Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 There is too much processing that would have to be done in order to maintain a "politically correct" a/k/a "racially neutral" search protocol. Thus, political correctness must be set aside so law enforcement can do a better job. Racially neutral is not the meaning of political correctness. You're just uninformed on that. It means that people don't want to be referred to by slang or epithets created by the dominant culture. For example: the disabled don't want to be called cripples. Black people don't want to be called negroes. And so on. It's is about the dignity of identity. It's nothing to do with the law per se. I see. If that's so, then, I'm mistaken. I thought it was also a form of political correctness to engage in a policy of racially-neutral searches even though the unspoken truth is that authorities are concerned primarily about a specific race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 rad·i·cal·ize ˈradəkəˌlīz/ verb past tense: radicalized; past participle: radicalized cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform. "I'm trying to mobilize and radicalize the liberals" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) 1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece? The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. Edited December 4, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 rad·i·cal·ize ˈradəkəˌlīz/ verb past tense: radicalized; past participle: radicalized cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform. "I'm trying to mobilize and radicalize the liberals" Oh, it's back to "Mr. Definition." In the sense you are proferring the term, you are radicalizing people, too. Shame, shame... or not. Your definition is not what I expected. I expected your use to connote expressly inciting violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece? The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 rad·i·cal·ize ˈradəkəˌlīz/ verb past tense: radicalized; past participle: radicalized cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform. "I'm trying to mobilize and radicalize the liberals" Oh, it's back to "Mr. Definition." In the sense you are proferring the term, you are radicalizing people, too. Shame, shame... or not. Your definition is not what I expected. I expected your use to connote expressly inciting violence. The real point was that no one using the term "radicalize", as heard in political and media talk, has defined it's meaning. I just heard tonight that the San Berdo shooter was radicalized, but with no definition of any kind, other than he visited Pakistan. This is just picking at the edges, I know. But, sometimes that where these arguments go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece? The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 The media will always use the term radicalize when referring to Arabs or Muslims, and NEVER use it for whites. This is just your standard bias to demonize "the others." It's not anything new or shocking. The media helps build jingoism and nationalism all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece? The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient. Well, since you are a lawyer, I stuck with the legal definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The media will always use the term radicalize when referring to Arabs or Muslims, and NEVER use it for whites. This is just your standard bias to demonize "the others." It's not anything new or shocking. The media helps build jingoism and nationalism all the time. They can use whatever term or phrase they want. "Radicalize." "Incite." "Stoke." It doesn't matter. The idea is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece? The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient. Well, since you are a lawyer, I stuck with the legal definitions. I may be a lawyer, but the law is not my god, nor is it the end of my inquiry into morality. Certainly, you can appreciate the distinction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights.Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certaininstances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view,monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/ How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece? The first 2 contained no calls for violence. With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference. Ummm, no. They are dismembering babies, and it did not make me go down the street to shoot the people doing it. It is sickening that the law condones it, but let's not go down this road. Let's get back on topic. They might be dismembering fetuses, but not "babies." And, to not understand the difference is to not understand the subject matter. Oh, I fully understand. You (and others) want me to accept their terminology in order to put lipstick on a pig. Sorry, Homey isn't buying today. They are babies by every ordinary sense of the meaning. How many expecting mothers do you hear saying, "My fetus is 20 weeks old?" When we like them and want them, we call them, "babies." When we don't, we objectify them by calling them, "fetuses." How convenient. Well, since you are a lawyer, I stuck with the legal definitions. I may be a lawyer, but the law is not my god, nor is it the end of my inquiry into morality. Certainly, you can appreciate the distinction. I do. And THAT is a much better argument. One that I think you know I appreciate and have much sympathy for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 I don't know ANY person in all my adulthood, who ever took abortion lightly, and was not severely challenged to their core. Such decisions surely must be among the most heartful of all decisions one can make in life. I respect both decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights.Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certaininstances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view,monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient. I acknowledge all of that. You can dump entire libraries full of that to me. It will not make a difference. I am fully aware how laws are made. There is a lot of bullshit in making them, and I think people ought to be more discerning. If it floats your boat to deny they are babies, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I don't know ANY person in all my adulthood, who ever took abortion lightly, and was not severely challenged to their core. Such decisions surely must be among the most heartful of all decisions one can make in life. I respect both decisions. I respect it as far as our culture has chosen, legally, to recognize a person's right to abort. That's about as far as it goes. I do not suggest people make the decision lightly. I suggest, however, that as stoic as they might be, they are making a hideous decision. I used to not think so until I performed my own inquiry and saw the graphic images. Blech! It should not be so available. But it is. C'est la vie! You have to let people do some bad things in a free society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I don't know ANY person in all my adulthood, who ever took abortion lightly, and was not severely challenged to their core. Such decisions surely must be among the most heartful of all decisions one can make in life. I respect both decisions. I respect it as far as our culture has chosen, legally, to recognize a person's right to abort. That's about as far as it goes. I do not suggest people make the decision lightly. I suggest, however, that as stoic as they might be, they are making a hideous decision. I used to not think so until I performed my own inquiry and saw the graphic images. Blech! It should not be so available. But it is. C'est la vie! You have to let people do some bad things in a free society. By the way, I am not suggesting that I could not get along with someone and otherwise respect her if I learned abortion was in her sordid past. I disapprove, but I remain friends with people who've done a number of things of which I disapprove. I even disapprove of things I did. These are matters for repentance and to the extent a person is religious, they are between the person and his/her god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 Assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia are the most difficult moral decisions we can face. I think the law is little help as the obvious moral challenge is much larger. When it is about abortion, I actually don't get hung up on the baby/fetus distinction. I find it is mandatory to weigh the interests of the mother and the prospective, but not actualized life. Wherein, I think mothers usually have the weight, but of course must agree to bear the moral consequences as her conscious dictates.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia are the most difficult moral decisions we can face. I think the law is little help as the obvious moral challenge is much larger. When it is about abortion, I actually don't get hung up on the baby/fetus distinction. I find it is mandatory to weigh the interests of the mother and the prospective, but not actualized life. Wherein, I think mothers usually have the weight, but of course must agree to bear the moral consequences as her conscious dictates.. We are pretty much in agreement. However, if my opinion was sought, I would be honest and tell the person I think it's hideous. I might use another word, though. I wouldn't falsely act as if I was neutral on the topic. I would be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) These are matters for repentance and to the extent a person is religious, they are between the person and his/her god. I would say something similar: These are matters for the conscience, and are between a person and their moral code. Edit: corrected. Edited December 4, 2015 by MrCatsup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts