rosy3 said:What do people think about gollywogs being banned?
If they've taken PED's then out they go.
rosy3 said:What do people think about gollywogs being banned?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:If they've taken PED's then out they go.
craig said:PC is a euphemism for Social Engineering .
Giardiasis said:[youtube=560,315]kasiov0ytEc[/youtube]
I don't know if it was a *smile* take but I read too that the state government departments were going to stop using "his" & "her" and to be replaced with 2 other words I can't recallMB78 said:Victorian Government encouraging workers not to use 'wife', 'husband' so not to offend LGBTI colleagues.
This is ridiculous.
A close gay friend of mine wants to legally call their partner a husband. And calls him hubby at times. He would find the above misplaced at best.
Giardiasis said:This is what western education has become:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lindsay-shepherd-delivers-a-wake-up-call/article37033031/
Giardiasis said:Germany going full retard.
http://news.trust.org/item/20180104113147-as99y
It’s a Reuters article Brodders, but I’m not surprised you’d throw in that fallacy. I’m not surprised either that the information within doesn’t concern you, being anti-free speech and all.Brodders17 said:nice use of the word retard.
using the Bild for any information is about as intelligent as using the Truth.
Giardiasis said:It’s a Reuters article Brodders, but I’m not surprised you’d throw in that fallacy. I’m not surprised either that the information within doesn’t concern you, being anti-free speech and all.
Brodders17 said:It is a Reuters article reporting on the Bild article. most of the info contained is lifted from the Bild.
i am not 'anti-free speech' but i do believe there should be limits on what people can say, and offensive or inflammatory speech should be curtailed.
Hence you don't believe in free speech. To be fair the concept of free speech muddles the issue, the real issue is private property rights. Everyone should have the right to say whatever they like on their private property. Public ownership and democracy muddles this, as not only are people forced to follow rules they don’t agree with on property that they apparently jointly own with everyone else, but they are also forced by others to follow rules on their own property they don’t agree with.Brodders17 said:i am not 'anti-free speech' but i do believe there should be limits on what people can say, and offensive or inflammatory speech should be curtailed.
Giardiasis said:Saying words does not hurt anyone’s private property, only physical action can hurt someone’s private property. Hence to be forced to follow rules on speech is completely immoral and will not lead to the outcomes that those that support such a policy expect.