Is NAMBLA politically incorrect?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:31:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Is NAMBLA politically incorrect?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is NAMBLA politically incorrect?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 13

Author Topic: Is NAMBLA politically incorrect?  (Read 1817 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 25, 2006, 09:25:12 PM »

Since 93% (40) voted them horrible people including myself, and the forum is pretty much united against them (except for one member), that means they're politically incorrect right? For those that voted no I want to hear your reasoning.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2006, 09:30:33 PM »

Yes, but not in a good way.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2006, 09:52:04 PM »

I don't think that advocacy of pedophilia is exactly a good stance for politicians in... pretty much any place in the entire world, so yes, they are.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2006, 10:31:19 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

Of course, this doesn't address the reasons people object to certain forms of political correctness.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2006, 10:57:07 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2006, 10:59:03 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Dude, you're talking in circles.  Either that or I took my stupid pills tonight.  I still don't know what your question really means.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2006, 11:01:23 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Dude, you're talking in circles.  Either that or I took my stupid pills tonight.  I still don't know what your question really means.

To determine whether or not something is politically incorrect, simply consider what would happen if a politician took it on as a stance.  Would it help him, make not much difference, or hurt him?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2006, 11:02:42 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Dude, you're talking in circles.  Either that or I took my stupid pills tonight.  I still don't know what your question really means.

To determine whether or not something is politically incorrect, simply consider what would happen if a politician took it on as a stance.  Would it help him, make not much difference, or hurt him?

I think the surface answer to this question obvious.  The real question is why thefactor is asking this, if not to prove a point.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2006, 11:04:16 PM »

I think the surface answer to this question obvious.  The real question is why thefactor is asking this, if not to prove a point.

I think it's basically just what you said: to show that "politically incorrect" is not, in itself, bad.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2006, 11:05:31 PM »

I don't like it when people whine about political correctness or incorrectness.

We should all strive to be plain correct and stop there.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2006, 11:10:01 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Dude, you're talking in circles.  Either that or I took my stupid pills tonight.  I still don't know what your question really means.

To determine whether or not something is politically incorrect, simply consider what would happen if a politician took it on as a stance.  Would it help him, make not much difference, or hurt him?

I think the surface answer to this question obvious.  The real question is why thefactor is asking this, if not to prove a point.

Yeah, it is kind of to prove a point, but I think it's a point that society in general doesn't appreciate. Forget all the stuff I said about good and bad being subjective, that's not important.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2006, 11:13:34 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Dude, you're talking in circles.  Either that or I took my stupid pills tonight.  I still don't know what your question really means.

To determine whether or not something is politically incorrect, simply consider what would happen if a politician took it on as a stance.  Would it help him, make not much difference, or hurt him?

I think the surface answer to this question obvious.  The real question is why thefactor is asking this, if not to prove a point.

Yeah, it is kind of to prove a point, but I think it's a point that society in general doesn't appreciate. Forget all the stuff I said about good and bad being subjective, that's not important.

You still haven't said what your point actually is.  You've left us to surmise your point.  Take the marbles out of your mouth, boy...Tongue
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2006, 11:17:05 PM »

I'm not sure what this question really means.  It seems to be a way for thefactor to get the point across that politically incorrect isn't always good (and that, by implication, politically correct isn't always bad).

"Good" and "bad" are subjective.

But you are right in that labelling something "politically incorrect" does not automatically make it "good", so it's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Dude, you're talking in circles.  Either that or I took my stupid pills tonight.  I still don't know what your question really means.

To determine whether or not something is politically incorrect, simply consider what would happen if a politician took it on as a stance.  Would it help him, make not much difference, or hurt him?

I think the surface answer to this question obvious.  The real question is why thefactor is asking this, if not to prove a point.

Yeah, it is kind of to prove a point, but I think it's a point that society in general doesn't appreciate. Forget all the stuff I said about good and bad being subjective, that's not important.

You still haven't said what your point actually is.  You've left us to surmise your point.  Take the marbles out of your mouth, boy...Tongue

The point is, anything that's so unpopular that society is overwhelmingly against it is politically incorrect. On the other hand, just because something is politically correct doesn't mean it's a wrong position.

So I wish people would, instead of saying something like "I hate political correctness", which they invariably support in a hypocritical fashion, I wish they would say something specific like "I hate it when..." and make a coherent argument. That would really be the day.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2006, 08:49:30 PM »


The point is, anything that's so unpopular that society is overwhelmingly against it is politically incorrect. On the other hand, just because something is politically correct doesn't mean it's a wrong position.

So I wish people would, instead of saying something like "I hate political correctness", which they invariably support in a hypocritical fashion, I wish they would say something specific like "I hate it when..." and make a coherent argument. That would really be the day.

There are many things that the majority of people believe that are considered politically incorrect.  Political correctness is about tyranny of a minority and suppression of unpalatable realities that undermine a minority political position in most cases.  If a majority of people don't like something anyway, then it's not really politically incorrect; it's just unpopular.  There's a big difference.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2006, 08:55:01 PM »


The point is, anything that's so unpopular that society is overwhelmingly against it is politically incorrect. On the other hand, just because something is politically correct doesn't mean it's a wrong position.

So I wish people would, instead of saying something like "I hate political correctness", which they invariably support in a hypocritical fashion, I wish they would say something specific like "I hate it when..." and make a coherent argument. That would really be the day.

There are many things that the majority of people believe that are considered politically incorrect.  Political correctness is about tyranny of a minority and suppression of unpalatable realities that undermine a minority political position in most cases.  If a majority of people don't like something anyway, then it's not really politically incorrect; it's just unpopular.  There's a big difference.

Impossible. The minority can't suppress the majority, although the minority can deceive the majority (through control of the newsmedia). These are different things.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2006, 09:17:50 PM »


The point is, anything that's so unpopular that society is overwhelmingly against it is politically incorrect. On the other hand, just because something is politically correct doesn't mean it's a wrong position.

So I wish people would, instead of saying something like "I hate political correctness", which they invariably support in a hypocritical fashion, I wish they would say something specific like "I hate it when..." and make a coherent argument. That would really be the day.

There are many things that the majority of people believe that are considered politically incorrect.  Political correctness is about tyranny of a minority and suppression of unpalatable realities that undermine a minority political position in most cases.  If a majority of people don't like something anyway, then it's not really politically incorrect; it's just unpopular.  There's a big difference.

Impossible. The minority can't suppress the majority, although the minority can deceive the majority (through control of the newsmedia). These are different things.

The minority can suppress the majority through manipulation of the legal system.  It has done so, and is continuing to do so.  There is also the issue of a mobilized and vocal minority, as opposed to an unorganized and somewhat inattentive majority.  Many things can be used to keep a majority at bay -- the biggest one being the notion of historical guilt.  This is what we see happening in our society today.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2006, 09:23:05 PM »


The point is, anything that's so unpopular that society is overwhelmingly against it is politically incorrect. On the other hand, just because something is politically correct doesn't mean it's a wrong position.

So I wish people would, instead of saying something like "I hate political correctness", which they invariably support in a hypocritical fashion, I wish they would say something specific like "I hate it when..." and make a coherent argument. That would really be the day.

There are many things that the majority of people believe that are considered politically incorrect.  Political correctness is about tyranny of a minority and suppression of unpalatable realities that undermine a minority political position in most cases.  If a majority of people don't like something anyway, then it's not really politically incorrect; it's just unpopular.  There's a big difference.

Impossible. The minority can't suppress the majority, although the minority can deceive the majority (through control of the newsmedia). These are different things.

The minority can suppress the majority through manipulation of the legal system.  It has done so, and is continuing to do so.  There is also the issue of a mobilized and vocal minority, as opposed to an unorganized and somewhat inattentive majority.  Many things can be used to keep a majority at bay -- the biggest one being the notion of historical guilt.  This is what we see happening in our society today.

Federal and state legal systems are overseen by judges, at the state level many of whom are popularly elected, and at the federal level being appointed by those who are elected. Thus, the judiciary cannot, in the long run, resist the pressures of an active and concerned majority. It is true that a majority is often not active and concerned, but I see no inherent evil there. Guilt may be a factor in motivating human action, but the feeling of guilt is not an oppression. One chooses to feel or not to feel guilt of one's own free will. If one chooses to feel guilt, he has no right to blame the object for his guilt.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2006, 09:24:24 PM »


Federal and state legal systems are overseen by judges, at the state level many of whom are popularly elected, and at the federal level being appointed by those who are elected. Thus, the judiciary cannot, in the long run, resist the pressures of an active and concerned majority. It is true that a majority is often not active and concerned, but I see no inherent evil there. Guilt may be a factor in motivating human action, but the feeling of guilt is not an oppression. One chooses to feel or not to feel guilt of one's own free will. If one chooses to feel guilt, he has no right to blame the object for his guilt.

The problem is that we don't live in the long run; we live in the here and now.  By the time the 'long run' comes and judicial tyranny ends, we'll probably all be dead.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2006, 09:34:14 PM »


Federal and state legal systems are overseen by judges, at the state level many of whom are popularly elected, and at the federal level being appointed by those who are elected. Thus, the judiciary cannot, in the long run, resist the pressures of an active and concerned majority. It is true that a majority is often not active and concerned, but I see no inherent evil there. Guilt may be a factor in motivating human action, but the feeling of guilt is not an oppression. One chooses to feel or not to feel guilt of one's own free will. If one chooses to feel guilt, he has no right to blame the object for his guilt.

The problem is that we don't live in the long run; we live in the here and now.  By the time the 'long run' comes and judicial tyranny ends, we'll probably all be dead.

Perhaps, but there are the checks and balances built into the representative system by the founders. Take the Senate filibuster, for example. For decades the filibuster was used as an instrument to block progressive legislation- civil rights acts, but also progressive economic legislation. Much like the Senate itself, indirect election of Presidents, and until 1913 of Senators, the existence of the independent judiciary is one reflection of the instinctive suspicion that the founders had of the masses's passions and their ability to trample on the rights of political minorities. It is a large part responsible for the profound tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall, in the great age of Jeffersonianism.

As history has progressed, the founders' checks and balances have become increasingly weakened, as federalism has been weakened, Senators are now directly elected, much policy is decided through referendum, the Executive is far more powerful, the judiciary is politicized, and now the filibuster itself is essentially gone. But there do remain some checks, and overall I think it's positive that they are there.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2006, 09:38:06 PM »


Federal and state legal systems are overseen by judges, at the state level many of whom are popularly elected, and at the federal level being appointed by those who are elected. Thus, the judiciary cannot, in the long run, resist the pressures of an active and concerned majority. It is true that a majority is often not active and concerned, but I see no inherent evil there. Guilt may be a factor in motivating human action, but the feeling of guilt is not an oppression. One chooses to feel or not to feel guilt of one's own free will. If one chooses to feel guilt, he has no right to blame the object for his guilt.

The problem is that we don't live in the long run; we live in the here and now.  By the time the 'long run' comes and judicial tyranny ends, we'll probably all be dead.

Perhaps, but there are the checks and balances built into the representative system by the founders. Take the Senate filibuster, for example. For decades the filibuster was used as an instrument to block progressive legislation- civil rights acts, but also progressive economic legislation. Much like the Senate itself, indirect election of Presidents, and until 1913 of Senators, the existence of the independent judiciary is one reflection of the instinctive suspicion that the founders had of the masses's passions and their ability to trample on the rights of political minorities. It is a large part responsible for the profound tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall, in the great age of Jeffersonianism.

As history has progressed, the founders' checks and balances have become increasingly weakened, as federalism has been weakened, Senators are now directly elected, much policy is decided through referendum, the Executive is far more powerful, the judiciary is politicized, and now the filibuster itself is essentially gone. But there do remain some checks, and overall I think it's positive that they are there.

Your theories are all very nice, but the reality is that the legal system has crossed the line from protecting minority rights to violating majority rights in many cases.  I gave you some examples of the results of our dysfunctional judicial system in my private message to you of a few days ago.  It's not just bad court decisions, but it's organized groups targeting people for ruinously expensive litigation.  Remember, it is very expensive to defend yourself in court, even if you're right.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2006, 09:45:14 PM »

Your theories are all very nice, but the reality is that the legal system has crossed the line from protecting minority rights to violating majority rights in many cases.  I gave you some examples of the results of our dysfunctional judicial system in my private message to you of a few days ago.  It's not just bad court decisions, but it's organized groups targeting people for ruinously expensive litigation.  Remember, it is very expensive to defend yourself in court, even if you're right.

What I like about that dazzleman is that you gave me specific complaints and arguments.

Congress can pass laws limiting litigation, groups can form legal interest groups (such as the Federalist Society or ACLU), Executives can appoint judges, publics can elect or defeat judges, and state or even national constitutions can be amended. That is the process of democracy-- it's not perfect, but the process has merits independent of any particular policies, and ought to be respected even if one doesn't agree with the policy outcomes, because one can always contest them, if not immediately. Have we gotten so used to immediate gratification that we have no time for our own political process? In that case, we can take to the streets and protest! Of course, that guarantees nothing either. But making an argument is certainly not a bad idea.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2006, 10:13:18 PM »

Your theories are all very nice, but the reality is that the legal system has crossed the line from protecting minority rights to violating majority rights in many cases.  I gave you some examples of the results of our dysfunctional judicial system in my private message to you of a few days ago.  It's not just bad court decisions, but it's organized groups targeting people for ruinously expensive litigation.  Remember, it is very expensive to defend yourself in court, even if you're right.

What I like about that dazzleman is that you gave me specific complaints and arguments.

Congress can pass laws limiting litigation, groups can form legal interest groups (such as the Federalist Society or ACLU), Executives can appoint judges, publics can elect or defeat judges, and state or even national constitutions can be amended. That is the process of democracy-- it's not perfect, but the process has merits independent of any particular policies, and ought to be respected even if one doesn't agree with the policy outcomes, because one can always contest them, if not immediately. Have we gotten so used to immediate gratification that we have no time for our own political process? In that case, we can take to the streets and protest! Of course, that guarantees nothing either. But making an argument is certainly not a bad idea.

Everything you say is right in theory, but I really don't see it happening today.  Maybe it's because the people are impacted the worst by political correctness are those too busy supporting themselves to get involved in protests.  Protests are for people who have been freed of the need to support themselves, and these are the sort of people who favor abominations like political correctness.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2006, 10:25:13 PM »

I don't know dazzleman. My issue is with how the word politically correct is used misleadingly, not any specific arguments you're making about policy. But I'm too tired to debate it now. See my discussion with Dibble if you want to know more on how I think about it.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2006, 11:53:27 PM »

I don't know dazzleman. My issue is with how the word politically correct is used misleadingly, not any specific arguments you're making about policy. But I'm too tired to debate it now. See my discussion with Dibble if you want to know more on how I think about it.

I think, as I said earlier, that you are confusing politically incorrect with unpopular.

To call something 'politically incorrect' implies that it is something that is generally widely accepted and acknowledged, but that some people raise a big objection to anybody actually saying.

Things like men are physically stronger than women and can, as a result, do certain jobs better.  If I'm trapped in a fire, I want to see a big beefy man coming to rescue me, not a petite woman.

There's also a one-sided nature to political correctness.  In my above example, I state how it's politically incorrect to acknowledge that there are certain things that men can do better than women.  But the beauty of PC is that it's perfectly OK to say the reverse -- that's it's axiomatic that there are so many things that women do better than men.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the insidious nature of political correctness and the whole movement behind it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 13 queries.