shropshire 0 #76 January 24, 2012 Quote How many cafe's offer potatoes, squash, fry bread and buffalo roast? Chuck Actually the species Bison bison athabascae is not really a Buffalo - gottcha Chuck (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #77 January 24, 2012 QuoteHmm. And now you've changed the word we're talking about to "prejudice." Generally you'll have more luck baiting someone else with games like that. Good luck getting someone going! Oh well, preconception it is. How can I have a preconception about you when I experienced first hand that your discussion style can only be described as underhanded? But I'm also done with you. Have fun pretending you actually made a point! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #78 January 24, 2012 QuoteSeems to me that the US gives more legal protection to un-PC speech than just about anywhere else in the world. Oh, but FoS is very well protected in the US of A, in fact I would like to see the same freedom guaranteed in our constitution. The hate-speech laws are hardly enforced anyway. A similar case as the UK case you referred to learned us that claiming gays should be tossed from high-rises and stoned to death and decapitated (speaking of overkill lol) isn't necessarily hate speech. Besides that I think FoS shouldn't be limited to begin with (Well except for yelling fire in the proverbial theatre etc.) But the juridical side doesn't say a lot about how PC a society is, and I believe that was the topic here. Not endorsing genocide isn't PC-gone-wild whether it's legal in a country or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #79 January 24, 2012 Quote Quote How many cafe's offer potatoes, squash, fry bread and buffalo roast? Chuck Actually the species Bison bison athabascae is not really a Buffalo - gottcha Chuck ...and native only to North America. I wentby the common name for the species. At any rate, it's dang good eatin'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #80 January 24, 2012 You sure use the word "ignorant" a lot. By the context in which you are using it, it becomes obvious that either, a) you are making God-awful assumptions about your targets, or b) you have no clue as to what the word actually means. But, if it makes you feel better about yourself to use the word, then by all means do so. (How's that for politically correct?)My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #81 January 24, 2012 Quote Quote >Well, I was referring to cultural diversity. But it's only logical, Dutch culture had >a lot more time to develop. True. Of course, so did Mexican, Korean, Vietnamese, Italian, German, Irish and Japanese cultures. Then they all moved to the US. Well, everybody knows that the best American food is Chinese and Italian. See? There you go insulting Indian, Mexican, Japanese, French...ad infinitum. How UN-PC can you be? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #82 January 24, 2012 Well, Andy, I think the article you quoted is misleading in the fact that the U.S. does indeed prosecute hate-speech. It's only a matter of interpretation. "...Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[50][51][52] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. " There's the loophole. Anything you say could be interpreted as meeting the "obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words" loophole. It's my belief that we, as a country, are no different than the rest of the world in limiting speech. Free Speech is a dream that was squashed many years ago. PC is one result of that squashing.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #83 January 24, 2012 Yeah. Cougars...offensive? Really? Them SB bozos are sad examples of PC-gone-wild. Stanford Cardinal...can you guess how they got that name?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #84 January 24, 2012 QuoteAt any rate, it's dang good eatin'! Oh f'sure - there's a famer that breed them, not too far from my folks - nice grub. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #85 January 24, 2012 QuoteYeah. Cougars...offensive? Really? Them SB bozos are sad examples of PC-gone-wild. Stanford Cardinal...can you guess how they got that name? must have been some sin that was committed (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #86 January 24, 2012 Quote You sure use the word "ignorant" a lot. By the context in which you are using it, it becomes obvious that either, a) you are making God-awful assumptions about your targets, or b) you have no clue as to what the word actually means. In the post you replied to, I used the word ignorant to refer to myself in case I would throw all the N. American countries on one pile, and treated them as the same or similar. (which I didn't.) Other than that I used the word one (1) time in this topic to refer to one (1) statement of one (1) poster. So how is that using the word ignorant "a lot"? I think you've no clue as to what "a lot" actually means, pops. . Quote But, if it makes you feel better about yourself to use the word, then by all means do so. (How's that for politically correct?) 19 of the 23 voices in my head agree that I'm not a group of people, so insulting or offending only me can't possibly politically incorrect. Other than that I couldn't care less whether you're PC towards me or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #87 January 24, 2012 Quote ...and native only to North America. oh no it Wisent (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #88 January 24, 2012 Quotethe juridical side doesn't say a lot about how PC a society is, Of course it does. Laws like that tend to closely parallel the predilections of the society at large. That's elementary-level legal theory and philosophy re: the origins of laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #89 January 24, 2012 QuoteIt's my belief that we, as a country, are no different than the rest of the world in limiting speech. In terms of the sanction of social ostracism, maybe or maybe not. But in terms of legal prohibitions and penalties (or lack thereof), there really is a palpable difference. QuoteQuoteoutside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. This passage from Wiki article could be better-written, frankly. - Whenever I've discussed this, I've always granted (i.e., acknowledged, not endorsed) the obscenity exception re: the US's legal protection of unpopular or condemnable speech. - Incitement to riot is defined and applied very narrowly in the US; it has to do more than just get people worked up, it has to directly and almost immediately prompt them to unlawfully riotous conduct (violence, property damage, etc.) that would not have occurred but for the deliberate act of incitement. It's far more than just "un-PC" speech, and it's a lot more than "hate speech", too. - Fighting words generally are not criminalized in the US, outside of the incitement to riot context. There are a few (non-Federal) statutes or ordinances here and there that try to criminalize it, but in my opinion, they're unconstitutional. - Defamation should never, ever be criminalized in the US, given the First Amendment. I did a quick search, and was dismayed to find several states that actually do have criminal defamation statutes. In my opinion, every one of those statutes is flatly unconstitutional, and would never survive challenge in the federal courts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #90 January 24, 2012 Well, you probably right on that one, however I meant that the correlation isn't always there (and mis-phrased it). The lack of restrictions on FoS should result in a very PinC society for instance, for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #91 January 24, 2012 Quote Quote At any rate, it's dang good eatin'! Oh f'sure - there's a famer that breed them, not too far from my folks - nice grub. No kidding? Wow! Bison with a British accent! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #92 January 24, 2012 QuoteWhenever I've discussed this, I've always granted the obscenity exception re: the US's legal protection of unpopular or condemnable speech. What is considered obscenity for the purposes of this exclusion on Free Speech? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #93 January 24, 2012 Quote Quote ...and native only to North America. oh no it Wisent Fascinating! I've never heard of them. Probably because there are so few of them. Just like our bison, the wisent was near extinction. Thank you sir for providing that. I'm wondering if this couldn't give credence to the 'Aleutian Theory'? Just wanted to add... that was a good gotcha! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #94 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhenever I've discussed this, I've always granted the obscenity exception re: the US's legal protection of unpopular or condemnable speech. What is considered obscenity for the purposes of this exclusion on Free Speech? I don't agree with most of the exception; I simply acknowledge that it exists under laws in the US. As to the definition of obscenity, there are myriad statutes, hundreds if not thousands of court decisions and dissenting opinions, and many, many treatises that grapple with that question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #95 January 24, 2012 Pretty American to allow speech about violence and hatred but not allow speech about sex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #96 January 24, 2012 QuotePretty American to allow speech about violence and hatred but not allow speech about sex. Hm. Are you making an historical and sociological observation about the Puritan origins and mores of the American colonists and their progeny? Or are you getting in a cheap bash at the US? Oh, by the way, American obscenity laws that criminalized mere obscene speech (like those used to prosecute Lenny Bruce, for example) have long since been repealed or declared unconstitutional. For the most part, they only apply to visual media and live performances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #97 January 24, 2012 No bash intended really. It always amazes me how violence and hatred is accepted and protected, yet sexuality is something society needs to be protected from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #98 January 24, 2012 QuoteNo bash intended really. It always amazes me how violence and hatred is accepted and protected, yet sexuality is something society needs to be protected from. OK. You might want to take a gander at this: Canadian Obscenity Law Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #99 January 24, 2012 What are you talking about?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #100 January 24, 2012 QuoteNot to come to Rand Paul's defense, but . . . I believe there is a law prohibiting members of Congress from being detained while en route to or from their home districts and DC. 1. I know, Canada is very similar in that attitude. 2. Pretty sure Canada is part of the American continenent, but for clarity should have added North to my original statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
