Politically Incorrect
BTW, meeting with a government staffer in equal rights for a job interview, I identified a certain phrase as "politically incorrect." I was told not to use "that phrase", i.e., it is it politically incorrect to identify a statement as politically incorrect. Political correctness has fallen on hard times. It is one thing not to name a sin (like homosexuality which previously dared not speak its own name). Now we cannot even identify apparent virtues.
Q: What is the politically correct term for someone with a handicap?
A: There is none because political correctness is politically incorrect, or would be, if we could call it that.
(OldUglyCarl's link to "Drain the Swamp" inspired this. You can't make this stuff up...)
Q: What is the politically correct term for someone with a handicap?
A: There is none because political correctness is politically incorrect, or would be, if we could call it that.
(OldUglyCarl's link to "Drain the Swamp" inspired this. You can't make this stuff up...)
Such fabrications of reality can be applied to the la-la land of unicorns lib heart that is used for a brain, but that only applies to misled well-meaning libs such as one of my four brothers, the poor thing.
Then there are the end justifies the means fascist libtards who think less with their hearts and more with their control freak butts.
Yeah, like the Jackass Party ain't above quite often showing off their commie collective anal orifices.
That goes for that (save for up until now for hee-haw vote recounting) almost totally ignored Green Party too.
Me dino has spoken.
So, too, with money. It comes in many forms and each one serves a purpose.
Following the advice of my co-workers, I bought a Benchmade knife. I learned a lot about knives. Long, long ago, the Whole Earth Catalog ("Access to Tools") taught that in an earlier day, a mechanic was hired on the basis of the tools he made for himself.
Have you ever made your own money? I have. Several times.
(Interesting topic... I think this bears discussion...)
But that is not the main point I wanted to make, not why I wanted to comment on this thread to begin with.
What do you mean by equating homosexuality with sin? By what rational thought process did you come to this conclusion?
Was your comment "which previously dared not speak its name" a lament for a time when gay men and women feared to come out of the closet?
(But I do believe that like the universality of geometry, economics is a study that applies to any sentient being, regardless of species.)
Similarly, as you can read in the comments, "capitalism" has a bad reputation. So, does "selfishness." But, socially, we all seem to have gotten over the stigma of people self-identifying as homosexual. If we who are selfish capitalists refuse to cower in the face of social disapproval, we might make similar progress.
I have always made enough money, but never much more. I am just not greedy enough. I once went to a counselor to see if I could find out why and maybe change. We hit a roadblock right away because the therapist did not like the word "greedy" or see why anyone would want to be materialistic. ... though she did still charge me for a full session, ironically enough...
However, you are posting in a public forum, so you should expect some interjection from people who were not involved in the original discussion. :-)
However existence came to be, your existence and the existence of money, geometry, capitalism or anything else was a result of that process. That at the lowest common denominator is what the pagan mystics call "god". Again, you have to understand the meme and the brain set of the times.
As far as 'homosexuality' going against all rational behaviors...Besides biology, just think of North attracting south or positive flowing to negative...this process creates electricity and magnetism...without which existence could not exist...it's quantum physical. If we call the implications of this an image to reflect, then why would someone choose to ignore the very process that brought about existence.
It's really not that complicated.
Again, I too, detest the pagan, mystical, mindless expression of these things...it's embarrassing...but then again, mankind thought differently during those times, and 2000 years from now...we might think the same of us in these times.
I can give a much more relevant answer in the realm of human behavior, which is the actual topic we are discussing. You are on this forum instead of a forum for the Green Party because you are more similar in thought to the people on this website than on a Jill Stein fan page, correct? So would that disprove that opposites attract in human behavior? No, it doesn't. There are far too may factors to take in, including what types of attraction we are talking about, and what types of characteristics we consider to be relevant in determining who is alike and who is opposite. I hope this reveals some of the oversimplification and fallacy of your point.
Now, to counter some common points I have heard made against homosexuality in anticipation of you dredging them up:
1) Procreation: Human nature is to have children, and two men can't have a baby, and neither can two women, so the same sex getting married or having intercourse is anti-nature.
-This is wrong in its most basic assumption: human nature is to procreate. While this may be part of our physical bodies, the desire to reproduce, not all people feel this desire equally (do you have 19 children?), and not all people are physically capable of it. Do either of these characteristics make them less ethical of a human being? If someone has no desire to ever have a child, does that make them a bad human? Is a woman who sacrifices her own health, happiness, and future to have 15+ children under the command of her religion a better human being? I know your answer to these is "no," so therefore the level of morality and ethics of a human is not related to procreation. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be considered unethical based on procreation alone. Humans are not breeding stock.
2) Children: Kids need two parents of opposite sex to raise them properly, therefore a same-sex couple is immoral. Think of the children!
-Adults who do not have children do not need to sacrifice their own happiness under the guise of "for the children." If we wish to discuss gay adoption, etc then that can be a separate thread, and I will contribute to that as well. But the point here is that you cannot paint one person as unethical because of the possible implications in the future to people that are unrelated to them. As Rand is famous for saying: A potential is not the same as an actual.
Can't think of any more off the top of my head right now, but go ahead and suggest some if you wish.
I get the harm that the "organization", (religion), has done to the philosophy of how thing are or should be... judged by introspection of behaviors of the past and present.
My question originally, though, was not out of genuine curiosity but a challenge to MikeMarotta to support his claims. He has not done so. I am glad you engaged, though. It gave me a chance to vent a little. :-)
I could see how it could sound like capital is the means of production and capitalism is abusing the means of production by having them privately owned. I obviously don't advocate changing the language in favor of euphony as in 1984, but I personally like the sound of "free enterprise" better than "capitalism".
My favorite PCism along this vein is calling privatization "personalization", which sounds much cozier.
can mean "no cost" which is confusing in the "market" sense. I prefer "open market.
The thing with baggage though - capitalism and selfishness in particular - is that it certainly opens the door to discussion as you and your interlocutors "take out" and "inspect" each "item" in the baggage.
Personally, I dont really think of "handicapped" as needing some label. People are all different actually, with varying degrees of abilities relative to other people. Some people cant remember well, and others cant get around without a cane. Some people are smarter than others. Whats the sense in labeling people then.
As to Obama, he's smart enough to have done tremendous damage to the country, which was his stated goal. He has been quite clear about his hatred for America in his book; he has not been hiding it. His one big mistake, perhaps in retrospect, is that executive orders can be easily undone. But he was counting on Hillary continuing the damage, so that the executive orders would have been deeply ingrained. The "handicapped" was not him, but the American nation for electing and re-electing an open hater of the US - basically, a terrorist.
Every time.
I have no doubt that if Clinton had become the President, and dragged enough down ticket people to gain control of the Senate, we would soon find the use of politically incorrect terms being declared "hate speech," and a federal felony. I look forward to the demise of such terms as "microaggression" and "cultural appropriation."