#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is it time to stop being politically correct?
Trump Post-London Attack: ‘We Must Stop Being Politically Correct’
President urges western leaders to name, confront threat of radical Islamic terrorism
Yes
Side Score: 19
|
 |
No
Side Score: 25
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
1
point
The NWO puts Reps in to control the nonWest. They put the Dems in to get more social control. Our way simply gets the shock collars on us later rather than sooner. Conservatives aren't hoping to win. We're hoping to hold the dam as long as we can. We can't win and won't. Side: Yes
Hello bront: If we can't win YOUR way, why don't we try mine? It'll work, I promise.. Why? Because it's based on TRUTH and not THEATER.. I'd START with this truth.. If we didn't depose Iran's democratically elected leader and installed our own puppet brutal DICTATOR, MAYBE Iran wouldn't be so pissed off at us.. Building settlements on occupied Palestinian land isn't helping things either.. These are just a couple of TRUTHS you right wingers REFUSE to see.. And, in so doing, you're right.. We CAN'T win and won't. excon Side: No
1
point
If we can't win YOUR way, why don't we try mine? It'll work, I promise.. Why? Because it's based on TRUTH and not THEATER.. There is a reason we went for someone who appeared to not be far right or far left. Both parties are corrupt to the core. Your way doesn't work. It gets us in shock collars quicker. We are going on the hope and a prayer that this might be the first President that isn't a part of "them". We might be wrong, but we know you are wrong. Side: Yes
Hello again, bront: You, yourself said we had no business invading Iraq.. Doncha think acknowledging that fact would go a long way toward SOLVING it?? Since you appear to understand the history of the Iraq war, certainly you KNOW that ISIS was started IN Iraq by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. ISIS is a DIRECT outgrowth of that war. Acknowledging that would help things too... No?? excon Side: No
3
points
You, yourself said we had no business invading Iraq.. Doncha think acknowledging that fact would go a long way toward SOLVING it?? They don't plan on solving it Con. We created a situation with Bush. That allowed us to create chaos with Obama. We'll soon have someone that uses it as an excuse to say the world is violent. Then that gives them a reason to "solve the problem" with brutal force. Of course they created the "problem", and on purpose. Will it matter in the end? Probably not. Side: Yes
1
point
I'd START with this truth.. If we didn't depose Iran's democratically elected leader and installed our own puppet brutal DICTATOR, MAYBE Iran wouldn't be so pissed off at us.. Better start studying Shia Islam Con. They literally think that causing a global disaster like a nuclear bomb will usher in the coming of the Mahdi. (Islamic messiah) You don't wan to go their route. You can't do anything but piss of Shias if you aren't Shia. Why do you think that Iran is constantly threatening to nuke Israel and Saudi Arabia? Side: Yes
According to CNN: "The London Ambulance Service has updated the number of people being treated at five hospitals from 'more than 30' to 48." The death toll remains at 6 as of this publication. As previously reported, the three individuals who officials believe carried out the attack have been killed by police. 'THIS IS FOR ALLAH': Islamist Terrorist Rampage Leaves At Least 6 Dead, Dozens Injured. All 3 Suspects Killed By Police. London is not a THEATER of terror and i know those Muslims aren't fighting a war in London are they FRAUD ! Side: Yes
1
point
Obama dropped eight years worth of theatre bombs in the Middle East. You couldn't have cared less. He could have taken over the world with brutal force, and you would have said nothing. He was accused of conspiracy with the Muslim Brotherhood by multiple Muslim governments. You said nothing. As long as Obama put on that bullshit grin, you would have sat there and happily watched him milk himself in front of children on live tv. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
The country was the least racist in American history right before Obama came in. He was all about reminding the African Americans and liberals about the racism from before any of us were born. It's really rather disgusting. He made his hatred for Whites rather clear in "Dreams from my Father". He then became President, rammed the "white oppressor" into the minds of the youth, and took us back 50 years in race relations. Side: Yes
1
point
Given that the definition of political correctness is "avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive" (Cambridge Dictionary). Can you please explain how ceasing to be politically correct will lead to "people...throw(ing) shoes and tomatoes on each other"? Further please note that throwing a projectile at someone constitutes the criminal offense battery in and of itself. Side: Yes
1
point
I already stated that throwing projectiles at others is a criminal offense; battery. It makes no sense to argue that people would disregard the law if they stopped being politically correct. In addition, the offenses enumerated in law aren't about the possibility of subjective feelings of unkindness or offensiveness. If someone throws something at you there is no ambiguity, it's violence. I must respect your rights but you don't have a right to not be offended and you don't have a right to force me to be kind to you. Please note debate is behavior that other people might (and in fact will) find offensive. Side: Yes
1
point
people would disregard the law if they stopped being politically correct. The definition is about being offensive and unkind, and it is not necessary that offensive behavior will always not violate law. I have in no context mentioned that offensive behavior is always going to be illegal. Offensive behavior, when found, may be legal or illegal. Please note debate is behavior that other people might (and in fact will) find offensive. sure, but a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote is a debate. It's "formal". and I do have a problem with the definition you've put up. wikipedia has a way better definition.. Side: No
"The definition is about being offensive and unkind, and it is not necessary that offensive behavior will always not violate law. " Indeed, in which case you acknowledge that what you previously asserted; that without PC we would devolve into violence is false. "sure, but a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote is a debate. It's "formal". " My point is that while you support the idea that people should abstain from engaging in language or behavior which may offend others, you are hypocritically engaging in one such behavior. I am also pointing out that offense is subjective and is taken, not given. One can find absolutely anything offensive if they are sensitive enough. "and I do have a problem with the definition you've put up. wikipedia has a way better definition.." Wikipedia's definition only applies to "groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against". This is even worse as it fails to uphold the same standard for everyone. If you are part of a group that is "seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against" it's not okay to offend you but if you aren't then it is. Though given it's subjective nature technically anyone can see any group as disadvantaged or discriminated against (but then the definitions would be the same in practice). Under either definition everything I said still applies. "sure, but when a state is "secular", it can't be offensive to a specific group of people, again, please read this.." The state can't be offensive to a specific group of people? What specifically are you talking about? Side: Yes
1
point
Indeed, in which case you acknowledge that what you previously asserted; that without PC we would devolve into violence is false. Certainly not, as violence can also be a consequence of not being politically correct, which is inappropriate behavior, according to the definition you put up. My point is that while you support the idea that people should abstain from engaging in language or behavior which may offend others, you are hypocritically engaging in one such behavior. this is why I mentioned about a problem about the definition you've put up. Wikipedia's definition only applies to "groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against". This is even worse as it fails to uphold the same standard for everyone certainly not, as what is offensive and when is something logic and rationality cannot decide, it's what you see and interpret of the circumstances put in front of you. Well, if you're stubborn enough to not accept anything to be offensive since because it's subjective, then this very debate is not the place you should be putting up your arguments on, as we are looking at a particular case here, and we are not "questioning" on what is and what should be offensive, as that is,indeed quite subjective. When you step int the debate seeing the context of which it portrays, you by default should know that this debate is on a specific subjective topic and not on questioning what's subjective, hence your arguments need to be within context. Side: No
You had previously stated that ceasing to be P.C. would lead to "people...throw(ing) shoes and tomatoes on each other". The point I made is that it is the law is what stops people from doing this, not P.C. You have failed to address this point. Secondly, you miss the fact that P.C. is applied unequally in Wikipedia's definition (the one you argued was better for this reason). In other words, sexist terms such as "mansplaining" and offensive behavior and language towards white men is acceptable. The reason for this being that white males are generally not "seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against". You have also failed to reply to this point. "this very debate is not the place you should be putting up your arguments on, as we are looking at a particular case here," To quote Trump's rather vacuous words "“We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people." I feel since I began with questioning your assertion that P.C. is all that's preventing civilization devolving into violence I have been on topic. Trump didn't make any specific proposal in the news article. If he did, however, I would judge it on it's pros and cons and not on the fact some people might get offended. "we are not "questioning" on what is and what should be offensive, as that is,indeed quite subjective" I'm glad you agree, anyone can find anything offensive. As such any attempts to not offend anyone will be fruitless. If we modify our behavior and language because of thin-skinned people we will never be finished. Worse still, if we draw lines somewhere we will have created a two-class system; one class which it is acceptable to offend, and another which isn't. Side: Yes
1
point
The point I made is that it is the law is what stops people from doing this, not P.C. You have failed to address this point It still is inappropriate behavior, according to your definition, and inappropriate behavior can be legal or illegal, if it is illegal, then this specific behavior would be called a crime, but what became a crime is this inappropriate behavior. it is not necessary that all inappropriate behaviors should be crimes, but all crimes are certainly inappropriate behaviors.. I hope you get what I'm saying, Illegal or not, it doesn't matter, inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior. I feel since I began with questioning your assertion that P.C. is all that's preventing civilization devolving into violence I have been on topic The assertion I made isn't accurately interpreted there, what was being conveyed there was that "violence" is a possibility, not definitely the case. Violence is one of the many things which could come as a consequence, I'm not telling there will be violence, there can be. As you and I both can discuss on the possibilities in the future, not the accurate future by itself. I'm glad you agree, anyone can find anything offensive. As such any attempts to not offend anyone will be fruitless. If we modify our behavior and language because of thin-skinned people we will never be finished See, this is where we need to separate what is theoretically correct from real life practicality.. when we talk about a government, at least as that of a democracy, they have to be neutral to everyone. Side: No
"so the next time people sit in a meeting, they can throw shoes and tomatoes on each other" "to stop being politically correct leads to all that's mentioned above." These statements taken together is a clear assertion that ceasing to be P.C. will lead to violence. If I understand correctly, however, you are backtracking on this (which I admire). You seem to acknowledge that it is the law, and not P.C., which causes people to be nonviolent. You have still left a lot of my points unaddressed, I hope it is because you now agree. I agree that governments should be neutral. Everyone regardless of sex, race, religion etc. should receive equal treatment. This doesn't entail not offending anyone, however. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
"Okay, so are you telling people can be racist, and make decisions based on "races"?" I personally don't agree with judging people based on anything but the content of their character. However, as long as they stay within the law and don't violate others' rights, people are free to be as bigoted, backwards and stupid as they wish. Side: Yes
1
point
I agree that governments should be neutral. Everyone regardless of sex, race, religion etc. should receive equal treatment you've said this, good, now let's talk about governments ceasing to be politically correct based on the wikipedia definition, and look at what's happening in america.... do you see where things are going? Side: No
I'd once again state my problem with Wikipedia's definition but I don't want to flog a dead horse. Where do you think things are going? I'm personally most concerned by the rise of social justice, anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. Take the recent events at Evergreen State College, for example. If that in itself doesn't worry you then the fact that social justice is what's fueling the rise of the alt-right will. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Wikipedia's definition only applies to "groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against". This is even worse as it fails to uphold the same standard for everyone If this is your issue, then depending on the circumstances, we can decide on the "disadvantaged side", and apply political correctness.. and certainly, we cannot have all groups to be discriminated at the same time in a particular case . So, in other words, it does uphold the same standard for everyone, as a group that isn't discriminated or disadvantaged today, might be one that is discriminated some time in the future, and if/when that happens, political correctness will be applied for that specific group. Side: No
The tweets quoted in the article didn't seem to have any statements against Muslims. "We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse" "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"" "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!" It just seems like a bunch of political grandstanding to me. If Trump came out and said "All Muslims are terrorists, we must lock them all up to prevent further attacks" I'd agree that would be a problem. As for the definition issue all groups are discriminated against at the same time. Affirmative action discriminates against white and Asian people, for example. Men are discriminated against in custody battles. I can go on for ages on these but we shouldn't even be looking at people based on their group status. I believe in treating people equally regardless of their perceived victim status. As such I find it bigoted that one would make an effort to not offend one group and not another. Further, narratives of oppression of one group by another historically seems to lead to mass murder and genocide. Take the French or Bolshevik revolutions for examples of this. While I find it unlikely violence of such an extreme scope will occur, it is indicative of what this oppressor vs oppressed mindset can lead to. Side: Yes
1
point
"We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse" says the man who wants to ban muslims from entering U.S, it's a clear indication to what he means. As for the definition issue all groups are discriminated against at the same time discrimination:the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Men are discriminated against in custody battles women are not, when you consider custody battles. so they aren't discriminated in this case. Therefore there is a group that is discriminated and there's a group that isn't. I believe in treating people equally regardless of their perceived victim status. fair enough, I too believe the same, but equality isn't justice, when we talk about a disadvantaged group. Further, narratives of oppression of one group by another historically seems to lead to mass murder and genocide. Take the French or Bolshevik revolutions for examples of this. While I find it unlikely violence of such an extreme scope will occur, it is indicative of what this oppressor vs oppressed mindset can lead to and that is exactly why we have law and courts, so that there is justice, and the opressed group gets what it should, if it is possible without harm to any particular group. Side: No
"says the man who wants to ban muslims from entering U.S, it's a clear indication to what he means." Well the so-called Muslim ban was actually a ban of immigration from certain problematic Muslim countries, the list of which was drawn up by Obama. I also don't believe it is clear what he means, he's being incredibly vague. "women are not, when you consider custody battles. so they aren't discriminated in this case. Therefore there is a group that is discriminated and there's a group that isn't. " Wouldn't you argue that women are discriminated against in other ways? If so then both females and males are simultaneously discriminated against. This means everyone is discriminated against at the same time. We aren't PC to people solely in the situation(s) where their group is discriminated against. If we were then it would be acceptable under PC to drop N-bombs around blacks as long as there were no police around. "equality isn't justice, when we talk about a disadvantaged group." I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It's unfair to treat people equally? It's deeply bigoted to treat people differently based on, for example, the color of their skin. "and that is exactly why we have law and courts, so that there is justice, and the oppressed group gets what it should, if it is possible without harm to any particular group." They had law and courts in the instances I mentioned. What exactly should the "oppressed" group get? If it isn't possible to not cause harm to any particular group what then? Side: Yes
1
point
I also don't believe it is clear what he means, he's being incredibly vague well then my argument in that case is just as true as yours is, since he is very vague. Wouldn't you argue that women are discriminated against in other ways? If so then both females and males are simultaneously discriminated against in the case of custody battles, as of that topic, women are not, and that's what matters in that case. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It's unfair to treat people equally? equality should be there, and I support it. well to not aid people who will die since they have no money, just because others can, is not justice, but sure, is justice being done with them..
. What exactly should the "oppressed" group get? If it isn't possible to not cause harm to any particular group what then? that decision will be made by the court, which for obvious reasons, is expected to be unbiased. They had law and courts in the instances I mentioned. not democracies, and hence not laws that are "equal" to everyone, to the maximum possible extent. Side: No
"well then my argument in that case is just as true as yours is, since he is very vague." Untrue, I asserted it was unclear what he was saying. You have stated he was saying something obvious but didn't state what this is. "in the case of custody battles, as of that topic, women are not, and that's what matters in that case." So it's perfectly fine under PC fine to drop N-bombs around black people as long as the police aren't around? After all, they aren't being discriminated against in that situation. Discrimination as a qualifier for PC protections either applies situationally or universally. You can't have it both ways. If applied universally then men are a discriminated against group. If applied situationally then blacks are only a discriminated group, for example, when police are involved. "equality should be there, and I support it. well to not aid people who will die since they have no money, just because others can, is not justice, but sure, is justice being done with them.." Poverty happens to people regardless of their group status. Do you support equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Further, do you support treating people differently based on their "perceived disadvantaged group" status? "that decision will be made by the court, which for obvious reasons, is expected to be unbiased." If you can't propose a course of action I can't argue against it. I disagree with giving people things based on their "perceived disadvantaged group" status. People should be viewed as individuals, not as their group. This philosophy, apart from setting groups against each other, offers no solutions. "not democracies, and hence not laws that are "equal" to everyone, to the maximum possible extent." OK, Nazi Germany was a democracy in the beginning. Being a democratic system does not preclude mass murder or genocide and doesn't allow us to forget the lessons of history. My point wasn't even that though, my point is that such narratives lead to violence. Side: Yes
1
point
Untrue, I asserted it was unclear what he was saying when he himself is unclear, in his statement, how can you be clear of what he means? that's what makes your assertion and my assertion just as valid. So it's perfectly fine under PC fine to drop N-bombs around black people as long as the police aren't around? After all, they aren't being discriminated against in that situation. Discrimination as a qualifier for PC protections either applies situationally or universally the crowd in the case of custody battles is divided as men and women. the n-bomb case is a case of it's own, where the disadvantaged group are the african americans, and P.C protects them, as by following it, you're not being racist. every issue should be looked into as a separate one. there is no point in bringing up the n-bomb case when we talk about custody battles. and just because we are talking about custody battles, doesn't mean other groups aren't being discriminated, but as of the issue, of custody battles, we are talking about men being the disadvantaged group, while women aren't. In a particular case, the crowd will have a group that is "disadvantaged", the very word means that there is a group that holds an advantageous position. Poverty happens to people regardless of their group status. Do you support equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Further, do you support treating people differently based on their "perceived disadvantaged group" status? the same issue again, the crowd when poverty is considered, is either rich, or poor. Further, do you support treating people differently based on their "perceived disadvantaged group" status yes, to help bring them to a point from where we don't have to call them disadvantaged, anymore. If you can't propose a course of action I can't argue against it. I disagree with giving people things based on their "perceived disadvantaged group" status. People should be viewed as individuals, not as their group. This philosophy, apart from setting groups against each other, offers no solutions. I suggest you to read my arguments carefully, your issues are answered, and I see not point in flogging a dead horse here. OK, Nazi Germany was a democracy in the beginning yes, you have answered yourself there. Side: No
"when he himself is unclear, in his statement, how can you be clear of what he means?" Once again, I asserted it's unclear what he is saying. You were the one who was saying it was clear. "the crowd in the case of custody battles is divided as men and women... In a particular case, the crowd will have a group that is "disadvantaged", the very word means that there is a group that holds an advantageous position." It seems you're taking disadvantage as a universal rather than situational trait. In this case all groups are disadvantaged in different ways. As such one should analyze all the different ways one group is disadvantaged relative to another and try to objectively decide which group is most disadvantaged. These decisions, however, will always be subjective because different people will deem different groups more disadvantaged. Please try to do the "math" for this: between Asians and whites who is more disadvantaged? Asians in the U.S. earn more on average than whites for example (source 1). Does this make whites a universally disadvantaged group relative to Asians? Since all groups are disadvantaged in different ways it seems a waste of time to determine who is most disadvantaged. Further, it doesn't even seem possible to determine which group is objectively more disadvantaged. In addition, telling people they are disadvantaged demoralizes them and engenders hate toward those who are supposedly advantaged. "the same issue again, the crowd when poverty is considered, is either rich, or poor." It's unclear but I'm guessing you're accepting that poor people are disadvantaged relative to rich people. How about we take a black rich man relative to a poor white man? Is his wealth or his skin color more important in determining his disadvantage? What about the man's intelligence? His personality? His attractiveness? His natural aptitudes? It quickly becomes clear that on an individual basis objective determination of advantage vs disadvantage is impossible. What made western civilizations so great is that we ignored group membership and instead focused on the individual. This is the only way to achieve a free and fair society; focusing on the individual, not groups, and treating everyone equally. "yes, to help bring them to a point from where we don't have to call them disadvantaged, anymore. " So we take away equality of opportunity (the very foundation of western democracies) to treat people differently because we have subjectively decided them to be disadvantaged relative to others. Instead of viewing people as distinct individuals with a myriad of traits which advantage and disadvantage them in the world we reduce them to things like gender, sexuality and skin color. This worldview, forever focused on surface characteristics, will not decrease bigotry: it will increase it. The only way we will ever get rid of racism, for example, is to act as if race is irrelevant. "I suggest you to read my arguments carefully, your issues are answered, and I see not point in flogging a dead horse here." So basically whatever the courts decide you will accept? Seems like a cop-out to actually offering a solution that can withstand challenge. "yes, you have answered yourself there." No I haven't. I raised the point that oppressor vs oppressed narratives lead to violence, even in democratic systems. Sources: Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
you don't have a right to not be offended and you don't have a right to force me to be kind to you. sure, but when a state is "secular", it can't be offensive to a specific group of people, again, please read this.. Side: No
|
