Skip to main content

View Diary: What I Wish All Straight People Knew (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "The correct answer in an equal society" (0+ / 0-)

    would be that everyone sees everyone else as an absolute equal.

    When we reach that ideal, you let me know, though I doubt we'll see it in my lifetime, yours, or the lifetime of anyone currently living on this earth.

    So it may be more practical to accept "current" norms. I know how distasteful that must be for someone who is morally pure, but it may be much more likely to achieve the ultimate goal.

    It may distasteful to acknowledge that some of us don't buy the current insistence on "politically correct" views. Would you suggest instead, that such views be reason for exclusion from the discussion even when they agree that equal rights are the "right" thing?

    Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

    by FeloniousMonk on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:52:23 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So it seems like you are willing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sberel

      to make assumptions about people who are trying to explain their position. I didn't see Beauford as trying to claim purity. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect that a discussion only has to be rational on one side.

      •  Odd you should feel I made an accusation. (0+ / 0-)

        If you read my comment again, you'll see I did no such thing.

        In fact, my response was driven from Beauford's statement of an ideal that is not a real world fact. If one wishes to evaluate current-world reactions and positions against "ideals" then it must be assumed that current opinion is being judged based on a morally pure point of view.

        That may or may not be what Beauford was doing. I did not accuse him of it. Rather, you assumed I did. Re-read the comment and see if you may have read something in that was not there.

        Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

        by FeloniousMonk on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 05:05:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here is the part I was reacting to: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sberel

          I know how distasteful that must be for someone who is morally pure

          and there are a few assumptions in there that I see. Can you know if it's really distasteful? And I really didn't see Beaufort set himself up as a bastion of moral purity.

          I work pretty hard to see past my own bias. I work pretty hard to communicate clearly too, especially in discussions like this where there is a lot of emotional baggage. Maybe you were being sloppy with your language and you didn't mean to imply what I read, but that is the part I had trouble with...

          •  Semantics ... (0+ / 0-)

            I could understand your interpretation if I had said:

            "I know how distasteful that is for you who are morally pure", but that's not what I said.

            What I said was, "I know how distasteful that must be for someone who is morally pure." There was purpose in my choice of the emphasized words. I wasn't being sloppy. In fact, my words were carefully chosen to eliminate the very judgment you arrived at anyway.

            Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

            by FeloniousMonk on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:33:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In keeping with rational discourse, a reply (0+ / 0-)

            would be appreciated.

            Political Correctness Police: may your puckered, disapproving lips forever cover your donuts.

            by FeloniousMonk on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 02:32:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site