Do you subscribe to Political Correctness.

[said]

I don't think you know what a 'straw man' argument is.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. Fool them into what, exactly? What have I to gain by 'fooling' someone?

Your view of the world, or society is very different to mine. Yours is a sinister perspective, seeing personal restrictions everywhere. You seem to think you should be free to speak and act as you wish. Society isn't like that. That is the path to anarchy, which some might argue has far more freedom than a regulated culture.

But with your version of the ideal society, there always seems to be a victim. Some minority that should just suck it up and deal with it, because they are weak, and that will make them stronger.

You seem to think this peculiar world you want to live in existed 20 or 40 years ago. It didn't. But that's pretty much par for the course with a Brexiteer, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Your argument disseminated:

First you deny you are not fooling anybody. Yet you produce an accepted result as being fact, without having any grounds for doing so.

You ask what have you to gain from doing so - self satisfaction in having given a response no matter how illogical it is.

You say I have a sinister perspective on life - that I feel that I act and speak as I wish. Here you are turning a criticism into criticism of me, to avoid giving an argument of the points in focus.

My views are a path to anarchy, which some might argue has far more freedom than a regulated culture - you have moved the goal posts to suit your argument. These are your beliefs! What makes your beliefs true? Where is the evidence?

But with your version of the ideal society, there always seems to be a victim. - Again, you have chosen to state that which is your belief, it does not make it true nor fact - there is nothing to support your statement.

You seem to think this peculiar world you want to live in existed 20 or 40 years ago. - You have done the same thing again, How is this statement supported?

But that's pretty much par for the course with a Brexiteer, so I shouldn't be surprised - that is a loaded statement, one that if answered would make me appear to be guilty of something.

You have made many presumptions in your response based on second hand accusations from people who attempt to argue in a similar manner to yourself. As such, it is very difficult to be able to respond with logic. I have presented a thread that is to the forefront on modern life. I have put forward published arguments to that thread for people to debate and I have included my own personal feelings about it. That should not lead to me being personally abused or belittled, my beliefs are to be challenged.

Oh yes! A straw man argument is to respond to a topic, with an argument that is misrepresented, it is not based on the original argument!

[Toodles McGinty]

Your argument disseminated:

First you deny you are not fooling anybody. Yet you produce an accepted result as being fact, without having any grounds for doing so.

You ask what have you to gain from doing so - self satisfaction in having given a response no matter how illogical it is.

You say I have a sinister perspective on life - that I feel that I act and speak as I wish. Here you are turning a criticism into criticism of me, to avoid giving an argument of the points in focus.

My views are a path to anarchy, which some might argue has far more freedom than a regulated culture - you have moved the goal posts to suit your argument. These are your beliefs! What makes your beliefs true? Where is the evidence?

But with your version of the ideal society, there always seems to be a victim. - Again, you have chosen to state that which is your belief, it does not make it true nor fact - there is nothing to support your statement.

You seem to think this peculiar world you want to live in existed 20 or 40 years ago. - You have done the same thing again, How is this statement supported?

But that's pretty much par for the course with a Brexiteer, so I shouldn't be surprised - that is a loaded statement, one that if answered would make me appear to be guilty of something.

You have made many presumptions in your response based on second hand accusations from people who attempt to argue in a similar manner to yourself. As such, it is very difficult to be able to respond with logic. I have presented a thread that is to the forefront on modern life. I have put forward published arguments to that thread for people to debate and I have included my own personal feelings about it. That should not lead to me being personally abused or belittled, my beliefs are to be challenged.

Oh yes! A straw man argument is to respond to a topic, with an argument that is misrepresented, it is not based on the original argument!

I think if you read my responses, they are expressing my opinion, not a particular statement of facts. Based on your statements, on this and other threads.

You seem to think this peculiar world you want to live in existed 20 or 40 years ago. - You have done the same thing again, How is this statement supported?

This:

depression can lead to suicide! Compare that to say forty years ago! Where you lived freely under normal societal policies.

and this:

These words were never used twenty years ago- because people did not need them.

Or this:

Think about it - would you have given that response twenty years ago - or would it not have been important?

In your version of society, you seem to think that you should be able to say exactly whatever pops into your head, then your victims should be somehow grateful that you've toughened them up, or made them see they have over-reacted if they get insulted. You've presented a thread that you think is to the forefront of modern life, but, in my opinion, it isn't. It's a Daily Mail-Libertarian-these kids don't know how lucky they are-1950s view on life.

" Just after the last war, when soldiers returned home after having witnessed devastating tragedies, after having been subjected to great hardships and conditions - the soldiers would have told you just where to stick personal correctness!"

. It's called 'evolving'. Those same soldiers probably cried themselves to sleep or had terrors because of PTSD. They were told it was weak to cry or show emotions. They saw nothing wrong with the oppression of women. Used terms that denigrated anyone 'different'. As we've evolved as a society, those things aren't acceptable any more. If we don't evolve, we get left behind, then become extinct.

Having said that, there are still quite a few dinosaurs around.

You post inflammatory statements:

I believe that Political Correctness does act to repress everyone,including minority groups. Minority groups may be protected by theThought Police

then become defensive when every member on here doesn't immediately agree with you. That's classic abuser behaviour: DARVO - Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim / Offender.

I have put forward published arguments to that thread for people to debate and I have included my own personal feelings about it. That should not lead to me being personally abused or belittled, my beliefs are to be challenged.

Did you get your tin foil hat yet?

Pot, kettle...

[said]

So basically, what your argument comes down to is that you feel people have a better life now than they did forty years ago?

I disagree - people then - according to History - had more freedom, less restrictions, had full time work, more holidays, better diet,better health, more security, were happier and far more neighbourly, but had less money.

At the present time, unemployment is very high, even those who are working cannot guarantee that they will keep their jobs - so there is less security and more stress, few people can afford housing, diets are predominantly of ready made meals full of carbohydrates, people are less satisfied, less happy, less neighbourly and more restricted with regulations, but have more welfare benefits.