So when you choose not to say fuck in the presence of your boss, it is becsuse you care about his feelings? When you choose not to say shit during a job interview, you do so because you think the interviewer may get their feelings hurt? Or is it because society has deemed these words to be "naughty"?
You write like a 12-year old who has newly discovered swear words.
Profanities are special use words - Sometimes a bit of profanity is just the word needed in a particular situation, but (to me) excessive use (misuse) of profanity robs those words of their value.
To me, one who uses excessive profanity (and I think it is rarely called for) brands himself as one with a crippled vocabulary, an ignorant and/or stupid person who has nothing of value to say.
Quite a few days ago I wrote a message draft exploring the good and the bad use of profanity in music lyrics. The short version - Bob Dylan has written a lot of lyrics of strong statements and (to the best of my knowledge) his use of profanity is all but non-existent.
Bottom line:
If a particular member very rarely uses profanity, the profanity has enhanced value. This may indicate that his/her statement merits extra attention and thought.
If a another particular member frequently uses profanity, the profanity loses any value and is only discourteous added clutter. This may well indicate that his/her statement merits no attention at all (except perhaps from a moderator).
Moose
ps: I recall using profanity twice and both instances were from Adminnemooseus. The first was in the private administration forum, discussing an often and now permanently suspended member. The second was when announcing a different member suspension.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add "discourteous" to sentence.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Since you provided no link to the study or any additional information, I can't tell if what you are saying is what the study is saying or not.
Er, now I"m confused. Do you think the Milgram experiment was an experiment about profanity? Do you think I think the Milgram experiment is about profanity? I do not. Do you not understand the context in which it was mentioned? Apparently you do not.
Again - Milgram proves that most people base their ideas about what is right and wrong based on cues from the people around them.
I really don't understand what you're saying my point is that is supposedly undercut.
Do you understand we're engaged in a multi-post discussion? Certainly, if you forget every single post as soon as you write it, you're going to be confused when I refer to things you've previously said.
Just as before, no quotes and no links.
Since I'm replying to your posts, the links to your posts appear at the top and bottom of my posts. And I certainly did quote you throughout my previous reply.
No I asked if you adjusted your language for mixed company. That means the people around you can be women, seniors, children, people you don't know very well, a senior professional, etc.
That's not what I understand "mixed company" to mean, but very well. I don't hang around children so obviously I don't have the chance to swear around them. I'd certainly use profanity to any other adult, if the situation warranted it.
I though you of all people would have been able to have a candid discussion concerning profanity in a written debate forum.
I've been candid throughout, and I thought my position was clear - people need to decide for themselves whether, and which, profanity to use.
You obviously don't want to provide any real information
Information on what? If you want information, look it up. I don't feel any obligation to do your homework.
so I'll bail before you get the urge to compare me to Satan's mother or ask if you can meditate for me so the scales can fall from my eyes and I can then understand the virtues of profanity.
This bears absolutely no relationship to any point I've made in this thread. Attacking you personally would violate forum guidelines. I have no interest in whether or not you meditate and I'm not a proponent of the practice.
Now you want me to clarify and answer your questions, but you wouldn't give me the same consideration. I could die from lack of surprise.
Since the point of this thread is articulation and I feel that you have misunderstood what I've written, I can't judge for myself what you misunderstood. That's why I asked you to show me specifically where I said what you understood. I can't understand my writing from your position.
I asked you to clarify the Milgram experiment in Message 157 and you chose not to. I can't address its pertinence to this discussion without more information.
quote:I've been candid throughout, and I thought my position was clear - people need to decide for themselves whether, and which, profanity to use.
I agree. People also need to decide whether they wish to continue conversing with people who use profanity. You've been candid concerning what you think I'm saying, but you haven't really addressed what I am saying. IMO, some very interesting issues came up, but you spent more time squawking because you feel I'm trying to tell you what to do.
This thread is about articulation, not whether profanity is right or wrong. I was trying to get into how profanity can get in the way of the discussion. Just as people feel that lack of capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and poor grammar can get in the way of a coherent discussion.
I made some interesting points in Message 143 and Message 157 that have nothing to do with whether profanity is right or wrong. It's more about whether it is helping or hindering.
We've seen in Hooah's case, his opponent misunderstood the profanity slang. I've also noticed in a few of yours, where your opponent thought you were angry, you had to clarify. Haven't you been paying attention in this thread? Not everyone perceives profanity the same, whether gender, age, culture, beliefs, etc.
quote:Information on what? If you want information, look it up. I don't feel any obligation to do your homework.
If you don't provide anything of substance, there's nothing to look up. I did try to find information on Milgram, but apparently I didn't find the same study as you. If you don't confirm or clarify, the discussion can't move forward. You were more focused on the idea that you felt someone was saying you can't use profanity. I was trying to look at whether profanity in an adversarial situation helps or hinders discussion since you said you used it for emphasis. I was trying to learn. In spite of your obstinacy, I did learn some interesting things from searching. Unfortunately you don't wish to discuss them.
quote:This bears absolutely no relationship to any point I've made in this thread. Attacking you personally would violate forum guidelines. I have no interest in whether or not you meditate and I'm not a proponent of the practice.
Honey, it was a joke.
Now we have devolved into the he said, she said and not discussing the issue. That's why it is best to clarify for an opponent or correct an opponent as soon as possible. Message 95
Until you decide to discuss the issue I'm addressing, we're at a stand still.
quote:I don't see any of you as being important enough for anyone to curb their language. The only repercussion is lack of discourse because the opponent uses words you are uncomfortable with.
Sad.
One of the problems with the internet. People forget common courtesy.
Opinion Warning: I'm about to state an opinion. It is just an opinion. It is not a cleverly disguised demand or new rule. It does not require any major changes in the readers lifestyle unless the reader makes that choice.
IMO, everyone should be treated as a VIP. Covers all bases. We never know who will be our "boss" in the future.
I don't see any of you as being important enough for anyone to curb their language.
Here's a tip for picking up chicks: Talk to her as if she was the only person in the room. Even if she shoots you down, it's good practice for the one you do care about."It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
Stephen Fry, one of my favourite wordsmiths, a man that I credit significantly with my own love affair with words, once said -
quote:The sort of twee person who thinks that swearing is in anyway a sign of a lack of education or a lack of verbal interest is just a fucking lunatic
I agree that it is all about context, and anyone interested in the posts I put together knows that I swear, but sparingly. I usually employ it for some rhetorical effect or just because it sounds better on the mental ear. In the context of an online debate, complaints about swearing seems to me to be its own rhetorical ploy. A "I'm a nicer, more civilised person than you, therefore my points should garner more respect than yours" kind of gambit.
As evidenced here there are several lines of attack in any swearing discussing. The fact that it is unnecessary is one such line. As is the concern for others ("Won't someone please think of the children!") line. Indeed, Stephen Fry addresses those in the same discussion so I'll save myself repeating his points in an inferior fashion and just post it.
So my view in short is this: Swearing is perfectly fine. But stylistically I find it unpleasant to read a piece of writing which overuses a word or phrase. It happens with words that aren't sweary, but swearing is easily overused. I'd call this an aesthetic objection.
In a verbal debate, one can overswear to great effect - because tone of voice adds a layer of variation to the discussion. An increasing crescendo of swearing qualifiers can have a power verbally that in the written word is more difficult to get across without 'sounding' mentally unstable or simply becoming boring. It is offensive to use English, and swear words in particular, to create a boring monotony - not because they are 'profane' or otherwise intrinsically bad.
That's why I asked you to show me specifically where I said what you understood.
Can you be more specific about what you're asking for? If you're asking me to quote you where you're deciding for others when they can use profanity, I've already done so, two posts ago. If you're asking me to quote you doing something else, this is going to get a bit ridiculous. Why can't you simply remember what you've already posted? That would be a lot more convenient for both of us.
I asked you to clarify the Milgram experiment in Message 157 and you chose not to.
But I did do so. Again - the Milgram experiment proves that most people determine what is right and wrong based on cues from those around them. How much clearer could it possibly be? If you don't understand how it does that, then it's because you don't know what the Milgram experiment is, and you should just say "I don't know what the Milgram experiment is" instead of being so ridiculously vague. And if you don't know what the Milgram experiment is, you should do your own homework and look it up on Wikipedia.
People also need to decide whether they wish to continue conversing with people who use profanity.
Or with people who are Jewish. Or with people who crack their soft-boiled eggs from the wide end instead of the narrow end. Or with people who are smarter than them.
There are a wide variety of considerations people may make about who they choose to continue conversing with, some legitimate and some not, and profanity is not somehow unique in that regard. Profanity isn't any more likely to make people decide to stop talking with you than any other aspect of your person or communication.
I've also noticed in a few of yours, where your opponent thought you were angry, you had to clarify.
Since that happens whether or not I swear, or whether or not I'm actually angry, and since I'm certainly not using any kind of anger signifier in my posts, it's pretty clear that these accusations are being made in bad faith - it's the "you're too emotional" ruse I've explained before. It's an attempt at well-poisoning, not a genuine expression of their viewpoint.
I did try to find information on Milgram, but apparently I didn't find the same study as you.
There's only one "Milgram experiment" famous enough to be referenced by that name, and if you had actually looked it up you would have understood it to prove that most people determine what is right or wrong from cues from the people around them.
I was trying to look at whether profanity in an adversarial situation helps or hinders discussion since you said you used it for emphasis.
Right - you're trying to decide for other people whether they should or should not use profanity.
Like I said - if you're asking me where you keep deciding for other people whether or not they should use profanity - it's there, in the message box where you're typing in these replies. Yeah - right there.
Until you decide to discuss the issue I'm addressing, we're at a stand still.
Until you can actually remember what you've previously said on the issues we're addressing, we're at a standstill. I'm not prepared to serve as your own memory. You have to use it yourself. I can't help you.
You really just like the he said, she said part don't you?
quote:Can you be more specific about what you're asking for? If you're asking me to quote you where you're deciding for others when they can use profanity, I've already done so, two posts ago. If you're asking me to quote you doing something else, this is going to get a bit ridiculous. Why can't you simply remember what you've already posted? That would be a lot more convenient for both of us.
You'll have to go back and read. You didn't take the time to answer when I asked, I'm not going to go back and figure it out for you. As for two posts ago, I responded to that. I was stating my position, not deciding for anyone. You haven't explained how stating my position is deciding anything for anyone. This is a debate forum. We take a position. What anyone gleans from the debate is up to them.
quote:But I did do so. Again - the Milgram experiment proves that most people determine what is right and wrong based on cues from those around them. How much clearer could it possibly be? If you don't understand how it does that, then it's because you don't know what the Milgram experiment is, and you should just say "I don't know what the Milgram experiment is" instead of being so ridiculously vague. And if you don't know what the Milgram experiment is, you should do your own homework and look it up on Wikipedia.
The information I found on the Milgram experiment dealt with following an authority figure. It didn't really deal with a debate situation. If I've tapped into the wrong experiment, please provide a link to the one that you feel makes your point.
You provided no confirmation or correction and still don't wish to apparently.
Crashfrog writes:
There's only one "Milgram experiment" famous enough to be referenced by that name, and if you had actually looked it up you would have understood it to prove that most people determine what is right or wrong from cues from the people around them.
So if I assume I did find the correct study which is an experiment to research the effect of authority on obedience, I still don't see what it has to do with this discussion or any discussion of cues from those around us. Please refrain from implying I'm too ignorant to see it. That's the fundamentalist path.
quote:There are a wide variety of considerations people may make about who they choose to continue conversing with, some legitimate and some not, and profanity is not somehow unique in that regard. Profanity isn't any more likely to make people decide to stop talking with you than any other aspect of your person or communication.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
I was trying to look at whether profanity in an adversarial situation helps or hinders discussion since you said you used it for emphasis.
Right - you're trying to decide for other people whether they should or should not use profanity.
Like I said - if you're asking me where you keep deciding for other people whether or not they should use profanity - it's there, in the message box where you're typing in these replies. Yeah - right there.
How is that deciding for other people any more than any other debate on this forum?
When you asked this question concerning HFCS in your High-Fructose Corn Syrup - the Controversy thread were you trying to decide for other people or trying to understand through discussion?
Crashfrog writes:
Obviously the question isn't "is HFCS bad for you", the question is "is HFCS worse than sucrose"?
quote:Until you can actually remember what you've previously said on the issues we're addressing, we're at a standstill. I'm not prepared to serve as your own memory. You have to use it yourself. I can't help you.
Good dodge. I know what I wrote, but your comprehension of what I wrote is the issue. I have no way of matching up what I wrote with what you think I wrote. I'm not going to guess because you wouldn't address it or confirm it if I got it right, as evidenced by the ones you did finally state.
Message 104 You stated: Insisting that your preferences are the only ones that matter is the definition of being childish.
I said I didn't, which means if you disagree you have to show me where you see this happening. You didn't respond.
Message 130 You stated: You've tried to give examples of the "emotionless" speech you think the debate should engender, but no speech is emotionless.
I said I didn't, which means if you disagree you have to show me where you see this happening. You didn't respond.
Now I've responded to what you feel is me deciding for others. I've disagreed and I have asked that you explain how my sentence is making a decision for anyone. Now we'll see if you respond or continue to avoid explanation.
I agree, we are at a standstill. I don't understand why you're comprehending my posts the way you are. Until you can explain why the words I use lead you to the conclusions you've provided, there's nothing more I can add.
I was stating my position, not deciding for anyone.
Your position is that you know when to swear, when not to, and anybody who swears when you think they shouldn't is, by definition, doing it wrong.
That's what I mean about you deciding for other people - your position is that you've already decided when it's appropriate to use profanity and when its not, and anybody who does it any differently is perforce wrong.
You provided no confirmation or correction and still don't wish to apparently.
There was nothing to correct. I never stated that the Milgram experiment was about debate situations. The Milgram experiment is about what people think is right and wrong in the face of someone around them, someone they may view as an authority (although not all versions of the experiment involved authority) telling them what is right and wrong.
If you haven't understood the Milgram experiment in the context of people deciding what is right and wrong, then you've not understood the experiment.
So if I assume I did find the correct study which is an experiment to research the effect of authority on obedience, I still don't see what it has to do with this discussion or any discussion of cues from those around us.
You've not understood the experiment, apparently. Go back and do your homework - not all versions of the experiment involved an authority, and it's not that people simply obey the authority - they actually change their minds about whether it's appropriate to administer lethal electric shock to another person simply for failing to answer trivia questions, because everyone around them seems to have determined that it is appropriate.
I know what I wrote, but your comprehension of what I wrote is the issue.
Then by all means, correct my comprehension. Where have I failed to correctly apprehend your meaning?
Message 104 You stated: Insisting that your preferences are the only ones that matter is the definition of being childish. I said I didn't, which means if you disagree you have to show me where you see this happening. You didn't respond.
Message 130 You stated: You've tried to give examples of the "emotionless" speech you think the debate should engender, but no speech is emotionless. I said I didn't, which means if you disagree you have to show me where you see this happening. You didn't respond.
Both of those messages have responses from me which quote the relevant material from your posts.
I've disagreed and I have asked that you explain how my sentence is making a decision for anyone.
It's the part where you say "this is what you should and shouldn't do."
quote:Your position is that you know when to swear, when not to, and anybody who swears when you think they shouldn't is, by definition, doing it wrong.
That's what I mean about you deciding for other people - your position is that you've already decided when it's appropriate to use profanity and when its not, and anybody who does it any differently is perforce wrong.
No that isn't my position
quote:There was nothing to correct. I never stated that the Milgram experiment was about debate situations. The Milgram experiment is about what people think is right and wrong in the face of someone around them, someone they may view as an authority (although not all versions of the experiment involved authority) telling them what is right and wrong.
If you haven't understood the Milgram experiment in the context of people deciding what is right and wrong, then you've not understood the experiment.
You've not understood the experiment, apparently. Go back and do your homework - not all versions of the experiment involved an authority, and it's not that people simply obey the authority - they actually change their minds about whether it's appropriate to administer lethal electric shock to another person simply for failing to answer trivia questions, because everyone around them seems to have determined that it is appropriate.
So there are other versions, but you still don't want to provide a link to the specific study you have in mind or clarify what that has to do with what I've said about profanity. So people adjust their views concerning what's right and wrong. That's old news. Make your point.
quote:Then by all means, correct my comprehension. Where have I failed to correctly apprehend your meaning?
I already did. You didn't respond. I linked to them in the previous post. Do you play this game in the science debates?
quote:Both of those messages have responses from me which quote the relevant material from your posts.
No they don't.
quote:It's the part where you say "this is what you should and shouldn't do."
Except that I haven't said that.
Very disappointing. I'm done with the he said, she said. Unless you have something that actually addresses what I've said, we're done.
™ Version 4.1
(1)
