Politically Correct

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If your idea of "freedom" is being able to bully and intimidate others with words then I pity you.

Yes you'd much rather bully and intimidate with guvamint thugs acting as your proxy, not with words but very real force and threats of force.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yes you'd much rather bully and intimidate with guvamint thugs acting as your proxy, not with words but very real force and threats of force.

I would?
You dont know me.

Originally posted by Eladar
I think that bringing the power of the government against other individuals simply based on what a person says is bullying and intimidating.

A single solitary credible example of this occurring would be a fantastic thing.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I would?
You dont know me.

Perhaps you can expand on this comment then:

"If your idea of "freedom" is being able to bully and intimidate others with words then I pity you."

Is it not also your idea of freedom that people should be able to say things others might consider 'bullying' or would you like them censored, which is it?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Perhaps you can expand on this comment then:

"If your idea of "freedom" is being able to bully and intimidate others with words then I pity you."

Is it not also your idea of freedom that people should be able to say things others might consider 'bullying' or would you like them censored, which is it?

Yes - I would censor the use of verbal abuse in the same way that physical abuse is censored.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes - I would censor the use of verbal abuse in the same way that physical abuse is censored.

Then this clearly stands:

"Yes you'd much rather bully and intimidate with guvamint thugs acting as your proxy, not with words but very real force and threats of force."

...because it is when physical force comes in to it that the line is crossed. If saying 'mean' things is so effective surely you can just say mean things back to the person saying mean things in the first place, why is it you that must resort to physical force.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Then this clearly stands:

"Yes you'd much rather bully and intimidate with guvamint thugs acting as your proxy, not with words but very real force and threats of force."

...because it is when physical force comes in to it that the line is crossed. If saying 'mean' things is so effective surely you can just say mean things back to the person saying mean things in the first place, why is it you that must resort to physical force.

I cannot see what point you are trying to mae. What physical force?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I cannot see what point you are trying to mae. What physical force?

How else do you propose to censor if not with force and threats of force.

Someone expresses themselves in a manner of which you do not approve, you want to stop them.

Originally posted by Eladar
One of the biggest infringements on our personal liberty is political correctness. You can't have an opinion that goes against certain groups, otherwise you are going to suffer the consequences.

What's up with that?

Say that the president was being a tool and you get fired.

Crack jokes about the wrong group and you get pulled on the carpet and force ...[text shortened]... nd poltical corrrectness is not enforced by the courts, then why would any company care?

Do you know where the term "political correctness" comes from?

Originally posted by Wajoma
How else do you propose to censor if not with force and threats of force.

Someone expresses themselves in a manner of which you do not approve, you want to stop them.

We are ctalking about laws and if laws are broken there are consequences enforcable by the state/courts/police.

That applies to amy law from jay-walking to murder.

Do you not approve of any laws?

Originally posted by Eladar
One of the biggest infringements on our personal liberty is political correctness. You can't have an opinion that goes against certain groups, otherwise you are going to suffer the consequences.

What's up with that?

Say that the president was being a tool and you get fired.

Crack jokes about the wrong group and you get pulled on the carpet and force ...[text shortened]... nd poltical corrrectness is not enforced by the courts, then why would any company care?

Trailer park? Damn no, that's way too fancy for the likes of us. We've's got ourselves a shack we does.

Originally posted by Wajoma
How else do you propose to censor if not with force and threats of force.

Someone expresses themselves in a manner of which you do not approve, you want to stop them.

You and Eladar must whack off to fantasies about being oppressed by evil communists in stiletto heels and fishnet stockings. "Oh yes, comrade, repress me repress me!!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We are ctalking about laws and if laws are broken there are consequences enforcable by the state/courts/police.

That applies to amy law from jay-walking to murder.

Do you not approve of any laws?

We are talking about you wanting to shut someone up if they express themselves in a manner that you do not approve of.

And yes, there should be laws, laws that protect me from you and vice versa, and there should be laws to protect persons right to freedom of expression.

A person has the right to live their life free from force, threats of force and fraud, so if we apply this to your two examples:

Jay-walking. This could be grey, on the outset it's your own danged fault if you go and get yourself run over and it is definitely not the role of guvamint to protect you from your own self, so long as there is money to pay for the panel and paint job of the car you damaged and recompense for any time lost by the driver. Where it becomes grey is if you are jaywalking and a driver swerves to miss you and takes someone else out. What needs to be ascertained in cases like this is 'objective threat'.

Murder. That's a no-brainer eh.

So we come back to censorship, you say with words a person can "intimidate and bully' If by intimidate you mean a person should not be able to make threats of force then I agree, they should not, the other exception is fraud or defamation other than those two things it's all go.