[MD] Political Correctness in the light of MoQ

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 7 May 2009 at 9:19, X Acto wrote:

> Platt:
> Laws against hate speech and deliberate distortion are not OK. Laws against yelling fire in a 
> crowded theater are OK. Laws against perjury (lying,bearing false witness) in court are OK. 
> Laws against ad hominem attacks are not OK.  Laws that protect individual liberty and the 
> functioning of a free society are OK. Laws that infringe free speech are not OK. 
> 
> Ron:
> Do you consider "Laws that protect individual liberty " to include laws that protect individuals
> from harrassment?

Define harassment. I favor muffler laws, disturbance of peace laws, and the like.

> and Do you believe in equal opportunity under the law?

Define equal opportunity. I favor equal application of the law. I do not favor one law for 
one group and another law for another group such as affirmative action.
 
> Platt:
> I am no Noam Chomsky fan, but in saying this he was right: "If we don't believe in freedom 
> of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
> 
> Ron:
> that kinda goes both ways don't you think? you despise extreme left PC. So all in all
> PC is just public opinion, so if christians get ridiculed, thats o.k. by your criteria.
> Bemoaning the unfairness of far left ridicule is, by your assertions rather hypocritical
> would'nt you say? they merely exercise their right to free speech just as you, now
> winning the rhetorical PC war demonstrates more a shift in public opinion rather
> than what makes right or wrong.

I object to laws that punish what someone says except laws against liable. Bemoaning, 
complaining, ridiculing, insulting is a  proper exercise of free speech. (See Chomsky 
quote above.)

>If by defining right and wrong one holds to the
> criteria you mention, individual liberty, then passing laws that infringe upon it
> are wrong despite the current trend in public opinion.

All laws infringe upon individual liberty. But, as Pirsig points out, some laws are 
necessary to protect society from biological forces that if allowed free reign can destroy 
social order. 

> Laws prohibiting the
> marriage of homosexuals then is wrong because it infringes on their individual liberty.

Most societies have considered marriage between a man and a woman to be necessary 
to preserve social order. I agree, not only because only a man and woman can procreate 
to sustain a society over time but because offspring are best cared for in a husband and 
wife family unit. 

There are innumerable question regarding the proper balance between social order and 
individual liberty. As Pirsig observe, "Both are needed." When arguments on both sides 
are equally cogent I default to liberty, supported by history and Pirsig's description of 
DQ:

"It's only perceived good is freedom."  

Platt