Shwa

Avoiding punches?? Did you not read what I wrote or are you being intentionally obtuse? Apparently you think that someone who has trained to the tee is incapable of being dangerous when they appear to be sufficiently alert or mobile or even if they have been bloodied and are on the brink. I assure you that appearances are not everything and despite the few youtube examples posted, many a fighter has delivered some sweet comeuppance when all appears lost. If the guy doesn't drop or back off he is still dangerous. Get it?

Well, heck no. My claim was this: If the fighter has not chosen to submit and chooses not to move away to defend themselves, then they are still dangerous and the fight is still on until the referee says its over. Those are the rules. There are no rules in boxing that say you can jump a guy when he is down. The manly thing is to allow your opponent to get up. Now if you think that the only way a boxer can defend themselves is the ability to absorb punches, then you obviously are not aware of the "sweet" of the science.

Exactly! And so what I am saying is that you your 'precise concept' of toast omits the importance of understanding or knowing what 'grilled' means. And quite possibly bread too. Maybe half a point for an incomplete answer. I am asking for the "means" by which political correctness is conveyed. And by limiting yourself to defintions - even the current popular usage - you are falling into the trap that bloodyminded has illustrated. No one wants the "means by which" you arrived at this precise concept. That is what is being tested - to see if your "precise concept" has any truth to it. Are you talking about the Emancipation Proclamation again? Because you might just as well be. Should there be? Have you ever bothered to look at the term 'politcally incorrect' and then do a comparative analysis to 'politcally correct' to determine what both have in common which might suggest something about the two terms and how they are conveyed? One would think that such an examination of the counterpart would be included in a detailed examination required for the sake of precision. I am jusy sayin'... Well see here where only knowing some of the ends of political correctness (or political incorrectness) can get you in trouble you see. Political correctness has been very successful - and continues to be - on many levels of all public sectors of life. All you can see is affimative action and equality for all programs. That isn't even half of it. Really? But it HAS resolved what it was "intended to resolve" and MORE. I believe what bloodyminded was getting at was that the term 'politically correct' has been usurped as a dead ending for any arguments that involve the differences between people. That alone would suggest a means. If one were not so focused on the ends of course. Highly dubious claim there Pliny. Just because some people privately don't like the results of the means of political correctness, doesn't mean there has been any failure publically. In fact, we are coming into an age where most folks are completely unawares of that means because political correctness has been so thoroughly adopted into public life. Words? Normal usage? Common understanding? OK, let me be more 'precise' about a question I asked earlier, yet received a convoluted say-nothing answer. I will try to use normal usage words that have a common understanding. Let's see how well you do: Do you choose your car by the tone of its colour?

I'm stealing that if you don't mind.

Small potatoes even though you misrepresented the premise. Are you saying, because of the videos that Jack posted, that boxers who are still on their feet are unable to defend themselves?

These "Acts" have as much to do with the concept of political correctness as does the Emancipation Proclamation or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, you really haven't said what that "concept" is and how could you if you are not able to express how something works? You can talk about burnt toast as much as you want, but if you don't know how one goes from bread to toast, it is only whining about the end result, not a "precise concept" of toast. No, we don't have a different understanding of means. You are very good and going from A to B, I'll give you that. However what I am trying to determine - to test your "precise concept" - is the way or method by which you have gone. Because if you don't understand the means, then your B simple becomes a whole lot of unsubstantiated blather that is designed to freeze out people from a debate. Or did you not read the OP? So are really saying that your "accomplishment" of determining the "presice concept" of political correctness was to simply read the wikipedia definition? I am not asking you what political correcteness "means" I am asking you about the "means" of political correctness - HOW it works, by which mechanisms, by what primary and critical processes. Of course not. I am simply using you as an example of the point that the OP expresses. For clarification, here is the point: So now Bonam has the "precise concept." However, if you are unsure of how political correctness operates, how would you know the difference between the precise concept or incorrect use of the term? Do you buy cars by the tone of their colour? So now that you have admitted that your "concept...varies from normal usage" are you saying that your "precise concept" of political correctness is not really so "precise" anymore?

Nope. A fighter who is still on his feet hasn't submitted and can still defend himself by moving away. It would be pathetic and cowardly only if said hurt and staggering fighter fell and the other fighter jumped on him and started wailing away. I didn't say that boxing wasn't violent or boxers don't get hurt. I am saying it is gutless and cowardly to hit a man while he is down and this applies to a ring, cage or street. Every man knows this. Every man also knows it is gutless and cowardly to hit a woman. Different side of the same coin.

There was no theory there WB, I was just joking. My oldest holds an engineering degree in physics. It can be done. No one is saying 'replace' the traditional methods. At least not yet. Eventually, but not just yet.

I don't personally know you, so there are no personal attacks here. If you feel this way, it is the fault of your emotional constitution and has nothing to do with me. Now you are attributing your twisted ideas to me like most weak-minded people are apt to do when they can't face the fact that they espouse defence of an idea they themselves feel unworthy of defence. Now you will say they ask for it. Oops. You already did that. So predictable.

Citations please.

They most certainly are not. You failed again and your score is still a whopping zero. Nope. Once again have only referred to ends, such as any group is. I am surprised that for someone who purports to know the "precise concept" of political correctness, you cannot easily express it's means. Are you referring to the 1860's and the Emancipation Proclamation? Now you are getting somewhere, but only half a point for an incomplete answer. But don't blame me - or anyone else - for your shortcomings please. It is not in keeping with the expected decorum. There is no effrontery, you are misreading tone. You say that you have found the "precise concept" - even to go so far as to proclaim it an "accomplishment" - of political correctness and yet when questioned on the simple means by which political correctness operates, you retreat into ranting about the ends. I think when you conceptualize the precise means, you will likely find that to be a more worthy accomplishment and actually may be able to positively contribute to what bloodyminded is proposing.

Nope, your'e wrong, you score 0%. "Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, the quota system..." these are all ends. You have failed to show the means to enacting political correctness. And, since you did score a grand total of 0%, I would like to point out that you asserting that you "accomplished" getting the "precise concept" of political correctness is a titch false. In fact, based upon your total score and subsequent dog-chasing-its-tail rant, I would say you are deluding yourself into a false belief about, not only political correctness, but the points bloodyminded is making throughout this thread. If you wish to try again, please feel free since take-overs are encouraged at every step of the way.

Not where it counts. How about grammar? Are you as concerned about that? Apparently not... Yes, and we will develop hardware ports directly into their brains. Then plug them into the network, which will then be known as "the collective." Then we will add weird eye pieces, some deep sea suits that have a steampunk feel to them, and some cool energy shield hardware. We will them use our taxes to "assimilate" them into this collective and tell them that "resistance is futile" if they complain. Ah ha, not so. You see by making things easier they will have more time to spend on "high level" things like going to see the guru on top of the mountain to learn about all the "deep more basic principles." I mean, really, who needs readin' and writin' when there are deep and more basic principles to be had. And here I thought silliness was just part of being a kid. Damn. Next time I am putting them in a large military like school where they can recite multiplication tables hour after hour until burned into their memory. Nothing beats silliness like learning by rote eh? You mean on a per capita basis? We hold our own fairly good I think.

Multi-tasking? We can still try and keep weapons and drugs out of the schools. But who knows, perhaps advanced teaching tools might make for advanced morality? (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!) Sure there are risks to be mitigated and new rules to be devised, like any management scheme. And the way in which thess risks and rules are managed might change the ways in which we think of "education" including the use of jargon and pidgin language and other methods we are so familiar with. But that is like anything else that has changed from one era to another. The human reaction to these changes hass been more or less the same and I suppose there is some comfort in that.

For limited use without extensive need to calculate (or be plugged in) smartphones are ideal as content delivery devices. Smartphones or better, some sort of cheap tablet or e-reader. Of course it will change the current culture, not by any terrifying degree, but through progressive change that can be managed incrementally as the tech changes. No one we require is saying bleeding edge technology, so obsolescence is factored into the picture like any other learning tool or method. Schools can come under enterprise management systems, in fact most of them likely do already. Write in ink for what purpose? Sign ones name? Who actually uses pen and paper much these days anyway? I think advanced computer training with rudimentary penmanship skills is where we are headed. But I wonder if the same sentiment was expressed when typewriters were rolled out... Get another one. What did we do when lawnmower broke? I didn't revert to a scythe, I got it fixed or got another one. But I am sure that someone who can do math on a computer will be able to transfer tha symbolic representation into other ways, especially those with practical math skills. It is a teach tool, not a container.

Sure, good points. But I believe we are smart enough to work on all three aspects at the same time. And updating content electronically is far more easier to manage than the antiquitated textbook system currently in place. Not to mention the vast electronic libraries that already exist at archive.org, jstor.org, EBSCO and other such academic oriented content producers.

So let's then test the precision and exactness of the concept which you describe. You are very good at trying to illustrate the ends of political correctness, but you fail to show the means. So, through what means was political correctness supposed to achieve this "equality" and "correcting?"

I must have misunderstood the news reports Michael, I thought McGuinty wanted to just allow cellphones in the classroom as a supplemental learning tool. I didn't know he wanted to replace teachers and all that essential talking and listening with cellphones. That changes things quite a bit doesn't it? How much did televion change how classes were taught? Well for one, it is much easier to setup a video or DVD than it was a film projector and your choice of documentary or movie improved. When I was in grade 4 waaaaaayyyy back in the 1970's our class created a show for TVO broadcast. I am sure there are more benefits though, like educational video, documentaries and movies, news reports, point-to-point video connections, distance learning...

Nice try. It "threads back" to your brutal attempt at irony and all that flinching when I asked you to define "these people." Leave Argus out of it. As IF the custom of court-directed blinding or crippling COULD be welcome in Canada? Gimme a break. That is such a weak-minded and thoroughly ridiculous premise that it should embarrass you. You want to defend a great country at the same time denying why it is great in the first place. "...they really should conform??" WTF? Why "should" they? Oh, I know why, because they will erode the greatness of this country if they don't, that's why. Did I get your gist correctly? You know, because someone wearing a sari or some other sort of ethnic gown, they are destroying the fabic of our "great" society. I remember how turbans absolultey ruined the country in the 80's. Damned Sikhs wrecked the whole place entirely. Ruins! Ruins I tells ya! Ah, now I get it. "These people" = "recent immigrants" I kind of thought so. And what makes you think that recent immigrants aren't "learning English, getting jobs, getting apartments, registering to vote, and totally participating in the new country?" I can pretty well guarantee you - based on all the previous evidence - that their descendents will fight for our country, go to university and become full-blown Americans and Canadians and repay any benefits they received from state or province. They aren't the problem - you are. You are attributing twisted ideas to them in a generalizing way. Next you'll be saying they asked for it...

From the OP linked story: I have underlined the pertinent phrases.

LOL! Zing! But there is a point. History shows that shawarmas are the choice food of the shock troops before the Muslim hordes sweep across the land and convert everyone to Islam, Sharia Law and then the hand and head lopping starts. Anyone that has ever eaten a shawarma is a potential Islamicist. And don't buy this sneaky 'gyro' label. It's a shawarma, but designed to lull us into a false sense of Greek-like safety. Beware the evil shawarma - with or without the tahini.

Then why not use your brilliant math skills and calculate when this will happen "exactly?" Use the immigration rates, the birth and death rates of Muslims to non-Muslims, some sort of x-factor range for assimilation and non-assimilation and then give us the figures. I am sure you will want to prove your point right? You did say "exact" after all. No? Didn't think so.

I was one that that 93% that voted no and only because we cannot guarantee that all kids have an equally similar or useful device. The use of web-enabled cell phones - especially the iPhones type smartphone is a great idea provided it is done in an equal and fair way where everyone benefits. Content restrictions can be blanketed on the use of internal school wifi and leave the emergency voice streams intact. There was a time when a similar 'controversy' existed over the use of printed books because the scholars back in that day were set on the idea that you could only properly learn and value something if you copied a manuscript word-for-word, character-for-character, icon-for-icon. Marshall McLuhan made note of this historical period and warned that we would eventually have a similar such period ourselves. His warning was over television. Really, just another information device. Now had McGuinty said that there would be a move to replace the rip-off industry textbook gravy train with eBook devices, I would have likely voted yes. However, I don't believe the form factor of most cell phones is conducive to being a proper learning or teaching device. But that is my bias since I have to use stupid reading glasses now. Plus I like the feel of a paper book. But I don't expect modern kids - even my own - to simply pick up my bias as some sort of uncontested truth. Regardless, I hope they will read Marshall McLuhan whether on a smartphone, eBook reader or in cherished paper.

So tell me then, how could Sharia law or their "laws/customs" possibly "supercede our laws" or impose "their standards of morality upon us?" Don't give me some 'ho-hum I dunno' response, actually show me the logical path that these things would take to replace our present system of laws and customs. Because obviously it is a real possibility to you. So go ahead, show us how this is possible so we can examine it out in the open.

Damn the torpedoes man! Let's say babies are adults and we will have successfully deconstructed any notion of difference!