Brett
460
all other things being equal, a person unwilling to use certain words has fewer to use than someone willing to use those words. Fewer words = a more limited vocabulary. — Frank Apisa
Using these words isn’t extending a vocabulary. Those words being used are just replacing another word. But it’s interesting that you think it’s extending a vocabulary by counting the words used, because when I hear people using these words it sounds like using twice as many words as necessary:
‘ I saw the ******* **** come out of the ******* **** bar, little *** she was, the ***** with her, ***** he’s a big ******, she’s a ******* ****! — Brett
Bitter Crank
7.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Well, there is the matter of decorum. It isn't that "fuck" or "shit" are "adult words" and coitus and faeces are not. The former words are appropriate for one level of decorum and the latter are appropriate for another level. I would not expect that a doctor would ask me "Are you shitting OK?" I'd expect him to reference faeces and bowel movements. On the other hand, "Shit!" would be the appropriate response to a diagnosis of terminal cancer. Or "fucking shit" would be the appropriate term at a bar to reference something really stupid.
Policing adult language, as well as enforcing "political correct" language falls into he category of "boor control" or "controlling other people" or maintaining a "quality atmosphere". I disapprove of that sort of shit. But... some people can get away with it and some can't. — Bitter Crank
Brett
460
I like to be in control of what I’m saying, well I try. I adjust my language to the occasion, the people. They’re only words but you can’t take them back once spoken. People can be hurt, or misunderstand you if you use language they’re not familiar with. Of course you can use the language any way you like, but language is about communication so why not use the most efficient word and one understood by the other person? — Brett
So...why not use "cock" for "penis"...and why, oh, why...would using cock be considered so offensive? — Frank Apisa
Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable. — Frank Apisa
I truly do not understand. — Frank Apisa
Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
It seems to me that different languages regard profanity in very different ways. For example, in Spanish, the offense of profanity seems to be more closely associated with the context in which it is used, rather than through its mere utterance, as seems to be the case in English. — Merkwurdichliebe
do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’? — Brett
Brett
464
↪Frank Apisa
Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’? — Brett
Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
Oh damn, i never thought I'd open up so easily to the ordinary use of language. — Merkwurdichliebe
I like sushi
996
↪Frank Apisa
You just reminded of this vid I watched several years ago (Enjoy!):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfTKWwxuF1g — I like sushi
BUT WHY? — Frank Apisa
Baden
7.8k
BUT WHY? — Frank Apisa
We didn't decide to make words objectionable. Words make themselves objectionable by filling possibilities in the discourse. One of which is the possibility to be offended. You may as well ask why we 'made' some words more intense versions of others. For example, why do we have 'overjoyed' and not just 'happy'? Answer, because it expresses a possibility in the discourse which in turn fills in a human emotion that can be usefully expressed. Being offended is just another such affective state. And as long as it is, a word will fill in that space. — Baden
I understand what you are attempting to communicate here, Baden...but I disagree with your first sentence so completely, that the remainder of the comment pales. — Frank Apisa
He feathered Pertelote in wanton play
And trod her twenty times ere prime of day.
Ok, who decided to make the word "fuck" (for example) offensive and when? — Baden
And who would be the "we" that could suddenly decide to designate it as unoffensive, and in what contexts, and how would we control the visceral reactions of others to that word in particular contexts? — Baden
And what form would this collective decision make? — Baden
How would it be enforced? — Baden
Do you believe everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will? — Baden
Do you believe people would voluntarily do this on the basis of some democratic mandate or referendum to designate words differently? — Baden
The history of the term clings to them, just as it does to Anglo Saxon, English and White. — Bitter Crank
Common practice. — Frank Apisa
and a healthy infusion of upper crust control of what could or could not be written. The word was not even included in any English dictionary until the 1960’s. One of the MOST used words in the English language…NEVER INCLUDED IN A DICTIONARY UNTIL THE 1960’s. — Frank Apisa
I do not do “believing.” If you are asking if people COULD do this on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Yes.” — Frank Apisa
I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden. — Frank Apisa
What's ahead? If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for language etiquette rules to disappear. The sanctioned words might change, but the top honchos will still be policing language the riff raff gets to use in public. — Bitter Crank
We differ here then. While some people may have this level of control, I don't think everyone or even most people do. We generally get offended in spite of ourselves not because we choose to. — Baden
Baden
7.8k
I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden. — Frank Apisa
I have a particular interested in the language-oriented threads so suits me. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.