Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[Foxfyre]

I love this passage from a Wm. B. Fankboner essay:

"Spinoza said: ‘Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts.’ The great fallacy of monolithic doctrines like political correctness is that they seek to eliminate an important step in human cognition: the dialogue with the self, the act of dialectical mastication that allows us to absorb and process experience, to direct and enable our own moral lives. Only in the inviolable sanctuary of the soul, in the sacred act of self-communion, can man realize his own transcendence and salvation. Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages. "

I am coming late to Mac's interesting thread here, and confess I have not read a lot of the thread, but I hope this generated some interest. Because it is at the very core of the issue. Spinoza was a very interesting guy with a lot to say. Einstein admired him very much.

But it really comes down to who will be given the authority to say what is and is not politically correct, yes? I have yet to have anybody answer the question of whether they think THEY should have the right to make up the list of which people and which words will be considered protected under political correctness concepts and what and who can be legitimately punished for violating that.

Would anybody here trust ME to make up such a list?

But so few seem to see the hypocrisy that exists within all that. The idea that some words and ideas are okay and must be allowed in the realm of 'tolerance' but that other words and ideas must be suppressed and it is fine to hurt people in order to suppress them.

And Mac is right that when we of the anti-PC crowd do not frame the argument in the context of who gets to make the rules, how evil it is to apply the rules to some and not all, and when we do not reject the diversions into free speech, constitutional, and legal issues, we play right into the hands of the PC police.

 

[tinydancer]

When or if you Communists show me cause to conclude different, i'll acknowledge it. Till then, you are what you are.

Those who think that liberals are communists need to change their tinfoil. Or their meds.

Aha dragonlady. I may be a canadian conservative, but I'm an uber conservativel if you think EU You have to look at things on a scale.

Ok? Gettting it now? I've been trying to explain Jack Layton and how we could all love him and many don't get it or even understand how our super uber conservative leader gave Jack a State Funeral and how we loved him so.

 

[tinydancer]

All political pictures are now on a global scale. We have to remember this.

 

[tinydancer]

I love this passage from a Wm. B. Fankboner essay:

"Spinoza said: ‘Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts.’ The great fallacy of monolithic doctrines like political correctness is that they seek to eliminate an important step in human cognition: the dialogue with the self, the act of dialectical mastication that allows us to absorb and process experience, to direct and enable our own moral lives. Only in the inviolable sanctuary of the soul, in the sacred act of self-communion, can man realize his own transcendence and salvation. Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages. "

I am coming late to Mac's interesting thread here, and confess I have not read a lot of the thread, but I hope this generated some interest. Because it is at the very core of the issue. Spinoza was a very interesting guy with a lot to say. Einstein admired him very much.

But it really comes down to who will be given the authority to say what is and is not politically correct, yes? I have yet to have anybody answer the question of whether they think THEY should have the right to make up the list of which people and which words will be considered protected under political correctness concepts and what and who can be legitimately punished for violating that.

Would anybody here trust ME to make up such a list?

But so few seem to see the hypocrisy that exists within all that. The idea that some words and ideas are okay and must be allowed in the realm of 'tolerance' but that other words and ideas must be suppressed and it is fine to hurt people in order to suppress them.

And Mac is right that when we of the anti-PC crowd do not frame the argument in the context of who gets to make the rules, how evil it is to apply the rules to some and not all, and when we do not reject the diversions into free speech, constitutional, and legal issues, we play right into the hands of the PC police.

And there we tear into the heart of the matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

When or if you Communists show me cause to conclude different, i'll acknowledge it. Till then, you are what you are.

Those who think that liberals are communists need to change their tinfoil. Or their meds.

Aha dragonlady. I may be a canadian conservative, but I'm an uber conservativel if you think EU You have to look at things on a scale.

Ok? Gettting it now? I've been trying to explain Jack Layton and how we could all love him and many don't get it or even understand how our super uber conservative leader gave Jack a State Funeral and how we loved him so.

So, TD, do you see a need to allow a Jack Layton to accuse the Prime Minister for killing people because he didn't authorize enough funding for the homeless? Or to allow those who think Jack Layton was completely off base about that to say so? Should any of these parties be physically or materially punished for expressing their opinions? As opposed to simply choosing somebody else to elect the next time?

 

[tinydancer]

What words could offend?

Let's rock it.

 

[tinydancer]

Those who think that liberals are communists need to change their tinfoil. Or their meds.

Aha dragonlady. I may be a canadian conservative, but I'm an uber conservativel if you think EU You have to look at things on a scale.

Ok? Gettting it now? I've been trying to explain Jack Layton and how we could all love him and many don't get it or even understand how our super uber conservative leader gave Jack a State Funeral and how we loved him so.

So, TD, do you see a need to allow a Jack Layton to accuse the Prime Minister for killing people because he didn't authorize enough funding for the homeless? Or to allow those who think Jack Layton was completely off base about that to say so? Should any of these parties be physically or materially punished for expressing their opinions? As opposed to simply choosing somebody else to elect the next time?

Jack was a drama queen and we all knew that. He was Jack Layton. This is what I am trying to point out.

We knew what we had and we all loved him for it.

Now here's the kicker, when Layton though went to the table and ditto Olivia they went in for the people with realistic standards.

And they fought well and within reason. And amen to that.

 

[Foxfyre]

What words could offend?

Let's rock it.

It is obvious that some think it should be a free for all with the biggest baddest speech bullies having the last word--they hope THEY are the biggest and baddest of course. The problem with that is you have most threads at USMB dissolving into insult fests and food fights because nobody is the least bit tolerant of any opinion that doesn't match their own. And yes, the left and right are both guilty of that. They accuse, blame, make the MESSENGER rather than the opinion the issue, and if they are thwarted in that, they put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home in a snit. It happens again and again and again.

But I can't get ANYBODY to answer that words question or who should have the authority to make up the list of words that offend or beliefs/concepts that must not be allowed to exist without severe punishment.

 

[tinydancer]

We used to call him Taliban Jack for crying out loud. Didn't mean we didn't love him. I dropped to my knees when I heard he died.

I respected the man from way back. In TO. But you don't get men like him anymore.

 

[tinydancer]

Now back to the duckies..............

ok Mossberg?

What do you think?

 

[Foxfyre]

Now back to the duckies..............

ok Mossberg?

What do you think?

Walt Mossberg of the WSJ? He was ever controversial? Or are you referring to another Mossberg?

 

[tinydancer]

Now back to the duckies..............

ok Mossberg?

What do you think?

Walt Mossberg of the WSJ? He was ever controversial? Or are you referring to another Mossberg?

Guns. Whoa geeze.

 

[LoneLaugher]

^^like watching two masters plying their craft^^

 

[tinydancer]

Now back to the duckies..............

ok Mossberg?

What do you think?

Walt Mossberg of the WSJ? He was ever controversial? Or are you referring to another Mossberg?

You have to be the nicest person ever next to freedombecki Or Amelia fill in the blank.......I'm talking guns And yes I'm a woman.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now back to the duckies..............

ok Mossberg?

What do you think?

Walt Mossberg of the WSJ? He was ever controversial? Or are you referring to another Mossberg?

You have to be the nicest person ever next to freedombecki Or Amelia fill in the blank.......I'm talking guns And yes I'm a woman.

LOL, thanks, but I'm sure there are a lot of folks who would disagree with you. I've been called a lot of names this week already. But okay you've stumped me. I don't know of what you speak. So enlighten me unless we're derailing the thread here.

 

[beagle9]

"Mainstream America" isn't nearly as right wing or as bigoted as the posters here. Mainstream America favours gay marriage.

As for the Robertsons and A&E, my best guess is that very few of the posters here have actually read the interview, and that would include anyone who still thinks Phil was set up. I think it was Phil who did the setting up, to promote his own agenda to rid America of sinners.

Who went looking for who, and when they found what they were looking for, then who set up the questions that were going to be asked ? It wasn't Phil because all he did was just answer the questions, so who was it that set it all up ? Why would Phil set his own self up like that ? Amuse us with your fantasizing of what these people were up to, and who is to blame. XXXXXXX Just sayin !

No Family Attacks, real, implied, or hypothetical. - Intense

So PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY does not apply to what comes out of Phil's pie hole. He is a VICTIM...

Personal responsibility ? For what ? Phil did no wrong, even though you all are trying desperately to assign wrong to him. The GQ interviewer and possibly A&E are the ones who did wrong, so what is Phil the easier target in all of this maybe ? Oh yes that is it, and so I see now what is going on here, where as this is what you all were thinking when attacked Phil (he is the dumb hic eh?) instead of attacking the big dogs that stirred it all up, and so you go after what yall figured was the softer target instead. Got it now... Pathetic!

 

[beagle9]

"Mainstream America" isn't nearly as right wing or as bigoted as the posters here. Mainstream America favours gay marriage.

As for the Robertsons and A&E, my best guess is that very few of the posters here have actually read the interview, and that would include anyone who still thinks Phil was set up. I think it was Phil who did the setting up, to promote his own agenda to rid America of sinners.

Who went looking for who, and when they found what they were looking for, then who set up the questions that were going to be asked ? It wasn't Phil because all he did was just answer the questions, so who was it that set it all up ? Why would Phil set his own self up like that ? Amuse us with your fantasizing of what these people were up to, and who is to blame. XXXXXXX Just sayin !

No Family Attacks, real, implied, or hypothetical. - Intense

Ummm. isn't that what's going on here against the Robertson's family ?

I was doing a character analysis of how someone might be defending the indefensible on one side of an issue, and this when it comes to some things that go on in life. I do apologize if the hypothetical was to harsh in the analysis that was made of how people do this sometimes.

Point taken, and now lets move on here.

 

[beagle9]

Sticking your penis in another man's butthole does not make you special in any way. You're subject to the same ridicule & insult everyone else is. However, this particular man didn't say anything hateful or insulting. But this dead horse's been dead for a long long time. Time to move on.

No one should be subject to ridicule or insult what they do in their private love life.
If you want to fuck your wife in the ass or whatever why is it anyone else's business?
"Fag" jokes or any jokes of the sexual preferences of law abiding citizens have no place in normal human behavior.
Those that put folks up to ridicule and insult are worse than those they condemn.

No one condemned anyone right ?

 

[beagle9]

When or if you Communists show me cause to conclude different, i'll acknowledge it. Till then, you are what you are.

Those who think that liberals are communists need to change their tinfoil. Or their meds.

Most who call themselves 'Liberals/Socialists/Progressives', are in fact Communists. True Liberalism actually conflicts quite a bit with Socialism/Progressivism. They're not the same. There are very few true, or classical Liberals around. Socialism/Progressivism = Communism.

And remember communism works for corporations. Think about it..

 

[beagle9]

From the beginning man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). The Bible lists a number of covenants after this and usually there were some associated rule changes at this time. When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3). With Moses, meat eating was even more strict, limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (e.g., Leviticus 11:47). In the new covenant in Christ’s blood, this was further opened up (Romans 14:1–4). And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).

By that logic there would be no food at all. Plants live and die same as animals. I believe I'll hold out for the happy hunting ground.

You're probably right, no food at all. As I think about it there probably wouldn't be hunger in Heaven so no reason for any type of food.

Man I want to be hungry some, because I love to eat.. B )