• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Civil society (civility)

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Is the left really calling for a civil society, or a silenced society?


"In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous -- that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.

"In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish society's cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.

"In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.

"In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly, provides the governing framework for and restraints on the polity, thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse, of power.

"For the Conservative, the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement."

Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny






January 14, 2011
We Beg to Differ
By John Fricke

Civil speech is desirable because it allows us Americans to have true honest political discourse. The left will make the rules defining civil discourse, everyone else will have to agree to those rules or face labeling and attacks for refusing to go along (again not an un-civil action by the left since the means justify the end). The rules will be simple. You cannot use any "attack words" against a politician. That's it. Sounds reasonable and smart. Of course you do know, of course, what constitutes "attack words"? If not, allow me to help you out with a short list of approvable language.

Attack words

- "Socialist" -- Socialist is an attack word. It is used only for the reason of falsely smearing an opponent.

- "Marxist" - Marxist is an attack word. Worse than 'socialist' and used only for the reason of falsely smearing an opponent.

- "Unpatriotic" -- Unpatriotic is an attack word. It is used only to falsely smear an opponent.

- "Patriotic" -- Patriotic is an attack word used to marginalize opponents by attempting to falsely claim you have the nation's best interests at heart.

- "Terrorist" -- Terrorist is an attack word used to marginalize individuals or groups, even those guilty of terroristic acts.

- "God, Jesus, Bible, et al" -- Attack words used to force moral certainties onto people for nefarious reasons.

- "America" -- America is an attack word because it implies America is not guilty of horrific crimes against humanity.

- "Target, Battle, Fight, Crosshairs, et al" -- All war language is classified as attack language. Except for the word "attack" which is descriptive only for citing attack words.



Non-attack words

- "Racist" -- Racist is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect racial and ethnic minorities from harm. Even if it is almost exclusively used falsely.

- "Homophobic" -- Homophobic is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect sexual minorities from harm.

- "Islamophobic" -- Islamophbobic is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect one particular religious minority from harm.

- "Sexist" -- Sexist is not an attack word. It is used to protect a gender majority from harm.

- "Intolerant" -- Intolerant is not an attack word. It is used to promote tolerance of all views, except those intolerant ones that tolerance can not tolerate.

- "Xenophobic" -- Xenophobic is not an attack word. It is used to show proof that any view of America as the world's greatest nation is intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobic and most notably at the moment, Islamophobic.

- "Wingnut, Nutball" -- Not attack words if used properly to describe the mental state of opponents, clarified by facts presented in the media.

- "Teabaggers" -- ********* is not an attack word. It is used to describe intolerant winguts and nutballs.

- "White Trash, Hillbilly, Redneck" -- Not attack words if used properly to describe the facts of an opponents looks or positions.

And. "Civility". Civility is not an attack word. Of course not, it is, after all, civil. If some censorship arises from civility that's a good thing. The left will ask that we first self-censor so we can begin seeking civility. The left will do its part in civil discourse by agreeing not to use the attack words listed above. That's a fair and honorable agreement. The right, by the way, is free to use the non-attack words as it wishes, so long as they follow the rule of correct usage. That simple rule says you must follow logic and truth. Logic and truth demand that all non-attack words never be used improperly as an unfair and untrue weapon against any minority, because minorities are never guilty of anything described in non-attack words. Using non-attack words to describe minorities, even when applicable, is itself an attack. True in all cases except that of gender where the minority is the problem.

So in an attempt to be civil in our new civil discourse I appeal to the tolerant people of the left. I will speak for all of us on the other side when I state clearly that when it comes to a push for civility and the rules we are to follow. "We beg to differ."


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/we_beg_to_differ.html
 
Top