So I take it you couldn't find anyone killed by refugee terrorists? We're to turn away these victims of persecution and torture and rape on entirely theoretical grounds?
P.S: I am pleased to be able to tell you that just as not all Christians follow your version of Christianity, not all Muslims follow your version of Islam. (Also, not all refugees are Muslim, is it really necessary to point this out?)
Go listen to the video linked in the OP to hear a Russian comedian talk about the oppression of PC as the same as what he experienced in the USSR.
How can I possibly listen to it? Since PC is just the same as the USSR, the video has been taken down by the totalitarian PC state, the comedian has been sent to a forced labor camp, and you have been declared insane and incarcerated in a high-security mental hospital for recommending that I watch it. Even now the PC-KGB are knocking on my own door, but I plan to put all the blame on you and maybe Percy.
Sheesh, Faith, just as you are free to talk endlessly about how you've been silenced, he is free to whine endlessly about how he's oppressed. No-one gives a damn. So far as I know we're the only people who care even a little bit what you say (and if you stopped posting here we'd stop doing that) and we have not in fact put you in a gulag for saying it.
It it has always been the case that this is true. The difference is now your particular views are no longer the dominant views.
You are experiencing what (for example) a gay man or woman experienced in previous generations (in terms of social sanctions for not towing the cultural line).
This is bad for you now. But it’s always bad for someone: it used to be people unlike you, now it is people like you.
Society moves on: I’m my nephews ‘bigoted uncle’ because I laugh at Ross heavy episodes of Friends.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
I never said I told them about my God. I said I was sharing love. My story is one of many stories. I would bet a paycheck that you have offended some people here with your posts. I bet we all have. That's my point, you can never "not offend" or be "inoffensive".
Was I not clear? Pretty amazing to me how many smart people there are here in these forums that can't seem to get the simplest of points. Change my mind. Tell me what is better, teaching people how not to offend, or how not to be offended. I choose the later.
I agree Stile. I am mainly focusing on but not limited to the current attempt at being inoffensive and the extremes they are taking it to. A example might be the word "ze", since we can no longer say he or she.
We definitely should be teaching respect along with how not to be offended.
There may or may not be millions of examples, (most likely there are) but it is what the media and the left is pushing on us, so it must be "important ". My problems with it are that it is counter productive, and it is not "all inclusive".
I suggest that supporting the idea of the wall comes from a unhappy blend of religion, politics and nationalism
Or that we just want to make sure the people we are going to help aren't going to kill us, either on purpose or by accident, so that we can continue to help. In order to be in a position that allows you to help, you must also take care of yourself. Jesus once knocked over a table or 2 in the temple.
There is objective evidence that I am. There is ample, widespread and convincing evidence that people all across the political spectrum are irritated by people trying to make converts to their faith, and that they have been irritated by this long before the concept of "PC" existed. You yourself would probably not relish spending ten minutes listening to an earnest Jehovah's Witness explaining why everyone in your church is going to hell. This is not because you are tainted with political correctness, this is because of human nature. Being proselytized to is embarrassing, like you'd feel if someone you found really unattractive was explaining to you at length why you should date them.
I couldn't agree more. That's why the way I share my faith is by loving people and not talking about it unless they ask.
So let me get this straight... people were offended that you were feeding the poor, helping the sick, caring for those most in need, giving them clothes, digging wells, building schools, etc... ?? That seems odd. Can you think of any reason they would be offended by those things? Maybe there was some other way you were sharing "God's love"
Yes I can think of reasons. Because some people are bad people. Like for instance, we had a charity and were building homes for children born with AIDS across the planet. Some countries were not interested and offended we even suggested doing it. Those same people later agreed to it, but said they would build a $50,000 home for $800,000.
Maybe they were not being sensitive to the local culture and trying to push Western values on them. The "greater good" doesn't mean turning them into something they are not.
We don't change people, or try to. God does that.
You cannot control how others react to you. All you can do is to consider the other person more important than yourself and try to be sensitive to their needs and what is important to them. And share God's love by doing right