handy wrote:
DeltaF wrote:
Are you so certain of it that youd discuss "sensitive" or Labour "tabooed" subjects such as race or religion, sexual orientation etc?
I reckon youd print it but youd not remain free for too long as this board like others is subjected to government/authority scrutiny by the tiny willied minions who do their nasty work for them.
There are two types (in my opinion) of "PC". There is the scourge of all things sensible, "political correctness", which incidentally predates the current Labour government, and there is another "backronym", less currently well known but deserving of an effort to save the PC initials from total loss. That's "Polite & Courteous".
But surely they are the same thing as a dictionary defines "courteous" as "polite and considerate in manner" and "polite" as showing a great regard for others in terms of speech, manners, behaviour and
courteous 
It's also "cultivated/refined/polished/elegant"
Unfortunately, we don't seem to be teaching this to our young as well as our parents perhaps taught us at the time perhaps. I do try to ensure our kids respect others and show decent calm courtesy towards others all the same. My own mother used to tell me to "treat other people as you expect yourself to be treated." Which basically means respect and courtesy usually begets respect an courtesy
handy wrote:
I believe in my time on this board, race, or more accurately racism HAS been discussed at some length, and done quite politely; a "grown up discussion", if sometimes heated.
I think that's the nice thing about most posting to this site. Most of us refrain from vulgar abuse.
Admittedly banter can be a "thin line" at times as it depends on individual sense of humour at times.
handy wrote:
Religion has not been discussed much, but then if no-one is interested in the discussion and it doesn't come up, that's not the same as a taboo.
Well - this family are Roman Catholics
We don't care if someone does not approve either. We are not "scientologists" but even so - to each their own so long as they respect the others choice of religion or agnosticism/atheism. Going to a church or a Mosque/Synagogue/Temple does not mean a nice "courteous God-fearing" person either as zealots prove by their actions across the centuries. A really "good" person does consider other people besides him/herself. But as Bert Brecht pondered in his play "Good Person of Sezhuan" whereby the lead character Sheng Teh/Shui Tah was a kind of "Jekyll/Hyde" character - there is no such thing as a "wholly good person" as there's always a cost to someone else
(Play written in Brecht's hey-day. I read this play when I was learning German at the Goethe Institut. I studied the lingo because I needed to understand my wife whose lingo seems to waver between High German and her native "Appenzeller" Schwyzer dialect. But she uses High German predominantly to the kids anyway. You bring up a child to be naturally bi-lingual if they associate one language with one parent and the other one with the other parent. In our case - my kids use English when they speak to me and German when they speak to Wildy. If in company - we use the language of our guests - usually English
)
handy wrote:
Sexual orientation? Again, as far as I can recall, not been discussed but has never been banned. I'd go so far as to suspect that some of the posters on here prefer relations with men rather than women, but as it's not apposite to the subject matter it hasn't been discussed. If you wish to raise these subjects, as long as you can keep it as an adult discussion, and remain polite and courteous, I would not expect anyone to have a problem with it.
I love one woman - Wildy. I had flings before I met her - but once I met her? I fell for her. She teased me a bit in that she played "hard to get but still danced in my sights"
She's my soul mate/confidante/lover/wife and my equal partner in our marriage. How it should be.
But then this is how it should be if preferences are towards same sex. Lot of my patients have had a number of partners. Not their sexual preferences at fault but perhaps promiscuous life style without precautions as regards the HIV lurgy patients I see.
But as people? Human beings? I like them and feel I fail them if I cannot give them a longer positive quality of life before the inevitable bites them. At this point I try to keep their dignity whilst at the same time fighting with them for each breath they take and feeling genuinely saddened when I lose them.
I can only as a medic stress again..
it does not matter how many folk you sleep with. What matters is SAFE SEX! Use condoms. Take each available precaution. Try to keep faithful to one partner. You may find a better and more satisfying life if you settle with a steady soul-mate of whatever sexual preference
But - whilst I will understand other people as best I can. My own choice in my own lifestyle revolves around my Wildy
and the fruits of our marriage and our joint decisions as equal partners.
As for extreme religious nutters. Not religion. More a psychopathic desire to harm others. But perhaps delusion "justifying atrocity in the name of religion" In this instance - we are perhaps too pee-cee in attributing to a religious cause instead of the insanity it really is.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
I'm not too bad even now, for a wrinkly, so I'm told. I may put my pic in the gallery.
