inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Dec 16, 2017 16:41:25 GMT -8
|
|
inherit
99066
0
Dec 16, 2017 17:35:51 GMT -8
Beck
715
February 2007
radiantevil
|
Post by Beck on Dec 16, 2017 16:41:29 GMT -8
Maybe Trump just wants people to use whatever words they feel are appropriate and not what the over-kill PC police demand we should say. If this ^ ^ were true. You are claiming that the ban of words is because Trump wants people to use words they feel are appropriate. That makes no sense. You can't ban words and claim he wants people to use whatever words they want to use. Those things are opposites. Ban words = you can't use those words even if you want to, even if they are what you feel is appropriate. So how do I make no sense here? Genuinely confused. Yes it is all speculative at the moment. That is why I said if it is true and he has banned those words, it is disgusting and there is no defense of it. If it isn't true, then great! Yes there are people who believe in God. That is irrelevant. I respect those beliefs and would never approve banning words associated with beliefs either, and I respect science and believe it should not ever be censored. Let things be proved and disproved, but indeed let them use the words they feel are appropriate, not words the right or the left feel they should use. That means no ban on words. Science-based and evidence-based mean exactly what they say, at the moment based on those things here are the findings. They aren't using the word FACT. It isn't deceptive at all, and neither are the other words.
|
|
inherit
165908
0
Aug 12, 2020 19:54:47 GMT -8
mmhmm
The only people who don't make mistakes are those who aren't doing anything.
5,506
April 2011
mmhmm
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 16, 2017 16:55:15 GMT -8
Frankly, I don't believe people are so ignorant they don't fully recognize what a fetus is! I don't know whether this story is true, or not, and will await further clarification. However, I reject the idea that the American people are so stupid they don't know what a fetus is! That is just plain ludicrous and anyone who thinks that's true has no respect for their fellow Americans. I don't think it is a matter of being ignorant. Using the word fetus was pushed to be used in association with abortion, so it makes it something that doesn't matter and something, supposedly, different than a baby. (There are people who like to live in denial.) If this story is true, it's like giving a better visual. Like saying "oak tree" instead of "acorn sprout". We can fully envision what an oak tree looks like but not so much what a acorn sprout might look like. But I'm just speculating. I'd suggest anyone who doesn't know what an acorn sprout looks like either use the internet for what it's best at (ergo, look it up), or sprout an acorn and take a good, long gander.
|
|
inherit
I need a new CT, thinking.... [insert Jeopardy theme song here]
110769
0
Aug 21, 2021 0:07:21 GMT -8
Tumbleweed
20,825
September 2007
tumbleweed
|
Post by Tumbleweed on Dec 16, 2017 16:56:09 GMT -8
Maybe Trump just wants people to use whatever words they feel are appropriate and not what the over-kill PC police demand we should say. If this ^ ^ were true. You are claiming that the ban of words is because Trump wants people to use words they feel are appropriate. That makes no sense. You can't ban words and claim he wants people to use whatever words they want to use. Those things are opposites. Ban words = you can't use those words even if you want to, even if they are what you feel is appropriate. So how do I make no sense here? Genuinely confused. Yes it is all speculative at the moment. That is why I said if it is true and he has banned those words, it is disgusting and there is no defense of it. If it isn't true, then great! Yes there are people who believe in God. That is irrelevant. I respect those beliefs and would never approve banning words associated with beliefs either, and I respect science and believe it should not ever be censored. Let things be proved and disproved, but indeed let them use the words they feel are appropriate, not words the right or the left feel they should use. That means no ban on words. Science-based and evidence-based mean exactly what they say, at the moment based on those things here are the findings. They aren't using the word FACT. It isn't deceptive at all, and neither are the other words. You said what I said made no sense. If it makes no sense to you, how can you then go on to speculate if it is true if it makes no sense. You must of understood something there. lol If you still don't get what I'm saying, let's just agree that we only make sense to ourselves. It's not that important, honestly. I actually never used the word ban in my post or the post quoting you. That was my point. That may be Trump isn't banning the word but rather saying we aren't forcing you to use those words (probably implemented by Obama) anymore. That's all.
|
|
inherit
99066
0
Dec 16, 2017 17:35:51 GMT -8
Beck
715
February 2007
radiantevil
|
Post by Beck on Dec 16, 2017 17:03:22 GMT -8
We're all speculating I did also say if it is untrue then that is great. My problem is if it is true, then there becomes no defense of it. I did indeed mistake you and thought you were defending the ban of the words. You didn't use the word ban but it was the impression given, at least to me, that was your defense of him doing it (if he did). What are your thoughts then if it actually is banned and not just a "use whatever words you like"? I have no issues if all that was said was "you don't have to use those words if you don't want to" (though that makes no sense to single out specific words especially as most of those are words that would most definitely want to be used by scientists). In all honesty I hope the entire thing is made up or a massive misunderstanding.
|
|
inherit
I need a new CT, thinking.... [insert Jeopardy theme song here]
110769
0
Aug 21, 2021 0:07:21 GMT -8
Tumbleweed
20,825
September 2007
tumbleweed
|
Post by Tumbleweed on Dec 16, 2017 17:08:08 GMT -8
I don't think it is a matter of being ignorant. Using the word fetus was pushed to be used in association with abortion, so it makes it something that doesn't matter and something, supposedly, different than a baby. (There are people who like to live in denial.) If this story is true, it's like giving a better visual. Like saying "oak tree" instead of "acorn sprout". We can fully envision what an oak tree looks like but not so much what a acorn sprout might look like. But I'm just speculating. I'd suggest anyone who doesn't know what an acorn sprout looks like either use the internet for what it's best at (ergo, look it up), or sprout an acorn and take a good, long gander. I highly doubt most people, by looking at a sprout, would know it is a oak tree sprout since most sprouts look very similar. Which is why I used that example although maybe not the best. Using the word baby hits home that it is a un-born baby in the womb just like saying oak tree leaves no question as to what that sprout is. But yes, if you don't know, look it up and while you are at it, look up fetus to see what a baby looks like in that stage of growth. We're all speculating I did also say if it is untrue then that is great. My problem is if it is true, then there becomes no defense of it. I did indeed mistake you and thought you were defending the ban of the words. You didn't use the word ban but it was the impression given, at least to me, that was your defense of him doing it (if he did). What are your thoughts then if it actually is banned and not just a "use whatever words you like"? I have no issues if all that was said was "you don't have to use those words if you don't want to" (though that makes no sense to single out specific words especially as most of those are words that would most definitely want to be used by scientists). In all honesty I hope the entire thing is made up or a massive misunderstanding. Sorry, I missed you asked me a question. It depends if they have a better description or not and the reasoning behind it, but if there was no rhyme or reason, that would bother me. That said, there is a reason certain agencies only use certain words and that's because someone told them to, therefore, banning all other possible choices. (<<<I hope you think about that.) Just like Obama pretty much had the whole of Washington never saying "Radical Islamic Terrorists" even thought that was the best and most honest description. In fact, it was the better choice because it differentiated between peaceful Muslims and radical ones. Obama's political correctness drove me nuts. It's not like the world didn't know the terrorists were Muslim so why pretend they weren't. It the same thing with fetus, pretending it isn't a baby.
|
|
eddiej2017
New Member
I'm your huckleberry
Posts: 173
inherit
234305
0
Nov 28, 2017 15:58:37 GMT -8
eddiej2017
I'm your huckleberry
173
July 2016
eddiej2017
|
Post by eddiej2017 on Dec 17, 2017 0:01:49 GMT -8
How about his two scoops of ice cream when everyone else just got one? link
*[sarcastically snickers while walking away]*
|
|
inherit
250182
0
Dec 13, 2023 22:58:15 GMT -8
private
499
October 2017
private1
|
Post by private on Dec 17, 2017 6:28:50 GMT -8
|
|
inherit
250182
0
Dec 13, 2023 22:58:15 GMT -8
private
499
October 2017
private1
|
Post by private on Dec 17, 2017 7:02:06 GMT -8
I wanted to know if in the past America had banned words. Here are the results of my Internet search.
1. LIST OF BANNED WORDS IN NATION’S SCHOOLS By Tap Vann on March 30, 2012 Link To weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/46143/list-of-banned-words-in-nations-schools/
2. The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release May 20, 2016 Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 4238, H.R. 4336, H.R. 4923, H.R. 4957, S. 1492, S. 1523, S. 2143 On Friday, May 20, 2016, the President signed into law: Quoted Excerpt H.R. 4238, which modernizes terms in specified statutes related to minorities; Link To obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/20/statement-press-secretary-hr-4238-hr-4336-hr-4923-hr-4957-s-1492-s-1523
3. Sponsor: Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6] (Introduced 12/11/2015) Committees: House - Energy and Commerce; Transportation and Infrastructure Latest Action: 05/20/2016 Became Public Law No: 114-157. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions) Roll Call Votes: There has been 1 roll call vote Link To www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4238 Link To www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4238/text
|
|
#FF6600
Closet Spammer
31801
0
1
May 18, 2024 11:55:26 GMT -8
wildmaven
Fear the Flying Flocks of Fiery Fury!!
35,602
October 2004
wildmaven
Wildmaven's Mini-Profile
|
Post by wildmaven on Dec 17, 2017 8:24:11 GMT -8
Looks like reuters, nbc news, and scientific american have also posted the report. It's looking less like fake news now. :/ The NY Times reports on some of the fallout from the news: www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.htmlThe NY Times was able to get further clarification, which says: “They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”That said, I think this sums up my feelings pretty well, regardless of the intentions: “But for C.D.C. or any agency to be censored or passively made to feel they have to self-censor to avoid retribution — that’s dangerous and not acceptable. The purpose of science is to search for truth, and when science is censored the truth is censored.”On what grounds does an American Administration ban words?
That's my question. While it may seem now that they were just doing it so the CDC's budget will pass, I'm really not buying that, as how would "evidence based" and "science based" be grounds for a budget not to be accepted?
|
|
inherit
Dysfunctional Professional
137695
0
Nov 12, 2019 12:06:54 GMT -8
Søren
Totally zarjaz
6,334
February 2009
solicitudesilence
|
Post by Søren on Dec 17, 2017 8:39:38 GMT -8
Seems like blackmail now, like do as told or else
|
|
inherit
Fartlosopher
108552
0
Dec 20, 2020 18:40:25 GMT -8
Mehere
Beware the size of a minuscule object moving at velocity C.
2,593
August 2007
mehere
|
Post by Mehere on Dec 18, 2017 7:57:29 GMT -8
I feel that Trump or the Government has no right to dictate or censor words to science agencies, or really anywhere else. As said before in this thread, its a move away from the democratic-republic and towards a dictatorship, which honestly have been seen as a extremely high probability with the tone of speech that Trump was using during the 2016 elections. To censor words used by scientists is a bad move as they depend on those words to publish their research as a universal publication. So as a result having to use other words instead of the recognized terms (or technical jargon to a specific field) is harmful to the person who conducted the research to publish the paper as they will probably lose credibility and the paper won't be used universally, if accepted to a major publication in the field, as the technical jargon will be off, and thus, probably not understood by other scientists who are reading the paper.
|
|
inherit
130636
0
Oct 14, 2023 4:16:06 GMT -8
ukschalke
11,848
September 2008
ukschalke
|
Post by ukschalke on Dec 18, 2017 9:27:37 GMT -8
Trump just banned the Center for Disease Control from using 7 particular words in their upcoming budget report. "According to the Washington Post, CDC policy analysts were told at a meeting on Thursday with senior agency officials that seven words - "vulnerable", "entitlement", "diversity", "transgender", "fetus", "evidence-based" and "science-based" - were banned from being used in documents related to next year's budget.
so how many $ dollars are they pretending to save with banning those words? also which words are you supposed to use instead? it just doesnt make sense as banning words in a document doesnt cost anything besides those are normal everyday words...."trump makes america look stupid again"
|
|
inherit
(?)?
188910
0
Jan 26, 2013 13:30:48 GMT -8
♥ ℒʊ√ ♥
Clouds float into my life no longer to carry rain or usher storm but to add color to my sunset sky.
10,458
January 2013
luv
|
Post by ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ on Dec 18, 2017 20:57:36 GMT -8
Obama did the same thing. Negro, Oriental and Islamic Terrorists/Radical Islamic Terrorist references were taken out of any federal government documents. There were other words he banned as well but I can't remember them now. Whether true or not, defending such a thing and equating it to what Obama did really is a big stretch.
There is no comparison between the two. Those words removed by Obama had became obsolete or were applied too widely and encompassed too many.
Both Bush and Obama preferred not using Islamic Terrorists/Radical Islamic Terrorist so as not to indict an entire religion because of its zealots. The words, however, were not banned. It's diplomacy and not trying to incite by words a situation that is already volatile. It would behoove this president to take a page from their book.
And when Obama made changes to the Federal vocabulary, he did not make them unilaterally. He went through Congress. And the words were not banned, they were modernized.
Are you honestly saying that words such as Negro and Oriental should still have been used when our vernacular had updated and those who these terms refer to no longer used them?
|
|
inherit
I need a new CT, thinking.... [insert Jeopardy theme song here]
110769
0
Aug 21, 2021 0:07:21 GMT -8
Tumbleweed
20,825
September 2007
tumbleweed
|
Post by Tumbleweed on Dec 19, 2017 1:34:59 GMT -8
Obama did the same thing. Negro, Oriental and Islamic Terrorists/Radical Islamic Terrorist references were taken out of any federal government documents. There were other words he banned as well but I can't remember them now. Whether true or not, defending such a thing and equating it to what Obama did really is a large stretch.
There is no comparison between the two. Those words removed by Obama had became obsolete or were applied too widely and encompassed too many.
When Obama made changes to the Federal vocabulary, he did not make them unilaterally. He went through Congress.
Are you honestly saying that words such as Negro and Oriental should still have been used when our vernacular has updated and those who these terms refer to no longer use them?
Oh, so it's o.k. when a democrat recommends different words be used but republicans can't? Freedom of speech only when it suits the democrats beliefs, I guess. And for the record, just because you say there is no comparison doesn't make it so. Republicans find it offensive when people pretend they aborted a "fetus" when in fact, it is a unborn baby and if you don't think someone didn't recommended the word fetus to be used instead of baby being anywhere in the vocabulary, you are fooling yourself. And CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald did clarify they are not banned words but it does sound like they talked about those words, maybe. ---facebook url="https://www.facebook.com/CDC/posts/10155438036741026 You do know that both Bush's are not happy with Trump. When you guys quote a republican saying something against Trump is seems to be from the ones who hold a grudge aka, got their butts beat in the primary. Zealots? Luv, by naming the exact enemy was clarifying it wasn't a whole religion. That was the whole point of why republicans found what Obama wouldn't let people say, stupid. I doubt Obama had an issue saying Westboro Baptist Church and I've seen plenty of both democrats and republicans actually name the enemy (say Westboro Baptist Church) and I do consider them the enemy of our country. There is no question who we are talking about when we name the enemy. If we just say "hate group" it could mean any hate group. If we just say "terrorist" it could be any terrorist group. I prefer people who talk in plain language and don't beat around the bush.
|
|