Sunday, November 21, 2010

Some more politically correct hate speech

Report from Seattle:
"The setting was a session seeking "wicked questions" about the health care system, defined as the kind of questions that have no right answer. The goal was to get people thinking about larger social questions instead of focusing on individual problems, and it was a great brainstorming event. Brainstorming etiquette discourages judging contributions to the dialog, simply acknowledging statements and moving on, but hateful speech needs an immediate response.

These were one panelist's top four wicked questions:

1. Given that research shows the number and strength of friendships are the strongest factor in good health, can the health care system be structured to encourage friendship?

2. How can we live/create supportive communities to use the existing system less?

3. What if I as an individual just can't meet goals for living a healthy life?

4. Can we ever be truly well as a society as long as we remain so much under the influence of the homosexual agenda?

Three out of four are really good, tough questions that need to be considered. The first one was rather tongue in cheek, pointing out that "health" has little to do with the health care system. The second and third questions identify barriers to improving the overall health of society. His last question judged and marginalized a whole group of people, was not true in any objective sense, was not useful to the dialog and was certainly not kind. Later in the session, the speaker dismissively referred to the same group as child abusers - and the crowd turned the other cheek.

What he said was out of line, but he could get away with it because what he really said was:

4. Can we ever be truly well as a society as long as we remain so much under the influence of religion?

It's the one kind of hate speech you can get away with in this politically correct world. What would you have said? What I did was send a question to the moderator asking the panelist this:

Can we ever be truly well as a society as long as we reject religion's positive influence?

He backpedaled, then later went on to state that we just have to stop talking about spirituality because it's too vague, we need to focus on quality of life. Hmmm - you can find as many or more definitions of what constitutes quality of life as you can spirituality, but clearly he hates religion and feels free to say so in public.

Source

8 comments:

commoncents said...

THANKS FOR POSTING THIS!

Glad I found your blog!

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Personally, i see nothing wrong with the way the 4 (very good) questions were asked. Is #1 really "tongue in cheek"? It is, after all, a known medical fact that firendship and good company aid good health. What truly is tongue in cheek, is what the govt is doing to our health care system. Unless you enjoy being lied to, understand that the govt takeover of the system has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with "controlling every aspect of our private lives"!

As for #4, there's far more truth behind that question than some (Jon?) would like to hear. They tend to view any opinions or facts they disagree with as attacks.

Anonymous said...

Christians and inded Muslims or most other religionists like to hide behind the "victim" excuse when saying that any criticism is an "ATTACK".

Bobby said...

"4. Can we ever be truly well as a society as long as we remain so much under the influence of the homosexual agenda?"

---If that's the case, then Saudi Arabia (and every other Muslim country), Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua and every other country that rejects the so-called "homosexual agenda" must be great places to live... Oh wait, they're actually hellholes.

Anonymous said...

So, a nation controlled by homosexuals would be the ideal place to live?

Anonymous said...

They might make a better job of it than heterosexuals have so far!

PoliticallyIncorrectLibertarian said...

"So, a nation controlled by homosexuals would be the ideal place to live?"

---No, a nation controlled by FREEDOM would be an ideal place to live. What's wrong with a nation where you can be religious or secular? Gay or straight? Smoke cigarettes or abstain from them? Carry an AK-47 or choose not to carry?

I don't mind people making moral choices for their own lives, why must they try to do it for everyone else?

Spurwing Plover said...

Lberal atheists can be a bunch of self centered biggots especialy persons like MICHEAL NEWDOW who is trying to force the whole nation to abide by his wishes