Re: PC gone wild ???
- From: "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:24:11 -0500
Wayback1918 <wayback1918@xxxxxxxxxxx> mused:
On Dec 19, 9:50 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wayback1918 <wayback1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> mused:
On Dec 19, 8:12 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DonFromBa...@xxxxxxxxx <DonFromBa...@xxxxxxxxx> mused:
This isn't going to be one of my basically harmless off topic
posts as it's something I feel pretty strongly about
(Yeah,Don has a bee in his bonnet.) and welcome discussion
on. I just hope I feel up to participating beyond this.
At a local school a father and his student daughter decorated
the school with white and red stripes. One, and that's the
way the story I heard puts it ONE (It even names him.), local
resident objected claiming that the display was candy canes
and that they are a Christmas thing. Luckily the local
select board ruled that candy canes are a secular
representation of the holiday and that they will be allowed
to stand. My main objection to this business is that if the
story I've heard is correct that one individual tried to
impose his will on a town that obviously didn't share his
Assuming this story is true, while I think the guy had gone
too far, I disagree with the notion that because someone
advocates a certain social policy, that they are trying to
force anyone to do anything. He advocated his point of view.
In a democratice society, if he got his way, it would mean
either that the majority of people felt as he did, or it
would mean that a majority of people felt that his individual
rights were being infringed.
Either way, he only gets his way through a majority, and so he
therefore imposes nothing on anyone. Certainly not any more
than anyone, not you, and not me, who advocates for any
particuler social policy.
That just isn't true. If a simple majority was the issue the
would be a creche in front of 99% of the town halls in America.
I didn't say it takes a "simple majority". What I said also
included "or it would mean that a majority of people felt that
his individual rights were being infringed." I never, ever used
the phrase "simple majority".
We live in a democratically representatively administered
republic. That means that instead of a "simple majority" (i.e.,
everyone gets one vote on *every* issue), we express our
desires for what we will be as a society through our
representatives. It also means that we abide by a constitution
which protects the rights of the individual from the desires of
the majority. But even *that* principle is based upon the
democratic representative system because there are mechanisms
to change that constitution if we, as a society, wanted it to
And that was my point. I was careful to show that there are two
ways that we, as a society, get to express what it is that we
really want. While, on an issue related level, we may want one
thing (i.e., a nativity scene at town hall), on a much more
societal level, we also want to maintain a system wherein our
issue related desires doesn't infringe upon the rights of
So no matter how you slice it, no one gets to "impose their
will" on anyone unless it's what we, as a society, as expressed
through the democratically representative system we've chosen
for ourselves, want it to be that way. To be afraid that one
person could impose his will as you've described is to be
afraid of the system we've chosen by which we decide public
policy.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Fine take out "simple" and put in "overwhelming" the point is
Yes, and just as invalid. No one gets to impose their will on this
society unless this society wants it that way, either because we
want the issue that way, or even if we do not, it's because we
recognize that the rights of the individual are paramount to the
desires of the majority, and we want to preserve that ideal.
PC, by definition, is the secular progressive minority
controlling policy due to their perceived notion of what is
'offensive' to others.
Even if it is defined that way, then by that definition, PC does not
exist because, ultimately, the minority do not get to control
anything in this society.
Name one public policy which the 'minority' ever got to control that
was other than a temporary aberration.
- Prev by Date: Re: Word on the street....
- Next by Date: Re: PC gone wild ???
- Previous by thread: Re: PC gone wild ???
- Next by thread: Re: PC gone wild ???