Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TestByLogic&amp;amp;Science" data-source="post: 7776233" data-attributes="member: 6989955">It seems a sad sign of the times that I was just told by *private* mail, unlike others, that I got a 1-pt. &quot;infraction&quot; for &quot;anti-inclusive language&quot; in my original post.Could the person expressing this claim please substantiate it with proof here?&nbsp; (Against the allegation, here's something I noted again in my post navigating here : it's replete with careful acknowledgements, honest disclaimers, &amp; qualifications, not least in importance is this : &quot;without disregarding any's (high &amp; universal) value as persons.&quot;)Despite the defence intro I felt I had to insert to not be truncated or deleted or what-not, I was *still* penalised for advocating efficient language truthfully reflecting the best appreciation of Truth that *open* logical argument &amp; science can help us achieve, which leaves me wishing I could've have addressed all my points far more succinctly, but unsure how.Let's not be so unthinkingly enwrapped with ideology &amp; PC-ness we cannot raise a cautionary, &quot;But on this point mightn't you be wrong...?&quot; in genuine conscience.I recognise that both the significant extension of personal pronouns &amp; so-called political correctness are often, though not always, the expressions of hearts genuinely in the right place (no decent adult wants *anyone* actually oppressed or deliberately insulted); but sometimes decisions made with good intent result in positions not in line with what is Real, or actually overall Helpful, or Good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TestByLogic&Science, post: 7776233, member: 6989955"] It seems a sad sign of the times that I was just told by *private* mail, unlike others, that I got a 1-pt. "infraction" for "anti-inclusive language" in my original post. Could the person expressing this claim please substantiate it with proof here? (Against the allegation, here's something I noted again in my post navigating here : it's replete with careful acknowledgements, honest disclaimers, & qualifications, not least in importance is this : "without disregarding any's (high & universal) value as persons.") Despite the defence intro I felt I had to insert to not be truncated or deleted or what-not, I was *still* penalised for advocating efficient language truthfully reflecting the best appreciation of Truth that *open* logical argument & science can help us achieve, which leaves me wishing I could've have addressed all my points far more succinctly, but unsure how. Let's not be so unthinkingly enwrapped with ideology & PC-ness we cannot raise a cautionary, "But on this point mightn't you be wrong...?" in genuine conscience. I recognise that both the significant extension of personal pronouns & so-called political correctness are often, though not always, the expressions of hearts genuinely in the right place (no decent adult wants *anyone* actually oppressed or deliberately insulted); but sometimes decisions made with good intent result in positions not in line with what is Real, or actually overall Helpful, or Good. [/QUOTE]

Verification