nah, don’t point it out, just let it go…
Cheers.
Wait a minute. Why must it be one or the other? Why can’t we have both? In the case of the lab animals, why can’t we continue to devise alternate means of testing things, especially since animal tests often prove nothing at all about the safety of a product (Thalidomide or Fen-Phen, anyone?).
The choice between animal vs. human welfare is a false one. I support both animal welfare organizations and Amnesty International. There’s nothing contradictory in that–this is not a zero-sum game.
No shit, really? 
I´m not blind… err, no, it should be, I´m not a person who is blind; I´m well aware of the differences between an offenderati and a person that fights for his/her rights.
I did? sure?
Well, even if all that is wrong, see point #2.
Still, animals can do just about everything we can do to the planet that we criticize ourselves for, just not on the same scale.
What Lobsang said is just completely stupid. If a volcano belches 50 trillion tons of sulphur into the air tomorrow and kills every living thing, it doesn’t matter to the earth. It’s only POLLUTION to us.
The idea that we’re a disease to the planet is retarded. The only thing we’re a disease to is Lobsang’s impression of the pristine state of the planet.
You tell me. Did you or did you not list renaming computer drives as a PC example? Is this or is this not EXTREME vs. Women’s Rights which was listed as PC in the OP.
Both of you are using the term PC to describe to WILDLY different things.
Some day, terms like feminist, gay, and African-American will be deemed offensive and we’ll have to come up with new terms.
It’s the Pit. Get over it.
(fucktard) 
What about those who just want to go back to the days when one could describe a miser as “niggardly” without being accused of racisim?
Man, that’s deep. It’s, like, all a big circle, man. Where does it end? Also, did you ever think that maybe the entire universe is actually just an atom in another bigger universe?
I do see your point #2 where the rock named Earth could give a shit if we live or die, but certainly we should worry about making that rock uninhabitable.
As for the bit about animals doing just about everything we criticize ourselves for, I wonder if you posted it and immediately regretted it, because it’s such an indefensible statement. It’s not like bears are paving over wildgrasses and putting up strip malls or draining swamps to put in condos or consuming mass quantities of fossil fuels. In fact, it’s hard put to name anything we criticize humans for doing to the environment that animals do to even a lesser extent. Hunting, maybe, but that’s more an animal rights thing than an environmentalist thing. And maybe you can call beavers out for cutting down trees, but that’s hardly the same as deforestation (I think beavers mostly use dead wood anyway). The basic fact is, animals adapt to the environment, they don’t attempt to control it. They don’t claim more territory than they can inhabit. They don’t kill animals that are neither food nor natural enemies. They don’t farm other animals. They don’t smoke or drive. They don’t produce waste except their bodily waste, which is part of the natural cycle. Unless you can come up with a cite about a rare breed of mountain gorilla that has invented its own industrial age, you’ve got no support for that comment.
Why, yes. It get through at last. I think you´re reading too much on my posts, I didn´t make a connection between my examples and the OP examples.
My idea of PC is that PC is per se extreme and patronizing; non extreme PC is just common sense. If something is a non-issue to me, like race, handicaps, and sexual preferences, why should I perform gramatical contortions around the subject?
And it could be under your fingernail.
Bingo! Well said!
Political correctness masquerades as respect, but it is meaningless if the person is only mouthing the terms or positions to avoid conflict or out of guilt (misplaced or not). Real respect includes accepting differences, acknowledging strengths and weaknesses, being true to your own self in dealing with others and a myriad of other factors. Hypersensitivity erodes respect, as does accepting empty words and calling it progress.
by Dewey
Yeah, and can’t we also bring back the good ole days when “faggot” simply meant a bundle of sticks and “gay” meant happy? I mean, good golly, it’s really irritating that I can’t use any word I want to–no matter how loaded or outdated it is–to describe things without those ignorant hypersensitive types being caught off guard by the sounds coming out of my mouth. I don’t care if there are plenty of less inflammatory synonyms out there. Everyone should be able to tell that when I call someone niggardly or when I describe a smiling gentleman as “being rather gay today”, my true intentions are nothing but innocent and pure. The problem is that people refuse to read minds and instead of going by with what they think they hear. How’s stupid is that?
you with the face:
“Gay” has come to mean a lot of things. Most people now associate it with homosexuality. Because of that it can’t be a part of common usage lest somebody become offended by it.
“Niggardly” has only one meaning, and is in no way associated with black people. The only way it can be considered a “loaded” word is if you’re either ignorant of the English language or you’re looking for a reason to be offended. In most cases involving “niggardly”, I suspect it’s the latter.
No, I don’t regret making it.
I know bears don’t pave roads.
Animals eat each other. They do overpopulate areas, they can destroy all vegetation in areas, they spread diseases to each other, they make water and air less pure. They just don’t do it on the scale we do it on and whatever they do we just call nature.
If lions could figure out a way to pen up Wildebeests and go eat one anytime they wanted, they sure as shit would. I just don’t consider them superior to humans because they lack the brains and opposable thumbs to do it.
Yes, it’s called irony.
by Airman
Look, I’m perfectly aware of the meaning and origin of “niggardly”, but given that (A) it is not a common word, (B)it phonetically sounds a lot like “nigger” and hence, its verbal resemblense to the other word may be a distractant or it may intefere with transmitting a message that won’t get easily misconstrued, and © there are no shortages of synonyms for it, I fail to see why we should mourn the loss of “niggardly” from the American vernacular. Use it if you like, though. It’s a free country.
You don’t have to be ignorant or a jerk “looking for a reason to be offended” in order to be bothered by someone who deliberately chooses a word that they know will be easily interpreted as a slur, all in the name of proving some kind of anti-PC point.
Makes me think, " Yes, we know you have an amazing, 1600-on-the-SAT kind of vocabularly. And yes, we know what’shisname is stingy and so it is quite apt to point it out. But now we all gotta wonder, since you so boldly used that particular adjective, if you are actually trying to say more than what you are claiming you are. What might that extra thing be?"
In that respect, etymology aside, there is no difference between saying someone is gay and saying someone is niggardly. The potential for communicating a little more than literal meaning is equal. And folks gotta deal with that reality without whining about it.
This is a subtle slam at the Germans, right? Well, it’s not very well done.
But your posts rarely are.
And this: “Ignoring your oddly German sentence structure, I thought your rant was about people who complain because they consider themselves victims of discrimination?”
You can’t fool me, this is more pseudo-Godwinesque ranting.
Cheers.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
“Gay” has come to mean a lot of things. Most people now associate it with homosexuality. Because of that it can’t be a part of common usage lest somebody become offended by it.
[quote]
You are missing the point that language usage is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. “Gay” used to have two meanings, one was “light-heartd, happy” the other was “sexually licentious”. The second meaning crowded out the first and became exclusivelly associated with gay people, and then became a synonym for “homosexual.” “Gay” is part of common usage; what you mean is that you regret that you can’t use it as an epithet, as in “That show looks stupid. It’s so gay!”
Actually, I think it’s ignorance–face it, “niggard” is not a word used in everyday speech. People who insist on using it despite its similarity to That Word are either anal-rententive pedants or crypto-bigots who groove on being able to say “NIGGARdly” in public and be able to play the wounded innocent despite knowing exactly what they are doing to provoke. I suspect it’s the latter.