TAHAWK 1420 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 That's what it's all about ! Link to post Share on other sites
SeattlePioneer 144 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Liberals are always APPALLED by hate language. Except their own, of course. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hey there fella, let's stop throwing around names now....just WHO is it you're calling APPALLED? Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Right foot Left Foot Hokey Pokey ! As one called a "fascist" when in the History Department and "Commie" in Law School, I have found that name-calling (I will not dignify it as "Hate Speech") is hardly a monopoly of one extreme of the other. It is, rather, what defines the extremes. And the extremes get coverage because that coverage gets ratings and sells soap. Link to post Share on other sites
AZMike 173 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I hate to be the spoilsport here and suggest people define the terms they are using, but "PC" is pretty ambiguous. Many here are using it to refer to a social policy that one does not categorize or call people in terms they do not prefer (which I always thought of as "courtesy" or "good manners" or "being a gentleman.") How can one argue with not being needlessly rude or insulting? "Politically incorrect," on the other hand, was a term I first saw and heard used in the feverish political tracts and speeches of the far Left student movements (like the SDS, SLA, Weather Underground, etc.) of the 1960s, when it was used in a non-ironic manner to castigate those who failed to follow the Marxist/Maoist/Stalinist/Trotskyite/whichever party line. One who aped the "politically correct" line was one who followed such teachings slavishly, and incorporated them into their worldview. This is the actual origin of the term. When we describe someone as "politically correct" nowadays, I don't think of it as someone who observes common courtesy when referring to someone's ethnic, religious, sexual, or national characteristics. "PC" to me means someone who has adopted the current political orthodoxy wholeheartedly, to the exclusion of common sense. When the staff of Bryn Mawr, an historically female college, announced recently that they will now admit men who "identify" as women, despite having male genitalia and a Y chromosome, you know you are dealing with people who are indeed "politically correct." If you have ever used the terms "Cisgender," "Transwoman," "Sky Fairy," "siblinghood" in place of "sisterhood," "homophobic" in anything other than quotation marks, or used a non-gender specific noun (such as "it" or "ir" to describe an actual human being, or declared that "the Vagina Monologues" discriminates against "transwomen or other women who don't have vaginas," you are very probably Politically Correct. Link to post Share on other sites
AZMike 173 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You are also probably Politically Correct if you feel judges can't be adult leaders in the BSA because you might be prejudiced against gays when on the bench, but feel that atheist judges could not be prejudiced against religious defendants, or that gay judges could not be prejudiced against boy scout leaders who are plaintiffs. If you feel that need to presume that a sitting judge is an infant who cannot separate his personal life from his views on the law, then you are "politically correct." http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/blacklisting-boy-scouts/ Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You are also probably Politically Correct if you feel judges can't be adult leaders in the BSA because you might be prejudiced against gays when on the bench' date=' but feel that atheist judges could not be prejudiced against religious defendants,[/quote'] An unbalanced analogy -- an atheist judge is not necessarily a member of a private club that says god-believers can't be the best kinds of citizens. If he WAS a member of a private club that said god-believers can't be the best kinds of citizens, wouldn't it be reasonable to question his neutrality? Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Forget analogies for a moment, please. If a judge belongs to a religion that says those who do not belong to her religion will burn in Hell for all eternity will she be perceived to be unfair to those of those different sets of beliefs - or no belief in the supernatural at all? If a judge is an atheist and one litigant is the same and the other litigant is Roman Catholic, can that judge be perceived to be unfair to the Roman Catholic? (AKA "irrational, delusional, crazy person") Should an atheist or gay be a judge in a case involving someone active in the BSA - or BSA itself? Should a gay judge try a case of a gay litigant vs. say a Southern Baptist litigant? All people who have X characteristic cannot be fair to anyone who is not-X? It is going to be even tougher to find fair competent judges. Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Forget analogies for a moment, please. If a judge belongs to a religion that says those who do not belong to her religion will burn in Hell for all eternity will she be perceived to be unfair to those of those different sets of beliefs - or no belief in the supernatural at all? If a judge is an atheist and one litigant is the same and the other litigant is Roman Catholic, can that judge be perceived to be unfair to the Roman Catholic? (AKA "irrational, delusional, crazy person") Should an atheist or gay be a judge is a case involving someone active in the BSA - or BSA itself? Should a gay judge try a case of a gay litigant vs. say a Southern Baptist litigant? All people who have X characteristic cannot be fair to anyone who is not-X? It is going to be even tougher to find fair competent judges. The political correctness of judging by one's opinions (even legal opinions) is just one more step in the wrong direction for us all. I always assumed that judges based their opinions on the Law of the Land. That assumption went out the window in our country when politics instead of Constitutional Law ruled in America. I don't know if Pandora can ever put that back in the box given today's decline in American thought, PC or not. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The system assumes that a judge will set aside her personal beliefs and apply the law to the case before her. She swears an oath to that effect. Jurors swear a similar oath to be fair and apply the law as explained to them by Her Honor. We are judging certain people as inherently suspect because of their exercise of freedom of association. Why are we stopping with judges? The entire process must avoid the appearance of impropriety. So no Baptist jurors in a case with a gay or atheist litigant and visa versa.? Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 TAHAWK, I'm with you on the PC requirements of a fair trial, but it sure complicates the future. Let's say we have a Gay suing a Baptist, or vice versa. We obviously need 6 gay jurors and 6 Baptist jurors, but what do we do about the judge? Can a Gay Baptist judge be found? Or do we settle for a Happy Hindu? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I'll do it. I try to be equally mean to everyone. The religious beliefs of anyone involved shouldn't even be known publicly unless the trial is about some kind of religion-based conflict that relates to the faith of the conflicting individuals. If the legal battle is over something involving rebuilding a transmission, for example, or a property boundary..it shouldn't matter or even be entered into evidence what the 'faith' of each individual is. Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Nothing mean that I read. At least from you, pack. Problem is that, regardless of the topic of the suit, the credibility of the witnesses is almost always in play. It might be argued that If you believe that a witness is less as a person because of her sexual orientation or religion, you might accord less weight to her testimony? So we must . . . . .? This, like intentional compensatory discrimination in favor of one class and against others, is a slippery slope. There may be a political answer but there is not likely to be a logical answer once we start banning people from participation in our government (judicial branch or otherwise) because they are deists or straight. And make no mistake, that is what is being done to these judges in California. They are, as a class, being denied the right to participate in government as judges because of their exercise of freedom of association as recognized in the First Amendment - a freedom of association specifically acknowledge by the Supreme Court. "Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out." Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 LOL, I said 'try' after all....but then, you've never been on the receiving end of my 'dark side', lol. So what do you think is the way to untie this Gordian knot? Link to post Share on other sites
skeptic 997 Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 We can let the craziest of us here fall into the ocean, instead of continuing to ride the Pacific plate like they do now. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now