve as an inherent moral conflict. The loss of their job wouldn't be due to a personal issue, but rather a spiritual one.

 

[Schlosser85]

In terms of things which are out of an individual's control, that'd likely be true. For example, racism is 100% wrong, because you're unjustly judging someone based on their skin color (which they cannot consciously control). But wghen dealing with a drug dealer, for example, that person is perfectly capable of choosing otherwise. As such, telling him his actions are wrong isn't a personal attack; it's a criticism of the path he's chosen, not the dealer himself.

People do not consciously choose or control their sexual orientation either, so homophobia is just as wrong as racism is.