Is the term "r*****k" offensive?

[Formaldehyde]

It seems strange, to me, that a person could slander an entire "race" with impunity under the umbrella of free speech, but they can't do the same against an individual. Doesn't it seem strange to you, too?

Perhaps you would think differently if your country was founded by those who were being religiously persecuted in England and elsewhere. Acts which they couldn't even vocally complain about without fear of being beaten and even murdered with impunity.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

[Borachio]

Well, maybe. I can't possibly answer that.

Is it really such a foundational idea in modern secular America, though?

And you've not explained how it's unacceptable to slander an individual (who can have recourse to the full weight of the law in his defence) but acceptable to slander an entire "race" (and the law must stand idly by).

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, maybe. I can't possibly answer that.

Is it really such a foundational idea in modern secular America, though?

Freedom of expression is one of the twin pillars of America. The other being the right to form a well-regulated militia.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And you've not explained how it's unacceptable to slander an individual (who can have recourse to the full weight of the law in his defence) but acceptable to slander an entire "race" (and the law must stand idly by).

Because that is why the law was specifically written that way. Hate speech laws have been abused in most every country where they exist.

Freedom of expression is one of the twin pillars of America. The other being the right to form a well-regulated militia.

 

[Borachio]

Because that is why the law was specifically written that way. Hate speech laws have been abused in most every country where they exist.

I don't follow your logic at all, I'm afraid.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is much like trying to explain why abortion is a women's right, instead of something which religious zealots should decide for everybody else.

Or why male circumcision isn't male genital mutilation. That there are quite logical reasons why it was pervasive in the US for decades and is still highly recommended by many urologists.

Or why governments should not abridge our basic rights no matter the excuse.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Circumcision is virtually non -existent in Europe (outside muslim/jewish populations obviously). I doubt it is claimed by many serious physicians that it is beneficial, let alone needed. But let's not re-open that can of worms

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I dunno. If you look up the definitions of "genitals" and "mutilation" independently there doesn't seem as though there's much of an argument that it isn't that. Maybe when you put the two words together the phrase thus formed has some other special meaning or something.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like I said, these arguments are essentially futile. People already have entrenched preconceived notions on these topics, so no amount of rational discourse will likely ever change their minds. Even pointing out the obvious fallacies and contradictions does no good.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Like the contradiction between the dictionary definitions of "genitals" and "mutilation" and how some people use the terms for instance?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hm? If one gets raped that is sort of the most horrible end result. I am sure no one claims that rape will be the end result in a majority or in any large number of such cases...

Hm, well apparently no one is claiming anything, including you You still have not given a reason to be worried about gay doctors, scout leaders vor otherwise. You keep telling me what "no one" would say and what "no one is claiming" when I specifically and directly asked what you... personally... Kyriakos, thought was a reason parents would be worried about gays. Stop telling me what "no one thinks" and what you're "not arguing" and tell me what you think, and what you are claiming.

However i noted that small children are not viewing things in an adult manner, and sexual things often indeed are experienced with very intense emotions from early puberty children, such as those in the summer camps or doctor appointments mentioned.

Viewing what in the same manner? "Sexual things?" What "sexual things" happen in a doctor's visit with a gay doctor that are different with a straight one?

Not sure why you deny that children have to be far more protected than any adult?

Please quote where I said this...

And again, protected from what?

The dynamic is not the same with a 13year old boy and a camp leader, or a doctor, surely? Figures of some authority are always dangerous even without playing with theories about them.

Sure, but what is the reason you think that gay persons of authority are more dangerous? If gays and straight authority figures are equally dangerous then what reason could you have to reject a gay one?

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, yeah, statistically it may well be so that 'gay and straight doctors are equally dangerous' to harass someone sexually, or cause something relative to that. However in a straight person the sexual tendency to an ephebe or kid of his own sex is sort of non-existent? I fear you go in circles with this, given i already noted that it is unrealistic to ask of a 13-year old or smaller to read stats or have an adult-ideal position on matters of sexuality, including homosexuality. Children can feel horribly bad even without any 'real' cause of alarm being there.

Moreover it is not exactly a new idea that small children often tend to blame their own self for any trauma they may face, including just emotional/without clear physical aspect. So in cases of authority figures like doctors to kids, or even team leaders in such settings, it is not a bad idea to be as cautious as possible, and that indeed can end up unfairly causing job prospect loss for some people who just are homosexual and not at all prone to harm others.

 

[onejayhawk]

Perhaps you would think differently if your country was founded by those who were being religiously persecuted in England and elsewhere. Acts which they couldn't even vocally complain about without fear of being beaten and even murdered with impunity.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

First they came for the ones they claimed were racist, but I did not speak out
Then they came for the ones they claimed were homophobes, but I did not speak out
Then they came for the sexists, but I did not speak out

It's happening again

J

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like the contradiction between the dictionary definitions of "genitals" and "mutilation" and how some people use the terms for instance?

Like the fact that not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with this thread that it is clearly not "mutilation" at all. That I clearly just mentioned it as another topic which is not capable of rational discussion, as you continue to show.

First they came for the ones they claimed were racist, but I did not speak out
Then they came for the ones they claimed were homophobes, but I did not speak out
Then they came for the sexists, but I did not speak out

It's happening again

Right. Because white racists, bigots, and sexists in the US are clearly going to be oppressed if things don't radically change.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hm, yeah, statistically it may well be so that 'gay

Moved my response to the Gay marriage thread.. it just seemed more on-point than this one.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Like the fact that not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with this thread that it is clearly not "mutilation" at all. That I clearly just mentioned it as another topic which is not capable of rational discussion, as you continue to show.

Well for one thing, what this thread is or isn't about seems to vary markedly from page to page (as do most OT threads to be fair). For another, the only person who seems to be incapable of rational discussion here would seem to be you. "It isn't mutilation because I say it isn't and if you disagree with me I'll dismiss you out of hand" is clearly not a discussion, rational or otherwise. Not that I'm particularly wanting or expecting a discussion on the topic, but it seems rather double-thinky that you can actively shut down a discussion whilst simultaneously accuse the other side of being incapable of discussion in the same breath. Unless of course you insist that the only rational position to hold is your own viewpoint, but then what kind of "discussion" would that be? "Yes you're right". "No no no, you're more right than me". "Oh no I insist, YOU'RE right", etc. Sounds like a great conversation...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Calling a simple procedure which the vast majority of Americans, Canadians, and British did as a matter of course for many decades based on the opinions of most healthcare professionals at the time, and which many still do highly recommend to promote basic hygiene and to reduce the risk of penile cancer, is hardly "mutilation".



And thanks for proving my point.

 

[Birdjaguar]

To be a redneck, do you have to be circumcised?

Is calling an American a "circumcised prick" offensive?

 

[Borachio]

Calling a simple procedure which the vast majority of Americans, Canadians, and British did as a matter of course for many decades based on the opinions of most healthcare professionals at the time, and which many still do highly recommend to promote basic hygiene and to reduce the risk of penile cancer, is hardly "mutilation".



And thanks for proving my point.

I haven't done a survey of the matter of course, but I don't believe the majority of British people think that being circumcised is any more a matter of course than having unnecessary dental work. I only know of one non-Jewish/non-Muslim guy who is circumcised, and he was circumcised for purely medical reasons in his 50s owing to an over-tight foreskin (or something, I really don't know all the details nor why he should be so afflicted at that age, it not being an accepted casual topic of conversation amongst red-blooded British males).

 

[Formaldehyde]

You should try responding to what I actually stated. Circumcision was common in the UK until the advent of nationalized healthcare. It was ironically still the choice of British royalty and the upper classes until Princess Diana put the nix on the former:

'Circumcision is one of the oddities of the Royal Family'

In the US, the rate dropped considerably when Medicaid no longer paid for circumcision as well as many HMO and PPO plans dropped coverage to reduce costs. The same thing happened in Canada as well.

In a study conducted from 1999 to 2002, the rate of circumcision was 79% in the US. But that figure will likely continue to drop as more irrational hysteria is fomented on this topic and fewer and fewer insurance plans cover it.

But, again, this isn't the topic of discussion here. If you really want to talk about this topic, which is not actually capable of being discussed in any sort of rational and adult manner and was the only reason I even mentioned it, why don't you start yet another thread on this very topic which I can willfully ignore.