Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "religious right" is constantly being haranged by liberal pro-Gay groups for their intolerance of homosexuals. Where have you been? What with today's declining morals and absurd sense of entitlement that permeate this country, nobody is safe from being chastized for speaking out against Gay people.
Add on the fact that most of our media is uber-liberal as well, and almost not a week goes by without someone being dragged under the wheels for making an anti-gay statement.
The liberal sense of entitlement and obsession with political correctness has now reached comic proportions. Last night, for example, Bill O'Reilly had as a guest on his show a woman who headed a group who objected to Illegal Aliens being called "illegal."
Madness.
I hope this is a Poe post. If you are for real, it is scary to think that you are just out there in the world free range style.
Honestly, Christians/Religious people are the ones who invented the concept that words are bad. You can't even use certain words on this forum because religious people are "offended" by them.
Religious people are offended by things just as liberals are offended by other things.
There is a certain irony about your "entitlement" concept as well considering YOUR "GOD" feels entitled to at least 10% of your earnings.
Christians didn't "invent" words that are bad. True, the fundamentalist ones can be as intolerant as anybody, but they are more often intolerant of certain ideas and concepts and actions which they feel fly in the face of their beloved Bible.
But I'm standing by my OP about the liberals' incessant obesession with political-correctness, as well as their intolerance of certain words. Good Lord, they are now offended at words that were commonplace and inoffensive when I was a kid. Words like: "retarded" and "midget" and "Oriental" and "fat."
Nowadays it has to be: "special needs" and "Little person" and "Asian" and "plus-sized," respectively.
And, like I said, that woman on O'Reilly who heads-up a group objecting to calling illegal aliens "illegal," well, that's just a sign that things are ow officially out of hand. Good Lord: that would have been a joke or a skit on Saturday Night Live ten years ago. Wake up!
BTW: what kind of toolbag chooses a screen name from a notorious serial killer? You're going to offend the liberals around here. (Who, in all likelihood, would have rather seen the nutjob Gein offered a rehabilitation program in lieu than life in prison or the death penalty. They probably felt he was just the unfortunate product of a bad childhood.
Hmm..then again, "serial killer" might seem to be an offensive term to the *******s! Maybe ol' Ed was just "sanity-challenged."
Last edited by Lickety_Split; 12-27-2012 at 11:52 AM..
Christians didn't "invent" words that are bad. True, the fundamentalist ones can be as intolerant as anybody, but they are more often intolerant of certain ideas and concepts and actions which they feel fly in the face of their beloved Bible.
But I'm standing by my OP about the liberals' incessant obesession with political-correctness, as well as their intolerance of certain words. Good Lord, they are now offended at words that were commonplace and inoffensive when I was a kid. Words like: "retarded" and "midget" and "Oriental" and "fat."
Nowadays it has to be: "special needs" and "Little person" and "Asian" and "plus-sized," respectively.
And, like I said, that woman on O'Reilly who heads-up a group objecting to calling illegal aliens "illegal," well, that's just a sign that things are ow officially out of hand. Good Lord: that would have been a joke or a skit on Saturday Night Live ten years ago. Wake up!""""
O'Reilly is a liberal?????
BTW: what kind of toolbag chooses a screen name from a notorious serial killer?""""
Sounds like YOU are offended by something as simple as a chat room ID.....so sensitive!!!!
""""You're going to offend the liberals around here. (Who, in all likelihood, would have rather seen the nutjob Gein offered a rehabilitation program in lieu than life in prison or the death penalty. They probably felt he was just the unfortunate product of a bad childhood.
Hmm..then again, "serial killer" might seem to be an offensive term to the *******s! Maybe ol' Ed was just "sanity-challenged."
""""....... as their intolerance of certain words. Good Lord, they are now offended at words that were commonplace and inoffensive when I was a kid. Words like: "retarded" and "midget" and "Oriental" and "fat."
Nowadays it has to be: "special needs" and "Little person" and "Asian" and "plus-sized," respectively."""
So your "good Lord" doesn't believe in being kind and considerate???
Well, actually I always knew his followers didn't believe in it.....
Good Lord, they are now offended at words that were commonplace and inoffensive when I was a kid. Words like: "retarded" and "midget" and "Oriental" and "fat."
Nowadays it has to be: "special needs" and "Little person" and "Asian" and "plus-sized," respectively.
And, like I said, that woman on O'Reilly who heads-up a group objecting to calling illegal aliens "illegal," well, that's just a sign that things are ow officially out of hand.
If there's been impulse away from, say, "retarded", is it not just barely possible that such words weren't as inoffensive as you'd want to think they were? I saw "retard" bandied about the school yard a great deal as a child and it was always insulting and derisory. It certainly did NOT make the life of those who were actually impaired better ... I don't think you'd make that assertion.
I'll admit that I don't understand the vagaries of how similar words like "idiot" get a free pass ... perhaps because it's been a long time since that word was used as an actual label for actual mentally impaired people as well as being used for insulting purposes.
While some of the PC lexicon is arguably overkill, if we have to operate out of abundance of caution to force ourselves as individuals and as a society to quit slipping into careless and thoughtless use of hurtful labels, I think it's a small price to pay to have a more civil society.
Occasionally I get annoyed, too; I never used or heard used the word "Oriental" in a derogatory way and have trouble remembering to say "Asian" instead; but if that's what Asians would prefer then who am I to obstinately use "Oriental"? It's not a big deal, it's akin to removing my hat in someone's house out of respect, or not picking my nose -- wearing hats and rooting in one's nostrils are morally neutral acts and I theoretically have the right to do all of both that I might wish to, but if I'm going to leave a swath of offense behind me in the process maybe that's counterproductive.
Of course they do. Atheist activism exists primarily as a reaction to Christian evangelism. Without Christians attempting to control people through political and legislative eans, atheists would not be inspired to, or feel the need to react.
Atheists aren't the only ones in that battle, of course. Christian are a threat to the freedoms of us all, even non-Christian theists.
Atheists aren't the only ones in that battle, of course. Christian are a threat to the freedoms of us all, even non-Christian theists.
Fair enough. But in the US, which is the home country for most people on this board, Christians are about 80% of the population. Depending on the particular issue, non Christian theists are likely to ally with Christians. Take tax exemptions for religions as one example. Sikhs, Jews, and wiccans are likely to be in favor of his, because it benefits them. Same thing with anti LGBT legislation. Moslems support restrictions of this nature as a matter of course.
All religions are going to want their particular religious oddities protected by law, so the concept of treating a religious exemption as something special will likely be supported by any religious person, but opposed by atheists. Here I am thinking of the head coverings required by some religions. If we have a law with a good reason that requires a person to forgo wearing a yarmulke, turban, chador, etc, this causes a problem. Atheists will accept the law, but religious people, in general, will want to see an exception for faith based beliefs.
As a result, non Christian theists may be occasional political allies, but in general cannot be trusted to remove all religious considerations from political life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
