quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Ever since John Glenn went back into space I was praying that NASA and the U.S. Government would finally take my "cost-cutting" plan seriously and devise an economical way to jettison the elderly into the sun....Think how much money would be saved and could be utilized on more worthwhile things.

Just an idea I have been toying with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody
Oh fuck off

quote:

<Woody's response after I had said>
Woody my son you are a PC Liberal. Thats exactly how they respond.
First  electricity can be switched off well before the postman is likely to arrive and none of those you list actually force entry into your property. What about the bastards who force open a shed door at say  2 o,clock in the morning., as happened to me last Wednesday for about the 10th time.
Fuck 'em I say, To extirminate them would be providing a public service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

LadyE:
Much of your last post describes Liberal concepts as they began to be implemented in the 18th/19th century. Equality before a properly constituted legal framework, Reduction of state sponsored inequality etc etc. I do note you are a Monarchist though, as perfect an example of state encouraged equality as can be imagined lol

I see no reason for replacing the monarchy Seeks, in that nothing so far proposed would result in any improvement, but merely alter the situation and produce other issues. Look at the likes of France and the USA where they have no monarchy as we do - instead they have a monarchy of a different kind - based on the wealth to become president and the ability to climb a greasy pole in the same way as other politicians do. If someone can propose a change to our head of state that is an improvement, then I'm ready to consider it, but otherwise why bother?


PC Liberalism is a different kettle of fish.
It promotes ideas of equality where clear evidence shows it does not exist.
Recognising such inequality does not require persecution as a response.
It will inevitably produce discrimination. 

I agree - people are not equal. I'm absolutely useless when it comes to some things, but superlative in other areas. But the natural variation between people does not mean that they should not receive equal consideration in society. This use of equality as a term is where we have foundered really, for it is not equality we should be aiming for, since this is unattainable. It is equitable status and treatment that is required.

However, the problem with what you are saying is that whilst persecution of those considered inferior is not a required response, it is nevertheless the natural response. If the society deems me superior to another, then it is in the interests of the society to ensure that this situation prevails and is demonstrated in some way - and thereby those considered inferior are kept in that condition.

This is of course all very well, if one is considered superior and the whole society endorses and perpetuates your happy condition. Yet it also ignores totally that the very distinctions between people that might differentiate them as superior or inferior are so extremely variable and often transient in nature that no means might be ascertained as to what distinguishes one person from another as to quality. The overall point being, that every person has some contribution to make to the health of the society, and that therefore every person has the right to enjoy the benefits of the society on an equitable basis.
 
 

PC thinkers believe positive discrimination  of the type they approve is OK, all other discrimination should be illegal.

Where there has been negatively prejudicial treatment of certain groups on the most spurious grounds, this has been because of a societal attitude which endorses and perpetuates a situation where some are deemed superior for equally spurious reasons. If you have a better solution to ensure that previously excluded groups are given equitable opportunity, then please let us hear it. Otherwise you here risk endorsing the kind of situation where society deems non whites for instance, worthless, which is a folly which I cannot believe you would support.

The Feminist side of PC thinking appears to believe that most if not all male/female relationship failures are the man's fault.

I agree. The pendulum here has swung too far in the one direction in an exaggerated attempt to correct former injustice when it comes to "whose fault is it?" in relationship breakdowns. This must be rectified such that equitable treatment of both sides in such a situation is brought about. If you read my posts in the "female dominated society" thread (General category, I think) you will see my thoughts on this matter. It is a complex situation, with the women in many cases I'm afraid, relying on the very inferior stereotype which has been struggled against, in order to obtain the more sympathetic response in adjudication. Albeit of course, that in general women still do not achieve equitable treatment in society in general in the first place. Were they to achieve equitable treatment in general in the first place - something largely under the control of those deemed superior (the men), then we could perhaps be more critical about the response of the family courts in such instances.

A major failing of PC thinking is it's belief that criminals are suffering from a disease and therefore require understanding and soft treatments. Result...an explosive crime wave

I'm confused now. My impression was that PC thinking proposed that criminality was the result of poor life circumstances, whilst its opponent proposed that some inherent natural defect was the reason for criminal behaviour?
 
My view is, that it is poor life circumstances that most predispose towards criminality, and I agree with you that we are often soft on crime - but until and unless we remove or at least ameliorate the poor life circumstances, it is irrational to punish criminality, for the same reason that if you abuse a dog and it bites you, its your own fault. Once we have resolved the poor circumstances, then we can and should come down very heavily on criminality indeed. But the problem with your position is, that it is not only not requisite to ameliorate poor circumstances, but that it is a societal aim to maintain them in order that some may be judged inferior so that others are superior.

What about the devious cunning shown in much white collar crime?

Should be punished very heavily - much more heavily than for those whose criminality is a means of sustenance, direct or indirect.

PC Liberalism contains major elements of authoritarian and censorious thinking. and therefore is unconciously returning to the pre Liberal society that took such a long while to develop and in fact has never been implemented anywhere.

I will agree - it becomes necessary to enforce societal change, if we hold that societal change is required and there is significant resistance to that change.

How can you possibly disagree ? lol

In the way displayed above.