Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:24:58 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

> Also Maybe blacks and women wouldn't have gotten the
>  vote unless they "demanded" that right.  So maybe it isn't too much to demand
> respect.

   The Civil Rights movements that got blacks and women the same rights as
white men were important, nable, and long overdue.  They were founded in the
belief that we are all intelligent humans, with sex and skin tone things that
should not classify nor restrict anyone's rights.  Let there be no mistake
about that.
   Perhaps I misspoke in my earlier post.  When I said that you cannot demand
respect, I was refering to making a demand to an individual.  In other words,
if Bill the nextdoor neighbor thinks you are less than he simply becuase you
are not white, you can't have him arrested for that.  If he tells you he feels
that way, you can't jail him.  The mush decried "system" is already set up to
respect ALL OF US, regardless of ethnicity.  That transition took too long, but
it _has_ happened.

> S:  The constitution is a historical document which first and foremost 
> states that all "men"  are created equal.

   I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but the Constitution begins "We
the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."  It is the Declaration of
Independence that starts "We hold these truths to be self-evident;  that all
men are created equal..."  I should also point out to you that in this language
the male form is also the neutered form;  thus "all men" can refer to "all
people."  More on this later.

>......  But I won't go into my issues with
> the constitution of the US but I will say that it is a document that has 
> only limited "real" value in this day and age.

   ???????  It was the first, and probably is the most, elegant statemnt of
human rights in the entire world.  To claim that it has limited relevance is to
claim that human rights can be sacrificed on the altar of political agendas.  I
trust that you need no explanation of why that concept is peculiarly repugnant.

>....  But unfortunately I don't go by the constitution when I feel
> that we should have a right to be happy.

   "Unfortunately" was a good choice of words.  If the Constitution is not the
ultimate statement of law in this land, then what laws do we have?  If it is
not an egalitarian code of ethics, then what is equality?

> Again, put the constitution aside,
> write your own, and think "responsibility."  We all know our "rights."  

   I would never right a Constitution using the word "responsibility" as it
applies to individuals.  The documnet begins with "We the people" for a reason
-- our government has only the authority vested to it by the people.  Notice
the phrase which says that powers not expressly given to the federal
governement fall either to the states or to the people.  The Bill of Rights was
created to solidify that claim, permanently reserving basic rights for the
people.
   Should the people be giiven responsibilities by the government in the
Constitution, then the flow of power has shifted;  the government has all
rights, and all human rights stem from, and can be removed by, actions of the
government.  Do you want this?

>>    The First Ammendment to the Constitution is a wholly unsubtle document. 
>> There are no escpae clauses, no "ifs" and no "unlesses."  We are all allowed to
>> express our opinions, and a person's _true_ responsibility is to let other
>> people do so.
> 
> Is that really a person's "true responsibility"?  I don't think that it is
> "my responsibility" to sit calm while some skinheads in London shout out
> racist insults at me and the cops cant do a thing about it.  I prefer to 
> push the responsibility off on the person expressing their opinions.  
> Or maybe have that responsibility push on them by law. I mean
> come on.

   Perhaps unfortuantely you must sit calm.  One cannot be punished for
insulting someone, for if that can be then all I have to do is say "this person
offends me" to give them legal trouble.  I wish it were illegal to offend me. 
I know that it should not be. 

> Generally if someone would say the above I, or fellow PCers 
> would merely inquire as to why they felt that way. 
> And we would talk about it over a drink. Yes PCers do discuss
> stuff!

   Perhaps some do.  However, if I were to tell any one person at my college
campus that, say, I agreed with the verdict in the trial of the four LA police
officers involved in the Rodney King beating, the first thing they would do
would be to call me racist.  If I were in a group of people, I would get
shouted down.  I should be careful about the group, too, as some on campus
would report my opinion to the Student Judiciary Board as being racially
offensive, and I might well be suspended.
   This hardly qualifies as talking over a drink.  If you and your friends
would do this, then I commend you.  We must get togther for a drink sometime. 
However, the PC philosophy legitimizes my theoretical expulsion.  
  
> As far as Dinesh D'sousa goes, it isn't hard to put forward justifications
> or arguments for just about anything.  To put it simply, I and my collegues
> (most at least!) disagree with him.

   With what do you disagree?  There are three things, as I'm sure you know, to
any given arguement.  1) presented data, 2) logic and lines of reasoning, and
3) a basic perception of the world, a perceptual and moral framework.  What
aspect of Mr. D'sousa's arguements do you disagree with?  Why?  Until you can
satisfactorily answer these questions about someone, you oughtn't call them
"idiot."  Perhaps you have examined his agruements already.  If so, what were
your conclusions.  If you haven't, please do so before you make such sweeping
statements.  It will make your opinions more valid in the eyes of others.

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct