Am 31.03.2012 23:03, schrieb Alain:

> That's political correctness taken to a new hight in absurdity and
> stupidity.

PC /is/ absurd and stupid down to its core; it's an attempt to cure a 
disease by treating the symptoms alone.

For instance, as long as there is racism, /any/ term used to denote a 
group of people that happens to be discriminated will /inevitably/ 
become "politically incorrect" over time.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> There is no shame to
> be different as long as not stubborn to insist on strict equality for
> all: you should done as much as you can for others, and nobody should
> despise another one.)... alas, there is no more place in todays world
> for duel when two disagrees.

  Moreover, trying to shield people from hurt feelings by imposing a
form of newspeak can be actually more harmful than good.

  In human biology, extreme hygiene, especially on children, can actually
be more harfmul than good in the long run: The immune system does not get
exposed to the harmful microbes of the world, and thus doesn't build up
resistance to them. If this continues for long, especially on young people,
such a person can become very weak to diseases that normally people wouldn't
even notice, or would only cause small symptoms.

  I believe the same is true of the mind: If you never get exposed to
unpleasant ideas and words, if you are raised in a protective bubble where
you are shielded from ever hearing them, when you do finally encounter
them in real life, you may get emotionally scarred.

  This is especially true for people who deliberately *choose* to consider
some things negative that most people deem as completely normal. If they
*choose* to deliberately get offended by what's normally considered ok
than that's *their* own fault. They do not get to dictate what words others
can and cannot use.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.04.2012 13:19, schrieb Warp:

>    In human biology, extreme hygiene, especially on children, can actually
> be more harfmul than good in the long run: The immune system does not get
> exposed to the harmful microbes of the world, and thus doesn't build up
> resistance to them. If this continues for long, especially on young people,
> such a person can become very weak to diseases that normally people wouldn't
> even notice, or would only cause small symptoms.

... plus, there's evidence that an idle immune system will start busying 
itself with other stuff, such as developing allergies.

Post a reply to this message

> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
>> There is no shame to
>> be different as long as not stubborn to insist on strict equality for
>> all: you should done as much as you can for others, and nobody should
>> despise another one.)... alas, there is no more place in todays world
>> for duel when two disagrees.
>
>    Moreover, trying to shield people from hurt feelings by imposing a
> form of newspeak can be actually more harmful than good.
>
>    In human biology, extreme hygiene, especially on children, can actually
> be more harfmul than good in the long run: The immune system does not get
> exposed to the harmful microbes of the world, and thus doesn't build up
> resistance to them. If this continues for long, especially on young people,
> such a person can become very weak to diseases that normally people wouldn't
> even notice, or would only cause small symptoms.
>
>    I believe the same is true of the mind: If you never get exposed to
> unpleasant ideas and words, if you are raised in a protective bubble where
> you are shielded from ever hearing them, when you do finally encounter
> them in real life, you may get emotionally scarred.
>
>    This is especially true for people who deliberately *choose* to consider
> some things negative that most people deem as completely normal. If they
> *choose* to deliberately get offended by what's normally considered ok
> than that's *their* own fault. They do not get to dictate what words others
> can and cannot use.
>

Any child that is not exposed to armfull microbes and other germs is 
highly suceptible to devlop alergies.

In a similar way, if you are not exposed to so called "objectionable" 
words, you may become overly sensitive to them or other that may vaguely 
look or sound similar.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/

  Btw, even if it made even some semblance of sense to ban such "offensive"
words from school tests, there are some words listed in the article that
still don't make sense even in that context.

  For example banning the word "dinosaur" makes no sense. The rationale
given is that it could potentially offend creationists. But if you look at
creationists, the *love* dinosaurs. Every single "creation museum" in
existence probably has a big dinosaur on its facade (or at the very least
inside), as well as every single piece of creationist childrens' book, etc.
If there's one animal that creationists just adore, it's the dinosaur.

  Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
word "reptile" or the word "bird".

  And if they ban the word "dinosaur", are they also going to ban all
the orders, families, genuses and species that belong to the superorder
dinosauria? (If "dinosaur" is banned, what stops some teacher from using
instead something like "theropod", "coelophysoid" or "efraasia" if he
wants to be clever?) And how about other extinct clades such as the
trilobites or ammonites? How about "living fossils" such as the coelacanth?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
> word "reptile" or the word "bird".

They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the 
same logic they should ban the word "republicans".

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> >    Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
> > word "reptile" or the word "bird".

> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the 
> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".

  I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 01/04/2012 18:31, Warp nous fit lire :
> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>    Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
> 
>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the 
>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
> 
>   I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
> 
From the old and venerable laws, atheists are to be offered one chance
as infidel / non-believer, after what they will be put to death (well,
the law will "save their souls").

Notice, that strict interpretation of the law does not warrant life even
if they convert. Indeed, freshly converted ones should be put to death
right after conversion, to save their cleansed souls.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/04/2012 5:31 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>     Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>
>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>
>    I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>

I would not think so. They will want a name to hang on the evil ones.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/1/2012 11:33 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 5:31 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>>
>>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>>
>> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>>
>
> I would not think so. They will want a name to hang on the evil ones.
>
Yeah, they only ban that word if its "by itself" on a bus ad, where the 
only other content is a web address, showing where to find out about it. 
Its perfectly fine if you want to use it in a much longer sentence, 
like, "Those damn atheists are ruining the country!". :p

Post a reply to this message