csalisbury
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
Alright. And now imagine you're talking to friends about the past, about sexual escapades, whatever. And one friend seems to only use 'clean' words, and seems reluctant to use 'vulgar' language. What's the reaction to that? The principal's intelligent; is the friend stupid? — csalisbury

Not at all.

The friend would be using the words he/she chooses.

The principal would be using the words he/she chooses.

I am not sure of where you are heading with your questions.

I don't expect the say society deals with words to change. The word "fuck" will still not be accepted, but a piece of shit phrase like "making love" will be.

I'm just discussing the philosophical implications of the practice.

Pick out any acceptable word in any sentence in this thread...suppose it being designated as crude or bad for some reason...and the sentence would become inappropriate for "decent company."

csalisbury
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
But I'm asking, how you'd react to the principal saying that. I know that you see the demarcation between vulgar and acceptable as arbitrary. I'm wondering if, knowing all that, you'd still be at least slightly discomfited by the principal's speech.

If it's equivalent to 'These wonderful kids, they've dealt with so many difficulties, but they still made it through' then of course not, right? There's no meaningful difference between the two speeches. — csalisbury

If it happened, I'd laugh my ass off. I would be delighted that someone was intelligent enough to see the absurdity of arbitrarily designating certain words as bad.

I'd be laughing.

The principal would have his/her ass in a wringer, though.

christine
12
Hello anyone,
I find myself in a conundrum of sorts and although I reckon my own decisions, my curiosity got the best of me and I wanted try to suss out my exact position if possible and maybe relieve my frustation. There may already be a discussion regarding this topic and if so, I apologize and would appreciate being pointed to the approprate forum.

On the subject of religion: what happens to those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God but yet a real person and a prophet without the kingdom of heaven in the prospect? Honestly just curious and I can't think of a single person in my field of friends where this topic would not cause a hands on brawl. Needless to say I am agnostic and welcome any comments, opinions or views. Also I did not know where else to turn for objective opinions so I appreciate any feedback. Thank you. — christine

One way to handle your question, Christine...is to change the way you phrase it.

Fact is, in a religious discussion, any comment that contains the words "believe" or "belief"...is actually talking about a guess about the unknown. "I 'believe' (in) God"...really means, "My blind guess is that there is a GOD involved in the REALITY of existence."

"I 'believe' there are no gods"...really means, "My blind guess is that no gods exist."

So, essentially you are asking, "How do we reconcile differences in what we guess about the REALTY of existence?"

Ahhh...the answer is six of one; half dozen of another.

People who guess a GOD exists may be correct; people who guess the GOD is a personal GOD may be correct; people who guess the GOD has expectations of humans may be correct; people who guess the GOD please with certain human conduct and offended by other human conduct may be correct.

People who guess there are no gods...may be correct.

And people who just do not want to make a blind guess about the question because there is no unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess...ARE CORRECT.

csalisbury
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
Maybe one way at this is to determine where 'arbitrary' ends and 'non-arbitrary' begin. Cutlery is one thing. What if you went to a daughter or nieces middle school graduation and the principal gave a speech - 'These fucking kids, they've dealt with so much shit, but they still made it through.' Honest reaction, like if it happened irl and not just as an idea in this thread? — csalisbury

IF there were no words arbitrarily designated as bad...one would think nothing of it.

If the words "fucking" and "shit" were not arbitrarily designated as crude, vulgar, or bad...there would be nothing wrong with it.

If the word "fucking" and "shit" in that short sentence were not arbitrarily designated the way they are...the sentence would be absolutely as benign as, "'These wonderful kids, they've dealt with so many difficulties, but they still made it through."

The notion of arbitrarily designating certain words as crude...is an absurdity. It is closer to disgusting than using those words can possibly be.

csalisbury
1.8k
@Frank Apisa

If 'profane' language wasn't treated as profane, but normal, would you take such obvious delight in the use of profane language by yourself and others? If it's all the same, why not just use the other terms? It's exciting to sneak into a forbidden room, but its pretty boring once it's no longer forbidden. Might as well hangout in any fucking room. — csalisbury

Perhaps all true...but also besides the point.

My point is that arbitrarily designating certain words as "bad" or "whatever else"...is a hell of a lot more stupid and childish than people who use that language.

Society tends to do a lot of that "arbitrary designation" of what is polite, or socially acceptable, or good mannered or acceptable.

Miss Manners say no one should ever eat chicken or anything else with their hands. A knife and fork are a must for "cultured" people.

I like chicken wings. I have no idea of how to eat them with a knife and fork. I'm nuts about baby-back ribs. Cannot figure out a way to eat them with a knife and fork either.

A tie and jacket are considered an essential for a work environment.

Are you kidding me?

Why?

I hate collared shirts, but I wear one each day because I work at a golf course and play golf. Collared shirts are a requirement.

Fooloso4
492
Just as there are people who are tone deaf there are those who are meaning deaf. It can be insidious, especially when one is unaware of it. One may not believe it, or believe he does not believe it, or believe he does not believe ... and there you have it. — Fooloso4

Ummm...there you have...what?

Ummm...I do not feel that I am in a cage of any sort.

Other than life itself, of course, and "life" has its own way of setting one free.

Your stream of consciousness post is not coherent to me.

Give it a bit more baking.

Schzophr
26
↪Frank Apisa
no it honestly is. Pain is rooted in logic.
3 minutes ago
Reply — Schzophr

I guess there will always be people like you...people who think they set the standards for what is good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong.

Best to deal with the likes of you by laughing at you. So...thanks. I needed a laugh right now. My game today was adequate, but not more than that. I sank my fair share of putts...and hit almost every fairway...but after the 18th hole, I was giving money...not collecting.

Schzophr
25
↪Frank Apisa


People's pain tolerances vary but let's say I dropped a feather on your head, does it warrant assisted suicide? — Schzophr

YOU do not get to decide what is or is not painful for anyone but yourself. Schzophr.

Can you finally get that?

Suppose, as you supposed, you were raped...and I or someone else decided for you that the pain of that even was too much to bear and that you should commit suicide.

What would you think of that?

Lemme help you with this, because you may not be able to deal with it rationally: Nobody but YOU should be making decisions about that kind of thing for you.

Your argument that it was not painful enough for her to want to die...is nonsense. It is not your decision to make.

Schzophr
24
↪Grre
No it's not.

What's bad is if that person was marked physically or raped repetitively.

You'll receive more stigma for mental illness.

People saying "schizo" and spook word "nonsense" is likely to cause more stress than rape; and people say these things freely.

If it's about the stigma, no it's not bad enough for suicide. If it's about traumatic memories, yes, they are painful, but it doesn't warrant suicide.

Rape is not a severe pain unless repetitive (like from a parent to a child) and physically marking.

If I was raped and the next day I was completely clean and physically healthy, I could live with it. What you're suggesting is that the mental pain of rape is severe enough for assisted suicide. — Schzophr

What the hell makes you think YOU get to decide for other people what is or is not "painful enough?"

Where do you get the nerve to suppose that?

Brett
489

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa


Really? So if you were a policeman, or a councillor, what language would you use interviewing a young girl who had been raped? — Brett

My point is that any "language" should be considered acceptable...and polite. We should not be artificially designating certain words as "bad" and others as "good."

I like sushi
1k

To say “cunt” in the UK can be friendly. Context and tone matter more than actual specific words for sure. — I like sushi

Yup.

Aretha Franklin used it at an inaugural.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4D9jQpecVo

Shamshir
261

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad." — Frank Apisa

Then from today start calling your father 'motherfucker' because he fucked your mother. Start calling every father 'motherfucker' under your pretense and let's see how far you make it. — Shamshir

Fuck you, you fucking jerkoff.

Or...Hi, Shamshir.

Your choice.

There should NEVER be a setting where words should make a difference because certain words are considered "bad."

The idea is an absurdity.

But...we are going to tolerate it...and pretend that some words are "dirty" for some reason.

I sure hope the word "the" never is chosen to be one of those words.

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa


"I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens." (Woody Allen). As one progresses through 'old age' death doesn't necessarily become a welcome prospect. But fact is, guys my age are far, far closer to death now than when we were 30 (according to actuarial tables). I mean, death feels closer. A lot of guys my age have already been dead for 10 years! — Bitter Crank

In about 10 weeks, I'll be 83.

I am in great health and live a full, happy, content life. I know I am going to be dead soon.

My remark (the question) was snarky, but it was occasioned by the fact that I am put off by people who feel the way Andrew feels about suicide...and facilitation of suicide.

If someone wants to die...they should be able to die (by choice) with as much dignity as possible. Poet Richard Brautigan put it best in the note he left after putting a gun into his mouth and blowing out the top of his head: "Messy, isn't it."

Andrew4Handel
1.2k

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa


Like any rational person. — Andrew4Handel

You are going to die.

Stop being afraid. It screws with your being able to think reasonably.

You would actually FORCE someone to stay alive who does not want to stay alive? — Frank Apisa


Life is based on force.No one asks to be born. Life isn't consensual. If you want to be consistent you should be an antinatalist. — Andrew

Life is not based on the kind of force you were talking about.

We are born...then we live our lives.

Here in New Jersey we would grab our crotch and say, "I gotcha "antinatalist" right heah!"

Andrew4Handel
1.2k
↪VagabondSpectre


They could have sedated her and given her stomache peg and fed her that way.

They could have forced her to stay alive for a few years trying out all manner of neurological treatments and psychotherapies to make her life desirable to her. — Andrew4Handel

Why?

Are you afraid of death?

You would actually FORCE someone to stay alive who does not want to stay alive?

THAT seems to me to be more questionable mentally...than the young woman's desire to die.

I would bet this is not a "murder."

Murder has a definition. It is the unlawful taking of a human life.

Was the death unlawful?

If not...it was not "murder."

My comment is:

We humans almost certainly have not fought our last major global war yet. The last one will be a monster...and may do the universe the favor of removing humans from the list of species that imperil the progress of sane, reasonable beings.

We may be lucky, though. We may develop AI before destroying ourselves...and the AI may not have the less desirable characteristics of its parents.

Brett
478

Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?
— Brett

What makes you think I do? — Frank Apisa


I was asking because I was wondering if a person might use ‘fuck’ instead of ‘intercourse’ because the rawness feels more real, more honest. — Brett

I think some words do speak to things with more rawness than others.

But my point here is merely that being offended by certain words seems silly to me.

It is going to happen...as several have pointed out. But it does seem a silly thing. Sorta like a child complaining to mommy, "Billy is saying 'na, na, na, na' to me. Make him stop."

Hanover
4.6k
George III was crazy, not II. Close. So fucking close. — Hanover

Now that I liked!

Hanover
4.6k

You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.

"Fuck" is vulgar.

And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible. — Frank Apisa


"Fuck" is vulgar and it is profane because that's what vulgar means right now, regardless of how the ancient Romans spoke. — Hanover

It has little to do with the ancient Romans.

Bring profane has a specific meaning. It means making worldly what belongs to a god.

Saying "Fuck you" is not being profane.

It is not swearing...which has a specific meaning. Swearing is the taking of an unnecessary oath...also a religious thing.

It is not cursing...which has a specific meaning. Cursing is wishing someone to eternal damnation.

Using "fuck" IS NOT being profane, cursing, swearing.

It is being vulgar...which is to say being of the common people.

It is like eating chicken only with a fork rather than using one's hands.

Rich people apparently never gnaw on chicken wings.

Stephen Cook
2
I just wrote you a full response, and it has since been deleted. — Stephen Cook

Ouch.

That must have been one hell of a response.

I'm interested in the "why."

Can you clean up your response so as to make it acceptable to the mods?

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

Okay.

You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.

"Fuck" is vulgar.

And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible.

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

Perhaps.

But the pressures to be offended are so great...that it may seem it is being done the way a dog likes its own ass.

I think there is more choice involved than you do. We just disagree.

— Baden

Please see above comment from me.

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

I personally think there is very little chance of language etiquette rules disappearing or even relaxing significantly.

That is not my point here. I am just discussing what is...not my ideas of what should be or how to get there.

Ok, who decided to make the word "fuck" (for example) offensive and when? — Baden

Common practice…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.

That’s who.

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

Beats the shit out of me. (A supposedly vulgar expression that conveys a thought as well as any non-vulgar way of saying the same thing.)

I am not arguing for doing that. I am in an Internet forum devoted to philosophy…and discussing a subject that can easily be considered in a philosophical context.

And what form would this collective decision make? — Baden

I am not disposed to offer conjecture on that. Or “beats the shit out of me.” Your choice.

How would it be enforced?

How would it be enforced? — Baden

I give up. How?

Do you believe everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will? — Baden

I do not do “believing.”

If you are asking if I suppose everyone has the power to consciously switch on and off their negative reactions to offensive words at will…

…my guess would be “Some people WON’T.” Whether they CAN or not…is a different story.

Do you believe people would voluntarily do this on the basis of some democratic mandate or referendum to designate words differently? — Baden

I do not do “believing.” If you are asking if people COULD do this on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Yes.”

If, on the other hand you are asking if people WOULD do it on a voluntary basis…I would respond, “Almost certainly…NO.”

I really appreciate you coming to this issue and for your comments, Baden.

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.

The only way a word can be objectionable...is if we DO decide to make it objectionable. It can only offend if we decide to find it objectionable.

Most English words have synonyms. In that first sentence you used the word "decide"...which could just as easily be written as "choose, elect, or select."

But if we had collectively decided (elected, chosen, or selected) to designate "decide" a crudity or vulgarity...that sentence would be seen as vulgar or crude.

Same thing with vulgar...which can easily be designated crude, uncouth, or unrefined. If we had collectively decided to be offended by the use of vulgar...my sentence would be seen as uncouth, crude or unrefined.

The damage to language (if there is any) is not in use of "vulgar" words...but in the notion that we can designate certain words to be objectionable...or offensive.

Really!

The notion that we should be doing this...is itself offensive.

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

Yep...a tremendously useful word...that some people want to eliminate.

Merkwurdichliebe
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa


Oh damn, i never thought I'd open up so easily to the ordinary use of language. — Merkwurdichliebe

Everyone should wonder about the same thing, Merk.

Brett
464
↪Frank Apisa


Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’? — Brett

What makes you think I do?

I prefer to use either...and not give a damn about whether or not it "offends" someone.

Obviously you are content with the notion that certain words should offend. Okay.

I'd just as soon not communicate with people too anxious to be offended. They are jerk-offs.

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

Thank you for that. I don't know how the issue is treated in other languages.

I think the way it is handled in English...is infantile.

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?

Can you not see that arbitrarily deeming certain words to be "offensive" truly makes no sense?

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

I agree that we humans have agreed that to be the case.

BUT WHY?

Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable.

Suppose we decided to make the word "elbow" objectionable...and had to refer to it in public as "arm joint."

If we got agreement on that...the word "elbow" would be one that causes offense.

It would make no sense...and "offensive language" makes no sense either.

It truly just doesn't.

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

Language is used that way.

I am an advocate of brevity...but poets often flow on and on...some authors of prose are verbose.

So what.

In any case, you mentioned a "limited vocabulary." The more words you use...the less limited your vocabulary. That is simply how the word "limited" works.

Brett
460
I feel these words are almost anti language. They’re a primitive vocalisation and in their use potentially a threat to language.

Edit: a threat to language and understanding. — Brett

How so, Brett?

If I exclaim, "Motherfucker!" rather than "Dog gone it!"...how do I threaten language and understanding?

If I say, "Fuckin' outta sight!" rather than "How wonderful!"...how do I threaten language and understanding?

I truly do not understand.

Shamshir
251

By the way...read that stuff you quoted above in context.. — Frank Apisa

in context of what I, Frank Apisa, want to hear — Frank Apisa

The god will tell you exactly what you want to hear. — Frank Apisa

what I, Frank Apisa, want to hear. — Frank Apisa

Feel free to continue your make-believe monologue. :ok:
But even that's asking too much from you, after all, you believe you don't believe, right? :snicker: — Shamshir

You sound a bit upset, Shamshir.

Don't let the heat get to you.

My guess is your god has never surprised you.

My guess is no one's god ever has.

Shamshir
247

ANYONE who accepts that there is a GOD can read the GOD's mind. — Frank Apisa


2 Esdras 4

1 Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered 2 and said to me, "Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?" 3 Then I said, "Yes, my lord." And he replied to me, "I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4 If you can solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil." 5 I said, "Speak, my lord." And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past." 6 I answered and said, "Who of those that have been born can do that, that you should ask me about such things?"


It will tell them exactly what they want to hear. — Frank Apisa


Exodus 4

13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”

14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses


You want to go over that again? :clap: — Shamshir

Not at all.

Any of you people who suppose there is a god...can read the mind of that god.

The god will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

But, if you want to kid yourself about that...it is okay with me.

Why not ask your god if it is okay with him. (It almost certainly will be a "him"...not an it.)

No insult intended. Just telling it like it is.

By the way...read that stuff you quoted above in context...and you will see that the god was acting and saying exactly what was expected. It was needed for the lesson being taught.