Paz on 20/6/2007 at 14:09
Quote Posted by jimjack
P.C liberal, leftist, socialist policies
I think you're relatively young, so fair enough if you don't know the full history of these words/ideals - but for a start, liberalism and socialism are completely different. "Leftist" is just nebulous and basically without meaning.
As people have (sort of) already said in this thread, this is merely a bad set of rules. It's a bad set of rules because it's impossible to realistically legislate or maintain. And, well, because it's stupid in the first place.
No sexual harassment in school plz - good. No touchies at all - what?
There is also, of course, a considerable chance that this report has been spun, twisted, exaggerated or otherwise falsified in some way and that the basis is broadly incorrect in the first place. Living outside the country of origin, I don't know.
Anyway, don't be a chap who throws around pejorative political terms when they don't really apply to the situation. It undermines the argument significantly.
This all might sound pretty patronising at the moment, I know. Sorry if it seems that way - I've tried to avoid that and attempted to be mostly helpful!
Quote:
Politically Correct
This deserves a special mention, because in 2007 it is extremely close to losing any meaning it may once have had. In general, it now serves to do little other than make the user of the phrase look reactionary.
Vivian on 20/6/2007 at 14:42
Quote Posted by Uncia
Not really.
I was being facetious (or trying to be funny). Besides, thats the
ideals, not the people?
Turtle on 20/6/2007 at 15:42
Brushing...
LancerChronics on 20/6/2007 at 15:50
Quote:
Liberals and Conservatives
What the hell happened to calling people Democrats, Republicans, or Undecided? When I was a kid, thats all there was. Everyone in the class would argue during election year saying things like, "Your stupid!" or "My daddy says that Bush is evil!" or "Sore Loserman". Which stangely feels exactly like the adult world nowadays... The words Liberal and Conservative are used more like curse words or insults than a definition of a point of view. "That man is a liberal, he must support communism." "She's a stuck-up old conservative." And what the hell is a GOP(was there really a point in changing the party's name, they're not fooling anyone)?
The strange thing is that not too long ago, people used to agree on most things (excluding the time it was election year). Of course now it seems that people only seem to vote based on the party they were raised with. Stop and think for a second. How many of the conflicted issues today do you REALLY care about? Or do you just argue about it because your republican and happened to overhear a democrat speaking his point of view(or vice versa), because that's the way you were raised to react?
Do you realize that the country's founding fathers were firmly against the idea of forming political parties(George Washington comes to mind the most)? They knew that it would only take a title to separate the people, even if they had very similar opinions on certain subjects. Like street gangs fighting for turf, but only because they happen to be in a gang.
Anyway, I'm probably way off track on where this thread was meant to go. But it seemed to be turning into a political debate, so I thought I'd throw a bit of mud in both directions. Sometimes the only way to understand both sides is to walk down the middle. It's to bad that most people end up falling off to one side or the other.
SD on 20/6/2007 at 16:10
Quote Posted by LancerChronics
What the hell happened to calling people Democrats, Republicans, or Undecided?
Because not all Republicans (Ron Paul) are conservatives and not all Democrats (Hillary Clinton) are liberals? Liberal and conservative are marginally better tags than Republican and Democrat, although they're still some way off being particularly appropriate.
Quote:
When I was a kid, thats all there was.
I assure you these terms are much older than you.
Quote:
The strange thing is that not too long ago, people used to agree on most things
I very much doubt it.
jimjack on 20/6/2007 at 16:43
Quote Posted by Paz
I think you're relatively young, so fair enough if you don't know the full history of these words/ideals - but for a start, liberalism and socialism are completely different. "Leftist" is just nebulous and basically without meaning.
As people have (sort of) already said in this thread, this is merely a bad set of rules. It's a bad set of rules because it's impossible to realistically legislate or maintain. And, well, because it's stupid in the first place.
No sexual harassment in school plz - good. No touchies at all - what?
There is also, of course, a considerable chance that this report has been spun, twisted, exaggerated or otherwise falsified in some way and that the basis is broadly incorrect in the first place. Living outside the country of origin, I don't know.
Anyway, don't be a chap who throws around pejorative political terms when they don't really apply to the situation. It undermines the argument significantly.
This all might sound pretty patronising at the moment, I know. Sorry if it seems that way - I've tried to avoid that and attempted to be mostly helpful!
.
Absolutely. I am not up on all these political sides, that and being foriegn to it all makes for an ignorant take on my side. No not patronizing, informative rather. I could have thrown in P.C conservatives, rightist, facist policies. Good thing I didn't. Is Political Correctness part of the Liberals? Is it the teachers or the liberal agenda of teachers' unions and the school boards. Is there not a role parents should play in this?
I just find it funny that the generation that now complains about touching and drugs and every other hienous things teenagers do, is the generation that was all about free love and dropping acid. Hypocrites I say.
Quote Posted by PigLick
brushing
up
against
the
arse
of
a
girl
Yes. It's all about not groping, just being in the right place at an opportune time.
Thirith on 20/6/2007 at 17:12
Quote Posted by jimjack
I just find it funny that the generation that now complains about touching and drugs and every other hienous things teenagers do, is the generation that was all about free love and dropping acid. Hypocrites I say.
The parents of school children nowadays probably grew up in the late '70s and early '80s - not so much the time of free love and dropping acid but of cold war paranoia and the advent of yuppiedom and Reaganomics.
jasee on 20/6/2007 at 17:19
Since Mr Blair came into power, there have been quite a few new laws brought in ( thousands in fact), and many of them have been about sex related crimes.
For example, it was "legal" to shag a dead person - now it aint (thank fuck) -
It was 'legal' to shag a living animal - now it aint -
BUT - you can still shag a dead animal!!!
Not only that, if you are at a school age (ie under 16ish), and male, and have a girlfriend and you, for example, finger her behind the bike sheds, you can be convicted of a sex crime and be placed on the sex offenders register if you're caught, cos she is under 16 and therefore unable to give consent in the eyes of the law.
This is my understanding of the new laws anyway. . . .I think its crazy, cos - well - I used to do it all the time ha ha.
If I have misunderstood the new laws, then please tell me someone, cos I would hate my kids to get screwed - literally:laff:
I do think though, that even if my understanding is correct, it would be very difficult to police, and therefore convictions of underage 'pervs' would be very minimal.
Can anyone verify this for me?:thumb:
SD on 20/6/2007 at 18:11
Quote Posted by jasee
Can anyone verify this for me?:thumb:
I'd love to be able to, but this mob of cunts have passed so many laws that even the police themselves aren't fully aware of the implications of half of them. Unless it was actually Labour's plan to create a kind of anarchy where nobody knows what's legal and what's illegal any more, in which case - job done!
User123abc on 20/6/2007 at 19:02
Quote Posted by jimjack
P.C liberal, leftist, socialist policies- they could as easily say "Hey punk, don't poke/hit/punch/slap/grope someone" But instead they are attempting to outlaw physcial contact.
Quote Posted by Thief13x
as far as I'm concerned, any person who wants the government to raise their kids wants communism
Oh for fucks sake.
What you're doing there is regurgitating something you heard or read once. It sounded nice at the time. The words are fairly big, after all, and it's always nice to be able to talk in a sophisticated way about social issues. But you really ought to know that it was never much more than hot air passing out from some talking head, who himself wasn't too bright in the first place. This is the kind of behavior that gets touching banned in the first place.
I understand you didn't mean much by it (well, at least jimjack), so I'm sorry to jump on you, but I don't think TTLG has yet done justice to how wrong this was.
