Tv Members And Political Correctness

[Ulysses G.]

But how would you define it, UG? If we are listening to someone speak, and I want to know if they are being 'PC,' how do I know? What kind of scale can I use, or characteristics can I look for?

For example, do you agree with Garro's definition above? If not, what do you think is wrong with that definition?

Thank you BKK James.

I remember when I first heard of political correctness in San Francisco and it fit this definition:

The concept that one has to shape their statements (if not their opinions) according to a certain political dogma, i.e. to be politically correct ...

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/political_correctness

It later mutated into a way of suppressing free speech:

Suppressing the expression of certain attitudes and the use of certain terms in the belief that they are too offensive or controversial.

www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm

A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal.

www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html

garro's definition is an idealized version of what political correctness aspires to be, rather than what it really is. Again, the definition of Communism sounds really great before you examine what it really turned into.

[thaibeachlovers]

So now we have the anti-PC'ers claiming that the PC movement is responsible for the fear adults have of touching children and the demise of good old Santa Claus.

Are these people on drugs? The PC movement has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. This is purely down to the fact that there are a lot of perverts out in the world plus there are a lot of litigeneous (?) folks just looking for a reason to sue somebody. Organisations that set up public events these days have to be so bluddy careful regarding safety etc and carry huge insurance against all manner of threats it is becoming just not worth the effort nor expense.

This has nothing to do with PC nor, as the bleating flock would have it, the "nanny state". It's all, specifically focussing on the PC anti Santa claims, to do with the number of sex offenders being put back into society without the necessary controls. This is nothing to do with PC but is a result of years of liberal policies towards criminals of all types and government's cost cutting measures to reduce prison populations. So don't blame PC'ness for it, if anybody blame the human rights movement and their focus on the rights of the criminal over those of the victims.

And don't blame the "nanny state", go look in the mirror. It is YOU the people who raise litigation because YOU couldn't pick your feet up and tripped over that paving slab. It is YOU the parents who abdicate from your responsibility for looking after YOUR children. [Excuse the off topic rant]

But of course the rabid anti-PC element won't have that preferring to blame anybody else but themselves for their woes. I'm a little surprised they haven't blamed global warming and the financial meltdown on PC yet.

I used to be anti-PC myself and have let loose some tirades against the actions of those who represent the movement. I still am anti some of the excesses but have come to realise that most of the examples of PC extremism are nothing more than one individual overstepping the mark or a newshound on a slow news day.

Don't believe everything you read in the SUN or the DAILY EXPRESS.

Rubbish! PC is a state of mind, that has caused ( IMO ) people, mainly women, to regard single men with suspicion. Why else do women ASSUME that because a man is looking at them that he wants to have sex with them ( there has been another thread about this subject, so won't elaborate )? Why am I subjected to harrasment at the airport because they ASSUME I am a paedophile ( with no record or evidence )? Why do mothers ASSUME that any man who looks at their children want to abuse them? Why do the courts ASSUME that mothers make better parents than fathers?

IMO it's all part of the PC attitude, and is nothing to do with litigation. None of the cases above would involve litigation.

As for your claim that there are a "lot of perverts out there"; what are your statistics? Out of 6 billion people on earth, how many are perverts? You don't know, but you are contributing to the hysteria about perverts in the community. Fact- most child abuse is carried out by people who know the child- relatives!

The number of assaults by strangers is miniscule. Yet the FEAR of being accused is driving people to live paranoid lives. Yes, some fathers do fear being accused of inapropriate behaviour if they hug their children. Now that really is a "sick society"!

Being PC is also about other stuff of course, but IMO, the above is the worst effect of being a PC society.

The percentage of the population which are involved in this activity is unknown. The number of unreported cases is unknown. So how do you know that it is mostly committed by relatives? Almost all of my friends admit to at least being groped as a kid.

In the past this abuse was hidden away and offenders knew that chances are they would get away with it. People did not take the claims seriously and accused those making them of being hysterical. There were similar claims to what you are making about how it all was exaggerated.

Now it may not suit you that grown-ups have to be more cautious around children, but I think that it is a great step forward. I have worked with young children and now work with older children. In my last occupation there were many precautions taken to safeguard the children and even though these safeguards could be inconvenient I supported them 100%. My sympathy is far more with the child than the person who misses been able to touch kids he doesn't know. If a stranger wants to touch my child he better have a good reason.

As far as your comments about western woman. I have never noticed the claims that you are making against them.

Your final sentence has already been answered by UG.

Erm, former Home Office crime statistician here - the vast majority of abuse IS perpetrated by the victim's relatives. Instances of paedophilia is falling, as fear caused by mass hysteria is rising.

Almost all your friends were groped as children? Are they for real??? Statistically speaking, it would be AMAZING for more than, say, two victims to become friends later in life. I have often mused that uberPC types have a tendency to invent or distort their past in order to prove their current day prejudices.

Oh, a Home Office Crime statistician - just like CSI. No, if your statistics are correct then the vast majority of known abuse is perpetrated by relatives. The idea that these people only abuse relatives is absurd.

So let me get this straight. The claim is that PC in the modern world is the cause of mass hysteria leading to increase reports of child abuse. Yet, you have just admitted that reports of child abuse is falling. Now it does not take a statistician to see the implication here does it? Increased public concern is leading to what? or if the west is going uberPC and reports of child abuse is falling what would that imply?

As for my friends and your statistics? Well, again if your statistics are correct then the chances are low that two of my friends would be people who reported child abuse so that it would show up in statistics. I would guess though that most people would be a bit fearful of going through the whole legal process to report someone groping them.

You still haven't said if this abuse was carried out by adults ( known or unknown ), or if by other young people ie school friends ( or otherwise ). It does make a difference.

[garro]

So now we have the anti-PC'ers claiming that the PC movement is responsible for the fear adults have of touching children and the demise of good old Santa Claus.

Are these people on drugs? The PC movement has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. This is purely down to the fact that there are a lot of perverts out in the world plus there are a lot of litigeneous (?) folks just looking for a reason to sue somebody. Organisations that set up public events these days have to be so bluddy careful regarding safety etc and carry huge insurance against all manner of threats it is becoming just not worth the effort nor expense.

This has nothing to do with PC nor, as the bleating flock would have it, the "nanny state". It's all, specifically focussing on the PC anti Santa claims, to do with the number of sex offenders being put back into society without the necessary controls. This is nothing to do with PC but is a result of years of liberal policies towards criminals of all types and government's cost cutting measures to reduce prison populations. So don't blame PC'ness for it, if anybody blame the human rights movement and their focus on the rights of the criminal over those of the victims.

And don't blame the "nanny state", go look in the mirror. It is YOU the people who raise litigation because YOU couldn't pick your feet up and tripped over that paving slab. It is YOU the parents who abdicate from your responsibility for looking after YOUR children. [Excuse the off topic rant]

But of course the rabid anti-PC element won't have that preferring to blame anybody else but themselves for their woes. I'm a little surprised they haven't blamed global warming and the financial meltdown on PC yet.

I used to be anti-PC myself and have let loose some tirades against the actions of those who represent the movement. I still am anti some of the excesses but have come to realise that most of the examples of PC extremism are nothing more than one individual overstepping the mark or a newshound on a slow news day.

Don't believe everything you read in the SUN or the DAILY EXPRESS.

Rubbish! PC is a state of mind, that has caused ( IMO ) people, mainly women, to regard single men with suspicion. Why else do women ASSUME that because a man is looking at them that he wants to have sex with them ( there has been another thread about this subject, so won't elaborate )? Why am I subjected to harrasment at the airport because they ASSUME I am a paedophile ( with no record or evidence )? Why do mothers ASSUME that any man who looks at their children want to abuse them? Why do the courts ASSUME that mothers make better parents than fathers?

IMO it's all part of the PC attitude, and is nothing to do with litigation. None of the cases above would involve litigation.

As for your claim that there are a "lot of perverts out there"; what are your statistics? Out of 6 billion people on earth, how many are perverts? You don't know, but you are contributing to the hysteria about perverts in the community. Fact- most child abuse is carried out by people who know the child- relatives!

The number of assaults by strangers is miniscule. Yet the FEAR of being accused is driving people to live paranoid lives. Yes, some fathers do fear being accused of inapropriate behaviour if they hug their children. Now that really is a "sick society"!

Being PC is also about other stuff of course, but IMO, the above is the worst effect of being a PC society.

The percentage of the population which are involved in this activity is unknown. The number of unreported cases is unknown. So how do you know that it is mostly committed by relatives? Almost all of my friends admit to at least being groped as a kid.

In the past this abuse was hidden away and offenders knew that chances are they would get away with it. People did not take the claims seriously and accused those making them of being hysterical. There were similar claims to what you are making about how it all was exaggerated.

Now it may not suit you that grown-ups have to be more cautious around children, but I think that it is a great step forward. I have worked with young children and now work with older children. In my last occupation there were many precautions taken to safeguard the children and even though these safeguards could be inconvenient I supported them 100%. My sympathy is far more with the child than the person who misses been able to touch kids he doesn't know. If a stranger wants to touch my child he better have a good reason.

As far as your comments about western woman. I have never noticed the claims that you are making against them.

Your final sentence has already been answered by UG.

Erm, former Home Office crime statistician here - the vast majority of abuse IS perpetrated by the victim's relatives. Instances of paedophilia is falling, as fear caused by mass hysteria is rising.

Almost all your friends were groped as children? Are they for real??? Statistically speaking, it would be AMAZING for more than, say, two victims to become friends later in life. I have often mused that uberPC types have a tendency to invent or distort their past in order to prove their current day prejudices.

Oh, a Home Office Crime statistician - just like CSI. No, if your statistics are correct then the vast majority of known abuse is perpetrated by relatives. The idea that these people only abuse relatives is absurd.

So let me get this straight. The claim is that PC in the modern world is the cause of mass hysteria leading to increase reports of child abuse. Yet, you have just admitted that reports of child abuse is falling. Now it does not take a statistician to see the implication here does it? Increased public concern is leading to what? or if the west is going uberPC and reports of child abuse is falling what would that imply?

As for my friends and your statistics? Well, again if your statistics are correct then the chances are low that two of my friends would be people who reported child abuse so that it would show up in statistics. I would guess though that most people would be a bit fearful of going through the whole legal process to report someone groping them.

You still haven't said if this abuse was carried out by adults ( known or unknown ), or if by other young people ie school friends ( or otherwise ). It does make a difference.

They varied, but other than one girl none involved members of the family. The abuse was usually committed by people in positions of trust. Does that make a difference?

[thaibeachlovers]

OK, the ACTUAL/ UNREPORTED number not known, but reported/ prosecuted mainly known to the abused.

Whom were your friends all groped by? Stranger adults, adult relatives, siblings, schoolfriends? It makes a difference!

I pity you, assuming ALL men are perverts. What a paranoid life. Perhaps you should not have had children, if the world is such a terrible place. What will you do when they are old enough to want to go off on their own? Lock them up?

The way western women are paranoid about men is a frequent and topical discussion subject by most western men ( that I know or have met ).

BTW, you don't need to worry about me touching your child. Even lying bleeding to death, I will get a female to save its life. People with your attitude make me far too paranoid to go anywhere near a child. I used to work in a paediatric ward, but would never do so now, as people like you would accuse me of being a paedophile.

just to knock your prejudices and preconceived notions on the head here, garro is not a woman.

I hadn't assumed that he was.

As to his last reply, perhaps I was being a bit "over the top" in appearing to say that I would actually let the child die. I really meant that if there was a female present, I would get her to do the first aid, rather than myself. If there was no one else about, of course I would do first aid.

I used to really enjoy working in Paeds, but that was in the days before PC ( oops, someone might read some ulterior motive into the fact that I enjoyed working with children. ). Now, I would be so paranoid about being accused of something improper, just doing my job, that it would be impossible to do the job properly. I can just imagine garro's reaction if he found me giving his child a bath. Horrors!

In my hospital, it is now forbidden for nurses ( even females ) to pacify distressed children after surgery by giving them a cuddle/ hug. Only essential touching is allowed. So even if the child is screaming, no comfort may be given! How totally bonkers is that!

It's not what people think of me that I care about; it's being accused in a court of law of molesting a child by a completely paranoid parent that I want to avoid.

Perhaps to solve the problem of perverts, all men should be castrated after they have done their duty and had their children! Then they can fulfill their proper function in life of working to pay for their ( ex ) wife to live the life she desires, with HER children, and not be tempted to run off to Thailand to meet nice, non PC women.

In any place where I have worked the parents are expected to accompany the child to the anaesthetic room until the the child is sedated. The parents are then in the recovery room when the child wakes up. In cases where the child is having a local anaesthetic the parents are allowed to scrub up and attend the whole procedure. There is no need for the nurses to hug the child as the parents are there for this purpose. I would imagine that from a child's point of view having a parent hug them is far more comforting than some stranger hugging them.

It should also be remembered that there is a very thin-line between hugging a child and restraining them.

Maybe so, but not in my hospital. As for the parents being in the theatre, NO WAY.

You seem to think that because something is a certain way in your experience, it should be so everywhere.

Perhaps you think that there should be CCTV in the theatre, to catch all the pervert staff in the act! Just what do you think goes on in a hospital???

Thin line indeed! My mind is boggled!

You are not going to like this, but in my experience of paeds BEFORE parents were allowed to live in with their children, the patients were much better behaved after the parents had left! Once parents returned all the attention seeking disruption/ crying/ bad behaviour started. We always knew when the parents had returned when the child started playing up, even before we actually saw the parents!

You are a perfect example of what we anti PC are saying. Suspect every passing male of being a pervert!

This is exactly what the airport customs staff are like. So upset that they can't arrest me for being a single male spending time in Thailand. In their twisted minds, case against me closed.

[garro]

OK, the ACTUAL/ UNREPORTED number not known, but reported/ prosecuted mainly known to the abused.

Whom were your friends all groped by? Stranger adults, adult relatives, siblings, schoolfriends? It makes a difference!

I pity you, assuming ALL men are perverts. What a paranoid life. Perhaps you should not have had children, if the world is such a terrible place. What will you do when they are old enough to want to go off on their own? Lock them up?

The way western women are paranoid about men is a frequent and topical discussion subject by most western men ( that I know or have met ).

BTW, you don't need to worry about me touching your child. Even lying bleeding to death, I will get a female to save its life. People with your attitude make me far too paranoid to go anywhere near a child. I used to work in a paediatric ward, but would never do so now, as people like you would accuse me of being a paedophile.

just to knock your prejudices and preconceived notions on the head here, garro is not a woman.

I hadn't assumed that he was.

As to his last reply, perhaps I was being a bit "over the top" in appearing to say that I would actually let the child die. I really meant that if there was a female present, I would get her to do the first aid, rather than myself. If there was no one else about, of course I would do first aid.

I used to really enjoy working in Paeds, but that was in the days before PC ( oops, someone might read some ulterior motive into the fact that I enjoyed working with children. ). Now, I would be so paranoid about being accused of something improper, just doing my job, that it would be impossible to do the job properly. I can just imagine garro's reaction if he found me giving his child a bath. Horrors!

In my hospital, it is now forbidden for nurses ( even females ) to pacify distressed children after surgery by giving them a cuddle/ hug. Only essential touching is allowed. So even if the child is screaming, no comfort may be given! How totally bonkers is that!

It's not what people think of me that I care about; it's being accused in a court of law of molesting a child by a completely paranoid parent that I want to avoid.

Perhaps to solve the problem of perverts, all men should be castrated after they have done their duty and had their children! Then they can fulfill their proper function in life of working to pay for their ( ex ) wife to live the life she desires, with HER children, and not be tempted to run off to Thailand to meet nice, non PC women.

In any place where I have worked the parents are expected to accompany the child to the anaesthetic room until the the child is sedated. The parents are then in the recovery room when the child wakes up. In cases where the child is having a local anaesthetic the parents are allowed to scrub up and attend the whole procedure. There is no need for the nurses to hug the child as the parents are there for this purpose. I would imagine that from a child's point of view having a parent hug them is far more comforting than some stranger hugging them.

It should also be remembered that there is a very thin-line between hugging a child and restraining them.

Maybe so, but not in my hospital. As for the parents being in the theatre, NO WAY.

You seem to think that because something is a certain way in your experience, it should be so everywhere.

Perhaps you think that there should be CCTV in the theatre, to catch all the pervert staff in the act! Just what do you think goes on in a hospital???

Thin line indeed! My mind is boggled!

You are not going to like this, but in my experience of paeds BEFORE parents were allowed to live in with their children, the patients were much better behaved after the parents had left! Once parents returned all the attention seeking disruption/ crying/ bad behaviour started. We always knew when the parents had returned when the child started playing up, even before we actually saw the parents!

You are a perfect example of what we anti PC are saying. Suspect every passing male of being a pervert!

This is exactly what the airport customs staff are like. So upset that they can't arrest me for being a single male spending time in Thailand. In their twisted minds, case against me closed.

I am not sure if you are aware of the concept of 'best practice' which is the ethical principal that nurses have a duty to provide the best possible care to a patient. This old line that" this is the way we have always done things this here" shouldn't really come into it. Now of course nurses often have limited input in these type of decisions, but this does not exempt them from advocating for change and for 'best practice'. If you think that there are clinical reasons why you should not allow parents to be with their kids during induction and recovery then state this, but merely saying 'no way' and 'our hospital doesn't do it' doesn't really cut it for someone putting themselves forward as a professional. If CTV is proved to be good for the patients then why not?

I find it strange that you would scoff at the idea of there being a thin line between hugging and restraint, but hey your the poster.

I have absolutely no idea why you were questioned at the airport, but if it was me I would just brush off. I would actually see it as a good thing because at least they are taking the whole thing seriously. Far better they question every man coming into Thailand than have one man abuse a child here. It needs to be the child first in my view.

Edited December 26, 2008 by garro

[thaibeachlovers]

As for your claim that there are a "lot of perverts out there"; what are your statistics? Out of 6 billion people on earth, how many are perverts? You don't know, but you are contributing to the hysteria about perverts in the community. Fact- most child abuse is carried out by people who know the child- relatives!

The number of assaults by strangers is miniscule. Yet the FEAR of being accused is driving people to live paranoid lives. Yes, some fathers do fear being accused of inapropriate behaviour if they hug their children. Now that really is a "sick society"!

Being PC is also about other stuff of course, but IMO, the above is the worst effect of being a PC society.

Your response is, quite frankly, mind numbing but this last bit takes the biscuit.

For starters I said there are a lot of perverts out there. I did not say the majority of people are perverts.

Then you, having dug your hole, outstrip yourself with this idea that only abuse carried out by strangers counts as perversion and that is miniscule.

Okay, you want to play the stats and evidence game so give me a credible link to one case where the biological father has been prosecuted for hugging his children (save maybe in a really acrimonious divorce case). You accuse me of contributing to the hysteria? I think you ought to go look in the mirror. Having asserted that the majority of child abuse is by relatives of the victims you then claim the relatives are in fact victims of the hysteria generated by people like me.

If it weren't so tragic your piece would be comical.

btw, if we assume out of the 60 billion people on Earth 50% are men and only men abuse kids (an assumption wide open to accusations of PC but let's keep it simple) and zero point one percent are pervs that gives us 3 million. That's a lot of people in my book but maybe a miniscule problem in your eyes.

btw#2, someone asked about the rewording of Christmas Carols to suit PC. Well this is on the Telegraph UK website.

Worst politically-correct Christmas carol named

A modern version of Joy to the World rewritten to remove references to Jesus has been voted the worst politically-correct carol by churchgoers.

The bowdlerised song, which replaces "Joy to the world, the Lord is come, Let earth receive her King" with the lines "Joy to the world, for peace shall come, Let this be our refrain" came out top of a poll hosted by Ship of Fools, the religious humour website.

Other Christmas favourites altered for the politically-correct age include O Come All Ye Faithful, with some congregations told to sing "O come in adoration" instead of "O come let us adore him", which is apparently considered too gender specific.

Hark the Herald Angels Sing has also been updated, with the line "Glory to the Christ child, bring" deemed more inclusive than "Glory to the newborn king".

The website's Steve Goddard said they were inspired to start the poll after dozens of readers complained that their local churches had made clumsy alterations to songbooks.

"We've all noticed the "new" words, grimaced, tried to remember what the original lines were, shaken our heads in bemusement, and politely carried on singing," he said.

"Theologically-modified carols will ring out everywhere this year. Innocents like king, man, son, virgin and Lord have been slaughtered to make carols more modern and inclusive. In some cases, entire verses have been rewritten."

He added: "How long will it be before we have to sing 'Oh Vertically Challenged Town of Bethlehem' because 'little' is perceived to be politically incorrect?"

There quite clearly is the extremism of PC that should be stamped on.

Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christma...arol-named.html

"only abuse carried out by strangers counts as perversion" ?????? Just where did I say that? Have a go if you like, but please don't try to make out I said something I didn't.

I also never said that fathers had been prosecuted for hugging their children, but that they FEAR the reaction should they do so. This was big in New Zealand back in the 80s after it was ( wrongly ) claimed that 1 in 10 fathers was abusing their children. As I DID say, it is mass hysteria generated by people accusing men of all being perverts.

Perhaps you should READ what I actually say before slagging me off.

[Ulysses G.]

Far better they question every man coming into Thailand than have one man abuse a child here. It needs to be the child first in my view.

What good would that do? There is no way to tell what abusers are up to by casually questioning them.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[thaibeachlovers]

I would see political correctness as having two components. The first component is an attempt to use vocabulary which is not going to offend any group within society. The second component is legislation used to discourage those who would attempt to use speech or actions to increase hatred between groups.

I would see the first as good manners, but there's not much of that about these days, as parents appear to have given up any attempt to teach children to be good citizens; at least from the ones I see in public in London. They are in the main a bunch of feral thugs, who know that they can behave as badly as they like, as no adult would be foolish enough to stand up to them.

IMO, PC is the use of language to modify people's behaviour, and has been hijacked by a particular group of ultra feminazis to subdue men. That's my OPINION, and if you don't like it, that's your right. Who would I be to tell you what to believe, I'm not PC!!!

[Ulysses G.]

Don't forget Femi-Nazi apologists!

[garro]

Far better they question every man coming into Thailand than have one man abuse a child here. It needs to be the child first in my view.

What good would that do? There is no way to tell what abusers are up to by casually questioning them.

Why question anybody in an airport then? After all if a terrorist is coming into your country he probably won't have the bomb with him. The fact that the Thai authorities seem to be taking it seriously might send a signal to some people to keep away. I would happily submit to questioning during every airport visit if it means one less pervert arriving in a country. Anyway how do you know that they are interviewing people casually?

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think they are waterboarding them.

[garro]

I would see political correctness as having two components. The first component is an attempt to use vocabulary which is not going to offend any group within society. The second component is legislation used to discourage those who would attempt to use speech or actions to increase hatred between groups.

I would see the first as good manners, but there's not much of that about these days, as parents appear to have given up any attempt to teach children to be good citizens; at least from the ones I see in public in London. They are in the main a bunch of feral thugs, who know that they can behave as badly as they like, as no adult would be foolish enough to stand up to them.

IMO, PC is the use of language to modify people's behaviour, and has been hijacked by a particular group of ultra feminazis to subdue men. That's my OPINION, and if you don't like it, that's your right. Who would I be to tell you what to believe, I'm not PC!!!

Your life must be hel_l on earth. You seem to mistrust children and women and yet you work in a predominately female profession on a children's ward. No wonder you were stopped by immigration. They obviously mistook your crazed look for something else

[Super Hans]

I don't think they are waterboarding them.

Hey, don't give him ideas!

It seems to me that garro LIKES the state interfering with all aspects of our everyday lives. Having spent much of my life working for it, it scares me senseless. It is very difficult for radical individuals to mobilise a mass ideology like fascism or communism, but it is very easy for the state.

Besides, what price freedom? Micro managing all facets of human behaviour is an absurd concept. Manage the harm, but not at the expense of our freedom.

[Super Hans]

So let me get this straight. The claim is that PC in the modern world is the cause of mass hysteria leading to increase reports of child abuse. Yet, you have just admitted that reports of child abuse is falling. Now it does not take a statistician to see the implication here does it? Increased public concern is leading to what? or if the west is going uberPC and reports of child abuse is falling what would that imply?

I don't draw any direct comparison between political correctness and child abuse. I do think our society has become paranoid about it, however, which has led to many parents becoming overly protective in response. I feel we are killing our children with kindness. Get them back to eating worms, climbing trees and not being too afraid to talk to strangers. Your increased public concern has led us to record obesity amongst children and, for the first time ever, a falling life expectancy.

I would rather my child was out learning about life in the woods, rather than about potential harm in his bedroom.

[Super Hans]

I don't think they are waterboarding them.

Hey, don't give him ideas!

It seems to me that garro LIKES the state interfering with all aspects of our everyday lives. Having spent much of my life working for it, it scares me senseless. It is very difficult for radical individuals to mobilise a mass ideology like fascism or communism, but it is very easy for the state.

Besides, what price freedom? Micro managing all facets of human behaviour is an absurd concept. Manage the harm, but not at the expense of our freedom.

The cost of freedom is Dear!

Die free or live a bridled exsitence as a mental cripple.

Freedom's potential cost for the Front line! Link Here: http://cpj.org/2008/12/bbc-reporter-charge...ng-the-king.php

It is a rather apt comparison, once again posing the question: "where do you draw the line?"

[thaibeachlovers]

Far better they question every man coming into Thailand than have one man abuse a child here. It needs to be the child first in my view.

What good would that do? There is no way to tell what abusers are up to by casually questioning them.

Why question anybody in an airport then? After all if a terrorist is coming into your country he probably won't have the bomb with him. The fact that the Thai authorities seem to be taking it seriously might send a signal to some people to keep away. I would happily submit to questioning during every airport visit if it means one less pervert arriving in a country. Anyway how do you know that they are interviewing people casually?

Are you serious? The last time, I was stuck in customs for over 2 1/2 hours while some apparatchik looked at my photo NEGATIVES!!!!, and my friend was waiting with 2 small children for all that time. So what was achieved? My friend will never pick me up again, and his 2 small children became extremely distressed. As I, of course, had nothing illegal, they had to let me go.

Customs people must be really stupid if they really think someone is going to carry evidence of misdeeds through customs, when there are dozens of ways to send stuff. The mail is probably as good a way as any, and perhaps they have never heard of uploading encrypted files to the internet.

I was also interviewed by a policeman. Dunno why. Perhaps they think the sight of plod is going to make paedos break down and confess!!! I'd have loved to tell him that I'd been bonking several women every day ( prostitution is legal in my country ) just to see what he'd do, but thought better of it. So it was culture and temples instead. He was still reluctant to let me pass, but when I told him about the GF it seemed to do the trick ( happens to be true ).

I also don't get the reference to keeping perverts out. It's not illegal to be a pervert, so why would it stop anyone travelling?

Incidentally, since when did they ever stop and question anyone entering Thailand? Never seen it myself.

[Super Hans]

Bonobo, the examples I have given seem to have satisfied others in the discussion. I'd not go as far to recommend you take a subscription with the 'Red Tops', but do take not how oftain they pop up elsewhere in this discussion - not for no good reason I assure you.

BTW, GuestHouse IS well traveled. He seems to spend a lot of time either in picture postcard rural England, or propping up repressive, murdering, regimes for huge amounts of personal financial gain. He then has the audacity to lecture those of us living in the gutter about political correctness!

I don't spend nearly enough time here in 'picture postcard rural England', and I'd venture that your energy spending habbits do as much to support any of the regimes you acuse me of supporting. If you live in the gutter, and I'm taking your word on that, then I can only assume that you made the choices that achieved that end. If you do not like living in the gutter, then get over the idea that spite and envy are your route out of it.

I'm, on the whole, happy with the choices I have made, I really and truly would like to be able to hear you are happy with yours. It seems afteral we both started on more or less the same footing.

I very much doubt we started on equal footing, but whatever.

So, by not wanting to make money out of corrupt and repressive regimes makes me spiteful and envious does it? Strangely enough, there are those of us with morals and ethics, who don't do one thing and preach another. And I'm not sure how my £24 a month combined gas and electricity bill makes me a hypocrite. Must be my monthly tram pass instead.

[Super Hans]

IMO, PC is merely a place of refuge for under achievers. Over achievers need no such refuge.

I tend to agree, although would say it's more of a refuge for those that are a pain in the arse.

[thaibeachlovers]

So now we have the anti-PC'ers claiming that the PC movement is responsible for the fear adults have of touching children and the demise of good old Santa Claus.

Are these people on drugs? The PC movement has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. This is purely down to the fact that there are a lot of perverts out in the world plus there are a lot of litigeneous (?) folks just looking for a reason to sue somebody. Organisations that set up public events these days have to be so bluddy careful regarding safety etc and carry huge insurance against all manner of threats it is becoming just not worth the effort nor expense.

This has nothing to do with PC nor, as the bleating flock would have it, the "nanny state". It's all, specifically focussing on the PC anti Santa claims, to do with the number of sex offenders being put back into society without the necessary controls. This is nothing to do with PC but is a result of years of liberal policies towards criminals of all types and government's cost cutting measures to reduce prison populations. So don't blame PC'ness for it, if anybody blame the human rights movement and their focus on the rights of the criminal over those of the victims.

And don't blame the "nanny state", go look in the mirror. It is YOU the people who raise litigation because YOU couldn't pick your feet up and tripped over that paving slab. It is YOU the parents who abdicate from your responsibility for looking after YOUR children. [Excuse the off topic rant]

But of course the rabid anti-PC element won't have that preferring to blame anybody else but themselves for their woes. I'm a little surprised they haven't blamed global warming and the financial meltdown on PC yet.

I used to be anti-PC myself and have let loose some tirades against the actions of those who represent the movement. I still am anti some of the excesses but have come to realise that most of the examples of PC extremism are nothing more than one individual overstepping the mark or a newshound on a slow news day.

Don't believe everything you read in the SUN or the DAILY EXPRESS.

Rubbish! PC is a state of mind, that has caused ( IMO ) people, mainly women, to regard single men with suspicion. Why else do women ASSUME that because a man is looking at them that he wants to have sex with them ( there has been another thread about this subject, so won't elaborate )? Why am I subjected to harrasment at the airport because they ASSUME I am a paedophile ( with no record or evidence )? Why do mothers ASSUME that any man who looks at their children want to abuse them? Why do the courts ASSUME that mothers make better parents than fathers?

IMO it's all part of the PC attitude, and is nothing to do with litigation. None of the cases above would involve litigation.

As for your claim that there are a "lot of perverts out there"; what are your statistics? Out of 6 billion people on earth, how many are perverts? You don't know, but you are contributing to the hysteria about perverts in the community. Fact- most child abuse is carried out by people who know the child- relatives!

The number of assaults by strangers is miniscule. Yet the FEAR of being accused is driving people to live paranoid lives. Yes, some fathers do fear being accused of inapropriate behaviour if they hug their children. Now that really is a "sick society"!

Being PC is also about other stuff of course, but IMO, the above is the worst effect of being a PC society.

The percentage of the population which are involved in this activity is unknown. The number of unreported cases is unknown. So how do you know that it is mostly committed by relatives? Almost all of my friends admit to at least being groped as a kid.

In the past this abuse was hidden away and offenders knew that chances are they would get away with it. People did not take the claims seriously and accused those making them of being hysterical. There were similar claims to what you are making about how it all was exaggerated.

Now it may not suit you that grown-ups have to be more cautious around children, but I think that it is a great step forward. I have worked with young children and now work with older children. In my last occupation there were many precautions taken to safeguard the children and even though these safeguards could be inconvenient I supported them 100%. My sympathy is far more with the child than the person who misses been able to touch kids he doesn't know. If a stranger wants to touch my child he better have a good reason.

As far as your comments about western woman. I have never noticed the claims that you are making against them.

Your final sentence has already been answered by UG.

Erm, former Home Office crime statistician here - the vast majority of abuse IS perpetrated by the victim's relatives. Instances of paedophilia is falling, as fear caused by mass hysteria is rising.

Almost all your friends were groped as children? Are they for real??? Statistically speaking, it would be AMAZING for more than, say, two victims to become friends later in life. I have often mused that uberPC types have a tendency to invent or distort their past in order to prove their current day prejudices.

Oh, a Home Office Crime statistician - just like CSI. No, if your statistics are correct then the vast majority of known abuse is perpetrated by relatives. The idea that these people only abuse relatives is absurd.

So let me get this straight. The claim is that PC in the modern world is the cause of mass hysteria leading to increase reports of child abuse. Yet, you have just admitted that reports of child abuse is falling. Now it does not take a statistician to see the implication here does it? Increased public concern is leading to what? or if the west is going uberPC and reports of child abuse is falling what would that imply?

As for my friends and your statistics? Well, again if your statistics are correct then the chances are low that two of my friends would be people who reported child abuse so that it would show up in statistics. I would guess though that most people would be a bit fearful of going through the whole legal process to report someone groping them.

You still haven't said if this abuse was carried out by adults ( known or unknown ), or if by other young people ie school friends ( or otherwise ). It does make a difference.

They varied, but other than one girl none involved members of the family. The abuse was usually committed by people in positions of trust. Does that make a difference?

Yes it does, but as none appear to have reported it, it's hard to know what to do about it at this stage.

I know that one teacher at my junior school was renowned to have "interfered" with boys, but in reality it was no more than children making something up from not much, if anything. Children are pretty loose with "truth" at the best of times. If it comes right down to it, Children are probably more abusive than any adults. Witness the spate of bullying going on in UK schools right now, some of which results in child suicides. Unfortunately, due to what I can only interperet as extreme PC, no one is prepared to deal with the bad children in an effective way.

Extreme PC can also be blamed for the poor child ( Baby P or something ) being returned to its mother to be tortured to death, recently in the UK. Apparently, the social workers were too busy filling in forms to notice the abuse taking place ( too scared of their PC bosses to actually do something about, more like ).

[thaibeachlovers]

OK, the ACTUAL/ UNREPORTED number not known, but reported/ prosecuted mainly known to the abused.

Whom were your friends all groped by? Stranger adults, adult relatives, siblings, schoolfriends? It makes a difference!

I pity you, assuming ALL men are perverts. What a paranoid life. Perhaps you should not have had children, if the world is such a terrible place. What will you do when they are old enough to want to go off on their own? Lock them up?

The way western women are paranoid about men is a frequent and topical discussion subject by most western men ( that I know or have met ).

BTW, you don't need to worry about me touching your child. Even lying bleeding to death, I will get a female to save its life. People with your attitude make me far too paranoid to go anywhere near a child. I used to work in a paediatric ward, but would never do so now, as people like you would accuse me of being a paedophile.

just to knock your prejudices and preconceived notions on the head here, garro is not a woman.

I hadn't assumed that he was.

As to his last reply, perhaps I was being a bit "over the top" in appearing to say that I would actually let the child die. I really meant that if there was a female present, I would get her to do the first aid, rather than myself. If there was no one else about, of course I would do first aid.

I used to really enjoy working in Paeds, but that was in the days before PC ( oops, someone might read some ulterior motive into the fact that I enjoyed working with children. ). Now, I would be so paranoid about being accused of something improper, just doing my job, that it would be impossible to do the job properly. I can just imagine garro's reaction if he found me giving his child a bath. Horrors!

In my hospital, it is now forbidden for nurses ( even females ) to pacify distressed children after surgery by giving them a cuddle/ hug. Only essential touching is allowed. So even if the child is screaming, no comfort may be given! How totally bonkers is that!

It's not what people think of me that I care about; it's being accused in a court of law of molesting a child by a completely paranoid parent that I want to avoid.

Perhaps to solve the problem of perverts, all men should be castrated after they have done their duty and had their children! Then they can fulfill their proper function in life of working to pay for their ( ex ) wife to live the life she desires, with HER children, and not be tempted to run off to Thailand to meet nice, non PC women.

In any place where I have worked the parents are expected to accompany the child to the anaesthetic room until the the child is sedated. The parents are then in the recovery room when the child wakes up. In cases where the child is having a local anaesthetic the parents are allowed to scrub up and attend the whole procedure. There is no need for the nurses to hug the child as the parents are there for this purpose. I would imagine that from a child's point of view having a parent hug them is far more comforting than some stranger hugging them.

It should also be remembered that there is a very thin-line between hugging a child and restraining them.

Maybe so, but not in my hospital. As for the parents being in the theatre, NO WAY.

You seem to think that because something is a certain way in your experience, it should be so everywhere.

Perhaps you think that there should be CCTV in the theatre, to catch all the pervert staff in the act! Just what do you think goes on in a hospital???

Thin line indeed! My mind is boggled!

You are not going to like this, but in my experience of paeds BEFORE parents were allowed to live in with their children, the patients were much better behaved after the parents had left! Once parents returned all the attention seeking disruption/ crying/ bad behaviour started. We always knew when the parents had returned when the child started playing up, even before we actually saw the parents!

You are a perfect example of what we anti PC are saying. Suspect every passing male of being a pervert!

This is exactly what the airport customs staff are like. So upset that they can't arrest me for being a single male spending time in Thailand. In their twisted minds, case against me closed.

I am not sure if you are aware of the concept of 'best practice' which is the ethical principal that nurses have a duty to provide the best possible care to a patient. This old line that" this is the way we have always done things this here" shouldn't really come into it. Now of course nurses often have limited input in these type of decisions, but this does not exempt them from advocating for change and for 'best practice'. If you think that there are clinical reasons why you should not allow parents to be with their kids during induction and recovery then state this, but merely saying 'no way' and 'our hospital doesn't do it' doesn't really cut it for someone putting themselves forward as a professional. If CTV is proved to be good for the patients then why not?

I find it strange that you would scoff at the idea of there being a thin line between hugging and restraint, but hey your the poster.

I have absolutely no idea why you were questioned at the airport, but if it was me I would just brush off. I would actually see it as a good thing because at least they are taking the whole thing seriously. Far better they question every man coming into Thailand than have one man abuse a child here. It needs to be the child first in my view.

I could give you reams of evidence why it would not be a good idea to have parents in theatre with an awake child ( if at all ), or why it may be necessary sometimes to restrain a child ( perhaps to stop them climbing out of a recovery bed and smashing their head on the floor ), but you've really got me with your advocacy of Big Brother in theatres ( I don't know any surgeons that would operate under that sort of extreme intrusion ).

I have been a registered nurse for 23 years and worked in 3 countries. I hope you are not trying to teach me to "suck eggs" with "best practice". We used to do "best practice" long before the PC brigade moved into nursing, we just called it "doing our job". Now there are people telling us that we have to smile, and wash our hands ( as if we don't )! Ever wondered why no western people want to go nursing any more, and the hospitals are full of nurses from "third world" countries ( there are hardly any British nurses in London hospitals )?

However, as this is a thread about PC, I shall no longer discuss hospitals or nursing here. ( I'd love to, but on an appropriate forum ).

I was stopped at the airport ( not in Thailand ) because I was a single man having spent time in Thailand. I asked the ( female ) officer why, and she admitted that I was assumed to be a paedophile, and that they were searching for evidence to support that assumption.

Had it been a short interrogation, perhaps I could brush it off, but 2 1/2 hours of looking at my photos/ negatives was too much. Also there was my friend with 2 small ( becoming very stressed ) children waiting outside. You profess to be concerned about children; what about them. Why should they have to suffer?

What about innocent until proven to be guilty? Doesn't apply at western airports!

[GuestHouse]

Political Correctness has nothing to do with the spreading of fear over our children's safety, nothing to do with Customs officials stopping people at customs to examine what they are carrying into/out of the UK, nor did it have anything to do with the death of Baby 'P'.

[rgs2001uk]

Khun Garro,

I refer you to your post number 590 and my answer to your question, answered in post number 597.

At this time of year it is easy to get sidetracked, and what with the number of posts you have answered since it may have escaped you memory.

I would appreciate an answer to your original question, if only as a matter of common courtesy, I extended you the courtesy of replying to you, surely the least you can do is reciprocate, if and when you may have the time.

[rgs2001uk]

Political Correctness has nothing to do with the spreading of fear over our children's safety, nothing to do with Customs officials stopping people at customs to examine what they are carrying into/out of the UK, nor did it have anything to do with the death of Baby 'P'.

Khun Guesthouse,

perhaps the wisdom of Solomon was shown in post number 659, and post 660 (what a gem of a post) after 20 plus pages someone actually had the common sense to do (what some of us were already aware of, eg what is pc? ) what the op should have set out in his original post (instead of assuming all the people think the same way all of the time), please enlighten us , what is pc?

[thaibeachlovers]

Political Correctness has nothing to do with the spreading of fear over our children's safety, nothing to do with Customs officials stopping people at customs to examine what they are carrying into/out of the UK, nor did it have anything to do with the death of Baby 'P'.

I would disagree on all points.

PC is used to demonise men ( women good, men bad; to misquote Animal Farm ), therefore they are a danger to children.

PC says that middle aged single men visiting Thailand ( despite lacking any evidence ) are paedophiles, therefore it is necessary to subject them to extensive searches at customs looking for non existent proof to fit the theory.

PC says that the child is always better off with family, and especially mothers, therefore it is necessary to give children back to obviously bad parents.

My opinion.

[garro]

Khun Garro,

I refer you to your post number 590 and my answer to your question, answered in post number 597.

At this time of year it is easy to get sidetracked, and what with the number of posts you have answered since it may have escaped you memory.

I would appreciate an answer to your original question, if only as a matter of common courtesy, I extended you the courtesy of replying to you, surely the least you can do is reciprocate, if and when you may have the time.

The reason I did not answer was because I had already answered and you had even quoted this answer in post 597. Now let me restate again, just because an article contains a few facts does not make it factual - even a broken clock is right twice a day. All racist material sprinkle a few historical events into the mix to add credibilty, but this does not make them any less vile. History is awash with facts which can be interpreted in many ways and the importance is in the interpretation of these events.

As for why the British invaded, well it makes little difference if the Pope told them to do it or their god told them to do it. There had been invasions long before the one you are referring to, but these invaders either left quickly or were assimilated into society. Excuses are not the problem, but it is what happened while they were there that is the problem. People from the larger island had always been coming to Ireland, but they settled in and this was never a problem. The original inhabitants of Ireland mostly came from the larger island. The seven hundred years of bloodshed with the discrimination against the vast majority of the population had nothing to do with Pope. Cromwell was certainly not acting on the Pope's authority,

Now I understand that you feel a bit piqued because you were caught quoting from a racist article, but I'm afraid that no amount of discussion will make that good behaviour - sorry.

Edited December 26, 2008 by garro

[garro]

OK, the ACTUAL/ UNREPORTED number not known, but reported/ prosecuted mainly known to the abused.

Whom were your friends all groped by? Stranger adults, adult relatives, siblings, schoolfriends? It makes a difference!

I pity you, assuming ALL men are perverts. What a paranoid life. Perhaps you should not have had children, if the world is such a terrible place. What will you do when they are old enough to want to go off on their own? Lock them up?

The way western women are paranoid about men is a frequent and topical discussion subject by most western men ( that I know or have met ).

BTW, you don't need to worry about me touching your child. Even lying bleeding to death, I will get a female to save its life. People with your attitude make me far too paranoid to go anywhere near a child. I used to work in a paediatric ward, but would never do so now, as people like you would accuse me of being a paedophile.

just to knock your prejudices and preconceived notions on the head here, garro is not a woman.

I hadn't assumed that he was.

As to his last reply, perhaps I was being a bit "over the top" in appearing to say that I would actually let the child die. I really meant that if there was a female present, I would get her to do the first aid, rather than myself. If there was no one else about, of course I would do first aid.

I used to really enjoy working in Paeds, but that was in the days before PC ( oops, someone might read some ulterior motive into the fact that I enjoyed working with children. ). Now, I would be so paranoid about being accused of something improper, just doing my job, that it would be impossible to do the job properly. I can just imagine garro's reaction if he found me giving his child a bath. Horrors!

In my hospital, it is now forbidden for nurses ( even females ) to pacify distressed children after surgery by giving them a cuddle/ hug. Only essential touching is allowed. So even if the child is screaming, no comfort may be given! How totally bonkers is that!

It's not what people think of me that I care about; it's being accused in a court of law of molesting a child by a completely paranoid parent that I want to avoid.

Perhaps to solve the problem of perverts, all men should be castrated after they have done their duty and had their children! Then they can fulfill their proper function in life of working to pay for their ( ex ) wife to live the life she desires, with HER children, and not be tempted to run off to Thailand to meet nice, non PC women.

In any place where I have worked the parents are expected to accompany the child to the anaesthetic room until the the child is sedated. The parents are then in the recovery room when the child wakes up. In cases where the child is having a local anaesthetic the parents are allowed to scrub up and attend the whole procedure. There is no need for the nurses to hug the child as the parents are there for this purpose. I would imagine that from a child's point of view having a parent hug them is far more comforting than some stranger hugging them.

It should also be remembered that there is a very thin-line between hugging a child and restraining them.

Maybe so, but not in my hospital. As for the parents being in the theatre, NO WAY.

You seem to think that because something is a certain way in your experience, it should be so everywhere.

Perhaps you think that there should be CCTV in the theatre, to catch all the pervert staff in the act! Just what do you think goes on in a hospital???

Thin line indeed! My mind is boggled!

You are not going to like this, but in my experience of paeds BEFORE parents were allowed to live in with their children, the patients were much better behaved after the parents had left! Once parents returned all the attention seeking disruption/ crying/ bad behaviour started. We always knew when the parents had returned when the child started playing up, even before we actually saw the parents!

You are a perfect example of what we anti PC are saying. Suspect every passing male of being a pervert!

This is exactly what the airport customs staff are like. So upset that they can't arrest me for being a single male spending time in Thailand. In their twisted minds, case against me closed.

I am not sure if you are aware of the concept of 'best practice' which is the ethical principal that nurses have a duty to provide the best possible care to a patient. This old line that" this is the way we have always done things this here" shouldn't really come into it. Now of course nurses often have limited input in these type of decisions, but this does not exempt them from advocating for change and for 'best practice'. If you think that there are clinical reasons why you should not allow parents to be with their kids during induction and recovery then state this, but merely saying 'no way' and 'our hospital doesn't do it' doesn't really cut it for someone putting themselves forward as a professional. If CTV is proved to be good for the patients then why not?

I find it strange that you would scoff at the idea of there being a thin line between hugging and restraint, but hey your the poster.

I have absolutely no idea why you were questioned at the airport, but if it was me I would just brush off. I would actually see it as a good thing because at least they are taking the whole thing seriously. Far better they question every man coming into Thailand than have one man abuse a child here. It needs to be the child first in my view.

I could give you reams of evidence why it would not be a good idea to have parents in theatre with an awake child ( if at all ), or why it may be necessary sometimes to restrain a child ( perhaps to stop them climbing out of a recovery bed and smashing their head on the floor ), but you've really got me with your advocacy of Big Brother in theatres ( I don't know any surgeons that would operate under that sort of extreme intrusion ).

I have been a registered nurse for 23 years and worked in 3 countries. I hope you are not trying to teach me to "suck eggs" with "best practice". We used to do "best practice" long before the PC brigade moved into nursing, we just called it "doing our job". Now there are people telling us that we have to smile, and wash our hands ( as if we don't )! Ever wondered why no western people want to go nursing any more, and the hospitals are full of nurses from "third world" countries ( there are hardly any British nurses in London hospitals )?

However, as this is a thread about PC, I shall no longer discuss hospitals or nursing here. ( I'd love to, but on an appropriate forum ).

I was stopped at the airport ( not in Thailand ) because I was a single man having spent time in Thailand. I asked the ( female ) officer why, and she admitted that I was assumed to be a paedophile, and that they were searching for evidence to support that assumption.

Had it been a short interrogation, perhaps I could brush it off, but 2 1/2 hours of looking at my photos/ negatives was too much. Also there was my friend with 2 small ( becoming very stressed ) children waiting outside. You profess to be concerned about children; what about them. Why should they have to suffer?

What about innocent until proven to be guilty? Doesn't apply at western airports!

As other posters have mentioned the fact that you were questioned at the airport in Thailand has nothing to do with PC. Yes it is terrible that the children were allowed to become so stressed, but this can hardly be blamed on immigration. Waiting at arrivals is often a long process what with late arrivals and such like. It is probably best to prepare for this.

I'm glad that you have decided to no longer discuss nursing here, because some of your comments could easily give the wrong impression about the profession - in my view.

[PhilHarries]

As GH says PC has got <deleted> all to do with being stopped at airport security. I have been regularly travelling single status to Thailand since '92 at which time I was 40 y.o.(can't be bothered to go back through the last three PP's to count the stamps). Despite falling right in the frame for your average sex tourist, or even paedo if you want to get down to nitty gritty, I have never once been stopped, questioned nor searched by Thai immigration/customs. Maybe despite fitting the frame I don't match the profile, maybe I'm just plain lucky. But if I was stopped I'd answer all their questions and assist them in any way I could because they are doing their job. People who are innocent and abide by the laws have no fear (although I was a bit twitchy faced by a squad of riot police on the way home last night ).

As for the claim that nobody would be stupid enough to hand carry child porno material, or similar, through the airport just think of all the people that were, and will be, stupid enough to carry drugs strapped to their bodies. Never underestimate the ability of homo sapiens to indulge in stupidity.

Many of the people on this thread attacking PC assume, like I have at times, that the movement is trying to stop you having free thought and free speech. It is not an attempt to control those independant functions, as if it could. If you want to go around thinking of johnny foriegner as n****rs, c**ns, pakis or of women as broads, tarts, slags or feminazies you can. If you want to articulate those views vocally and publicly you can but if you do so via the various media channels those who you wish to denigrate have a right to recourse. You also might find that your circle of friends is drying up rapidly as people are becoming less endeared with that version of free speech.

The law does not prevent the act of murder, it merely provides a route of recourse to justice. If you want to call a black man a n****r go ahead but don't complain if he beats you to a pulp, either physically or through the courts.

There's also been claims that PC is stifling debate on such issues as immigration and integration. Utter bovine scatology! There is plenty of debate on those subjects but they tend to avoid using inflammatory terms like deigo's, wop's, gyppo's etc. If you wish to discuss these subjects using those terms you will find many an intellectual debating chamber in the public bars of back street pubs where you will find solace amongst kindred spirits.

[thaibeachlovers]

As GH says PC has got <deleted> all to do with being stopped at airport security. I have been regularly travelling single status to Thailand since '92 at which time I was 40 y.o.(can't be bothered to go back through the last three PP's to count the stamps). Despite falling right in the frame for your average sex tourist, or even paedo if you want to get down to nitty gritty, I have never once been stopped, questioned nor searched by Thai immigration/customs. Maybe despite fitting the frame I don't match the profile, maybe I'm just plain lucky. But if I was stopped I'd answer all their questions and assist them in any way I could because they are doing their job. People who are innocent and abide by the laws have no fear (although I was a bit twitchy faced by a squad of riot police on the way home last night ).

As for the claim that nobody would be stupid enough to hand carry child porno material, or similar, through the airport just think of all the people that were, and will be, stupid enough to carry drugs strapped to their bodies. Never underestimate the ability of homo sapiens to indulge in stupidity.

Many of the people on this thread attacking PC assume, like I have at times, that the movement is trying to stop you having free thought and free speech. It is not an attempt to control those independant functions, as if it could. If you want to go around thinking of johnny foriegner as n****rs, c**ns, pakis or of women as broads, tarts, slags or feminazies you can. If you want to articulate those views vocally and publicly you can but if you do so via the various media channels those who you wish to denigrate have a right to recourse. You also might find that your circle of friends is drying up rapidly as people are becoming less endeared with that version of free speech.

The law does not prevent the act of murder, it merely provides a route of recourse to justice. If you want to call a black man a n****r go ahead but don't complain if he beats you to a pulp, either physically or through the courts.

There's also been claims that PC is stifling debate on such issues as immigration and integration. Utter bovine scatology! There is plenty of debate on those subjects but they tend to avoid using inflammatory terms like deigo's, wop's, gyppo's etc. If you wish to discuss these subjects using those terms you will find many an intellectual debating chamber in the public bars of back street pubs where you will find solace amongst kindred spirits.

I'm assuming that the comment about being stopped for questioning at the airport is in response to my story, if not please disregard the following. If it is in response to mine, how many times do I have to say that I was not stopped at a Thai airport! I was stopped in a "western" country. As I believe Thailand is hardly a PC country, I'd be most surprised if anyone were to be stopped re being a s_x tourist.

So far it's happened in 2 different "western" countries. Furthermore, it's not a question of fear, rather being PO that I am assumed to be a criminal, without a shred of evidence to suppose that I am.

I don't think the comparison of drugs to indecent material is relevant. You can hardly send drugs by digital media! However, I'd agree that the stupidity of some is remarkable.

[GuestHouse]

Khun Guesthouse,

perhaps the wisdom of Solomon was shown in post number 659, and post 660 (what a gem of a post) after 20 plus pages someone actually had the common sense to do (what some of us were already aware of, eg what is pc? ) what the op should have set out in his original post (instead of assuming all the people think the same way all of the time), please enlighten us , what is pc?

If you look back at my Openning Post, I point out that many people have no understanding of what Political Correctness is, a point proven by many of the totally off topic rants here.

As for a deffinition of Political Correctness, I'm in complete agreement with Garro.

Now I would point out that me agreeing with Garro is a rare thing, oddly not so rare in this discussion since I also agree with another post of his in this thread (yet again a point proven by the rants here).

The problem is that the anti-PC brigade miss 'the good old days' when you could openly call black people 'darkies' or 'coons' and call the disabled 'spastics'. They resent the fact that society wants to try and control the worst aspects of the darker side of their natures. They fondly remember the days when you could openly spit on your neighbor (or worse) because they looked or spoke different or because they went to a different church. They miss the days when being an ignorant bigot or racist wasn't frowned upon so much. Poor them. The world has gone PC mad.

[GuestHouse]

My sympathies to Thaibeachlover, being singled out by the authoroties on the basis of some 'arbitrary characteristics' that fit a preconceived profile can't be nice.