These politically correct morons need to be sterilized RIGHT NOW before they pollute the damn gene pool. :rolleyes:

[b][i]Snowman? No more. Melt that image and replace with Snowperson. Want to sail away on a yacht? No, again. It

That's just the way it is now RK. :rolleyes: It is annoying.

GDawgs88 Wrote:That's just the way it is now RK. :rolleyes: It is annoying.

These are the same types of people trying or getting rid of titles like "Valedictorian" and "Salutatorian" because it might offend the others that didn't achieve as much because their lazy asses didn't study as much. I am trying for at LEAST *** Laude at ASU. If I don't have anything to work for, what's the point? That's typical of liberals. They don't believe in individuality, they believe in collectivism.

RebelKev Wrote:That's typical of liberals. They don't believe in individuality, they believe in collectivism.

Excactly!

What a steaming pile... :mad:

Students have been learning this stuff for decades, and we've turned out just fine. It seems the more politcally correct the "experts" try to make us, the more this society goes down the toilet.

Quote:And there will be no more reading about Mount Rushmore, where the faces of four U.S. presidents are carved into stone, because it appears to offend some American-Indian groups.

Appears? APPEARS?!? Give me some ****** concrete proof!

Quote:"It dumbs down our textbooks, makes them bland, far less interesting than anything children might see in the movies -- even in G-rated movies or TV.

"The problems that have happened in education is that the textbook publishers and the test developers have become so sensitive to any controversy that whenever they receive a complaint it is very likely that they will remove the source of the complaint," explained Ravitch

AMEN! I guess we won't be hearing about how the Americans stole this land from the Indians. Perhaps they just came to a mutual agreement to give it up and hit the road.

And there won't be any slaves, (which I guess means that black people were already living here when the Pilgrims came over), so there was never a Civil War, and folks like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, and the rest are of no significance.



<!--EDIT|JoltinJacket|Apr 30 2003, 04:27 PM-->

Quote:Appears? APPEARS?!? Give me some ****** concrete proof!

<a href='http://www.tntech.edu/publicaffairs/rel/mountrushmore.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tntech.edu/publicaffairs/rel/mo...ntrushmore.html</a>

<a href='http://www.wolfsto.de/wolfsto/english/frame.html?mount.html~frame2' target='_blank'>http://www.wolfsto.de/wolfsto/english/fram...unt.html~frame2</a>

<a href='http://www.lakotaoyate.com/gallery.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.lakotaoyate.com/gallery.htm</a>

Yeah... there are no more ballboys at Cameron anymore... just "ballpersons". :rolleyes:

This pc crap really gets on my nerves F U C K THEM. Do I really need to put it any more bluntly? I am so freakin sick of everyone worrying about hurting someones feelings. F U C K THEM!!!!!!!

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:Appears? APPEARS?!? Give me some ****** concrete proof!

<a href='http://www.tntech.edu/publicaffairs/rel/mountrushmore.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tntech.edu/publicaffairs/rel/mo...ntrushmore.html</a>

<a href='http://www.wolfsto.de/wolfsto/english/frame.html?mount.html~frame2' target='_blank'>http://www.wolfsto.de/wolfsto/english/fram...unt.html~frame2</a>

<a href='http://www.lakotaoyate.com/gallery.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.lakotaoyate.com/gallery.htm</a>

See people? Do you need any more proof that this is something inflicted on us by Liberals?


OK, let's go with that. I want ALL Mitsubishis banned because the emblem symbolizes the propellor on the Mitsubishi Zero. I am offended because I had a great uncle killed at Pearl Harbor by a Zero. :rolleyes:

Political correctness was once needed... like affirmative action... those days are over.

Rick said it best... F U C K them! :bang:

Look, gentlemen, some of this stuff makes sense and some of it doesn't.

To take the most obvious example: Is a textbook on anything except, maybe, "Mountain Sculpture 503" incomplete without a picture of Mount Rushmore on it? The obvious answer is "no."

Why *not* say "Framers?" Is any essentially bit of knowledge about American history being lost by favoring it over "Founding Fathers?" No.

Now, changing snowman to snow person is just ridiculous. The world isn't ready for that one. . .

But, for the most part, we can make language gender neutral without a whole lot of effort. Policemen are now police officers, firemen are now firefighters, workmen's comp is now workers comp. We haven't lost meaning with these changes. In fact, we've gained it... because this kind of language better reflects reality.

If you still say "policeman," I'm not calling you an ******. Old habits die hard. I still say "workmen's comp" sometimes. But just because you say "policeman" doesn't mean everyone should. Your local newspaper is better off saying "police officer," and so is your kids textbook. It just makes more sense.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Why *not* say "Framers?" Is any essentially bit of knowledge about American history being lost by favoring it over "Founding Fathers?" No.

How about because they were all men and we shouldn't bow down to the wishes of every moron that's offended? There ARE biological differences between men and women. Feminists for YEARS have resented biological facts and have tried, many times successfully, to mandate equality. You can't mandate something that is a myth. They are better than us at certain tasks and we are better than them. We both have different biological roles. It's funny that these same idiots that resent this subject in biology align themselves with other liberals that have bought into this evolution BS because they believe science disproves creation.

Until you start calling your father, "Oh Paternal One", brother, "Sibling that is with *****", etc., I will still say "Founding Fathers"

Have you also bought into the argument that HIStory is sexist?

So ... your argument is that the people who wrote the Constitution were men because they are biologically superior to women?

:bluethumb:

Quote:So ... your argument is that the people who wrote the Constitution were men because they are biologically superior to women?

this is how spin happens ~ and it is why people end up with these opinions. He did not say that at all.

He said that the people who founded this country and set up the government are in fact men. They were someone's father and someone's husband. The thought of changing that is very personal. I think it is retarded (oh is that not pc??). If anything women should just use that as a sign of progress. I am proud of this countries history and how far things have come mostly in the interest of "the good of the people". You start changing something as simply as "the Founding Fathers" and you begin the process of rewriting our history. NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Why are we not allowed to vote on issues such as this?

Secondly, RebelKev never implied that men were superior to women, even though I am inclined to believe that as a fact when you measure the genders as a whole. He did state some irritation with the Feminists Movement and point out another FACT which is we are not the same, thus, not equal.

Main Entry: 1equal
Pronunciation: 'E-kw&l
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society
In order not to seem like a jerk he even started this statement honoring our abilities first:

Quote:They are better than us at certain tasks and we are better than them

BTW that ain't a good sentence :tasha:

your statement was not fair at all RochesterFalcon.



<!--EDIT|lilredridinghood|May 1 2003, 12:59 PM-->

I think this is a good place to interject my favorite non-PC quote:

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." - Anonymous

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Look, gentlemen, some of this stuff makes sense and some of it doesn't.

To take the most obvious example: Is a textbook on anything except, maybe, "Mountain Sculpture 503" incomplete without a picture of Mount Rushmore on it? The obvious answer is "no."

Why *not* say "Framers?" Is any essentially bit of knowledge about American history being lost by favoring it over "Founding Fathers?" No.

Now, changing snowman to snow person is just ridiculous. The world isn't ready for that one. . .

But, for the most part, we can make language gender neutral without a whole lot of effort. Policemen are now police officers, firemen are now firefighters, workmen's comp is now workers comp. We haven't lost meaning with these changes. In fact, we've gained it... because this kind of language better reflects reality.

If you still say "policeman," I'm not calling you an ******. Old habits die hard. I still say "workmen's comp" sometimes. But just because you say "policeman" doesn't mean everyone should. Your local newspaper is better off saying "police officer," and so is your kids textbook. It just makes more sense.

This is simply a good post.

If anyone in this nation really has a problem with simple gender neutral phrases like the ones in the post above, its not worth debating.

Do you think its not demeaning to a female police officer to be called a policeman?

We dont have to change everything. We dont have to make every "he" in the Bible gender neutral. Women dont need to be known as womyn. This is radical.

But a little bit of updating with the times? Lets just go along with this stuff and not make a huge deal about it.

Quote: Secondly, RebelKev never implied that men were superior to women, even though I am inclined to believe that as a fact when you measure the genders as a whole &nbsp;

And, lilredridinghood, you might be surprised by this little known fact, but men and women ARE equal. Both sexes actually have the ability to do whatever they choose to do, and after years of hard work, women have the same rights as men. Why would any of you demean the feminist movement? Do you think women dont deserve the right to vote, the right to have an equal chance for a job, or to attend a top notch University?

Quote:your statement was not fair at all RochesterFalcon.

I believe it was.

Let us analyze what our friend Attila posted:

Seven words of his rebuttal stated that the Framers were all men:

How about because they were all men ...

(It's the best point he made. I'll get back to it).

He then buttressed this idea with 13 words about not bowing down to morons:

... and we shouldn't bow down to the wishes of every moron that's offended?

I'll call this complete 20-word opening sentence his "thesis."

He then followed with 82 words describing his view on how men are better at some things than women and women are better at some things than men.

These 82 words were an apparent attempt to buttress his thesis. We can deduce this for a couple of reasons:

1. It immediately followed the opening sentence that contained the thesis.
2. All 82 words were contained within the same paragraph as the thesis.

To deny that Attila was trying to back up his first sentence with the 82 words that followed would be to suggest that he was actually typing sentences at random. He strikes me as pretty stupid, but not that stupid. It is reasonable to conclude that the sentences that followed the first sentences were intended somehow to back up his point.

Those sentences, incidentally:

There ARE biological differences between men and women. Feminists for YEARS have resented biological facts and have tried, many times successfully, to mandate equality. You can't mandate something that is a myth. They are better than us at certain tasks and we are better than them. We both have different biological roles. It's funny that these same idiots that resent this subject in biology align themselves with other liberals that have bought into this evolution BS because they believe science disproves creation.

He then concluded with a rhetorical flourish. I really have no idea of the meaning, but I count 33 words:

Until you start calling your father, "Oh Paternal One", brother, "Sibling that is with *****", etc., I will still say "Founding Fathers"

Have you also bought into the argument that HIStory is sexist?

The numbers, then, are:

-- "The framers were men": 20 words, 15 percent.
-- "Men are better than some things than women and vice versa": 82 words, 61 percent.
-- Some other words at the end: 33 words, 24 percent.

My point: Based on Attila's words, it is reasonable to conclude he believes the Framers were men because men are better at things (such as founding a country and framing a constitution) than women.

Whether he'll own up to that belief, I guess we shall see.

More to the point though:

Whether to call 'em Framers or to call them Founding Fathers is actually a bit nitpicky.

On the one hand, people favoring "Framers" over "Fathers" don't want to suggest to young girls that women aren't capable of founding a country. Fair enough. The younger the child, the more ideas have to be simplified, and going for "Framers," might be an acceptable oversimplificiation. On the other hand, as Attila points out, the Framers really were men* so "Fathers" isn't inaccurate, at least in sexual terms.

So the case for either "Framers" or "Fathers" is very nitpicky.

If so, however, WHY IS ATTILLA SO OFFENDED? Why does this become, for him, a matter of power, of not "bow(ing) down to the wishes of every moron that's offended?"

In reality, "Fathers" vs. "Framers" isn't important all. Unless someone pointed out the difference, who would even notice? "Framers" is a familiar term. It certainly sits on the brain much easier than "Snow person."

So I'm not sure why this is such a big deal for Attila. The only thing I can think of is to go go back to his post ... in which we can reasonably deduce that he believes founding a country is a job for men.

Why else would his underpants be all bunched up over this?

----------------------
* White men, actually -- most of them wealthy and many of them slave owners. One wonders how comfortable Attilla would be with a textbook that gave this truth a certain emphasis.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 1 2003, 09:43 PM-->

Quote:And, lilredridinghood, you might be surprised by this little known fact, but men and women ARE equal. Both sexes actually have the ability to do whatever they choose to do, and after years of hard work, women have the same rights as men. Why would any of you demean the feminist movement? Do you think women dont deserve the right to vote, the right to have an equal chance for a job, or to attend a top notch University?

I never said that they shouldn't have equal rights. Spin, again. I said they are not equal when compared as 2 groups. Sure womyn and men should have equal rights ~ NEVER suggested otherwise. Equal rights and being the same are two different things.

You will find me demeaning the feminist movement because I do not argee with it. I resent the fact that some hot headed womyn can get up and protest Augusta because they are a private club. I feel that things have been taken to an extreme and they are representing me with their actions. I believe many things should be equal but we as a group (men or womyn) should celebrate our differences just as many cultures do..... we are not the same.

Quote:So the case for either "Framers" or "Fathers" is very nitpicky.

Quote:In reality, "Fathers" vs. "Framers" isn't important all.

This is your opinion and you are most certainly entitled to it. I, on the other hand tend to think that changing something that has been taught since the forming of this country is a big deal. It matters to me that any small minority of people can change how all children are taught. I mean it sure has not stopped womyn from pressing forward as of yet. Has it?

HISTORY is what shows us what has happened in the past. The bad and the good. The majority of the time people learn from their mistakes and improve on themselves. If we start looking at things through rose colored glasses, that almost erases the progress that we have made.

Don't you think it is a better lesson for a young lady to point out to her how far womyn have come rather than imply they were always there?

There are some terms such as policeman, mailman etc that should be adapted to fit the current status/situation. Those are politically correct. It is irresponsible to change or mask history.