Articulating In The Debates; The Proper And The Improper.

quote:

---

I seriusly think you should invite some serbs and bosinans here they would teach you how profanity is used in excess.

---

That might have been humorous if it had anything to do with my position or what I was asking.I'm not talking about excessive profanity. Do you think I am?My point is that EvC is a mixed crowd and people tend to refrain from strong profanity in mixed company. The "f" word is usually considered to be one that is objectionable in mixed company no matter how it's used.When one goes into a comedy house here in the US, it is usually understood that profanity could be part of the show. The customer makes the choice.

quote:

---

However, overuse of swear words tends to diminish their beneficial effect.

---

I'll save my profanity for real pain. Then I only have to use one or two really good words.Those who overuse profanity may have to swear a blue streak to get relief. How do you spell relief? #@*&

NOTE: So I don't have to keep typing the disclaimer "depending on how it is used", I am clarifying that I am addressing profanity used between opponents in a debate. I'm not addressing profanity used in humor threads or between those who are usually on the same side of the discussion. Please keep that in mind.

quote:

---

No it didn't. DB just chose not to respond because, like you, he/she is offended by and/or has a problem with the word fuck. No sweat off my nuts. "I don't speak potty mouth", to me, means "I'm a fucking prissy hoitey toitey goody two shoes and won't respond to gutter language" not "I don't know what that phrase means".

---

He did respond to what you said, but he seems to have misunderstood what you said. He probably thought he knew what you meant. I've had enough discussions with DB, so I know his difficulties. I truly believe he misunderstood what you wrote. Look at his response. If he sees the "f" word as a useless adjective, which it is in many cases, then he is left with the idea that you said "evolution has all to do with origins".BTW, I haven't said that profanity offends me. Pay attention to what I've written. You complain about Buz and DB, but you can't even comprehend what I've presented.This comment of yours is interesting and goes to understanding. To me, when he said he didn't speak potty mouth that told me that he didn't understand. If he said he didn't understand what "magic sky daddy" meant, or any other basic English word, would you be just as annoyed?Just as you're doing with me, you jump to a conclusion that has nothing to do with what is written. That type of reasoning interferes with debate. That's how we end up with threads devolving into "no I didn't, yes you did" battles. Pay attention.That is my point. This forum is a mixed bag of gender, age, cultures, beliefs, lifestyles, etc. When debating we shouldn't assume an opponent knows all the same slang or even the same level of vocabulary that we do. We shouldn't assume they perceive profanity the same way we do.

quote:

---

Uhh...because I didn't feel like it? Why do you choose certain words where a synonym would work exactly the same? Why does anyone? You are seriously the first person I have ever met that claims to not know what fuck all means, so I had no reason to not use the phrase without defining it.

---

Why are you on the defensive? Are you unable to have an emotionally uncommitted discussion about your choice of words?I know exactly why I choose one word over another. You're evading the issue. Why did you choose the more emphatic word one time and not the other? What were you trying to convey to your opponent? It's the same person both times.Your position has been they they are just words and while I agree they are words, words have meanings and project or elicit emotions. You want me to believe that when you use profanity, you are not projecting any harsh emotions at your opponent or casting a harsh tone on your post.In your rather useless response you said you didn't feel like. This tells me that there is a feeling that goes along with the use of profanity. It may be stronger feelings for the subject being discussed, the opponent, events of the day, or all of the above. Different emotions are being projected than when using the more neutral word.When friends are throwing profanity around no one thinks anything of it, but when disagreement ensues, profanity takes on a very different tone.EvC is a debate forum, which means people pick opposing positions and try to defend them. Profanity between opponents tends to elicit more visceral responses. When face to face with opponents, profanity is basically trash talk. Get your opponent to lose control, get flustered, and make a mistake.The point of the debate is to defend your position with facts, not bluster. Understanding through discussion, not intimidation.Look at what you and crash have done in this discussion. You've brought no facts or reasoning, just belittling bluster.

quote:

---

Long story short: I like to fucking say fuck. You don't like it? Don't talk to me. Easy as that. If Percy has a problem with it, he can suspend my account because I say fuck too much. I personally think you are making much ado about nothing.

---

Thank you Captain Obvious. This thread is about articulation which means expressing oneself easily and clearly. This isn’t about changing any rules at EvC.

quote:

---

You can believe whatever you want. I am saying that I am not projecting anything. Fuck is just a word to me.

​

That is your opinion. You say it as though you speak for everyone. I've already made clear that fuck carries no more meaning that the word "fork" or "frig". I just like the sound of it more.

---

Keep telling yourself that.We have words in our vocabulary and each has a meaning to it. We choose them because of the meaning and what we wish to tell our opponent. Using the word pussy is not emotionless unless you are talking about a feline. It’s an insult and belittling unless there is sufficient body language to suggest otherwise. Words such as shrinking violet, fainting couch, pussy, etc. imply weakness. What the user is saying is that the opinions of his opponent are unimportant because the person is weak. That’s belittling.As I keep reminding you, we can’t see body language through the computer. We have to make it known through our words. We can't tell if our opponent is an emotionless robot with a limited vocabulary chip or not.The f word has an original meaning and some slang meanings. There are uses that actually have no meaning. The word serves no purpose and adds no value to the sentence other than for effect. Take your first sentence. The first usage serves no purpose. No added value to the sentence.Do you understand yet? You aren’t writing to a little avatar in the corner of your monitor. You are writing to an audience. You aren’t writing to yourself. You are writing to another person.The immature drivel that comes out in some of your posts is not benign. You like the sound of the words, but you aren’t writing to yourself. You are writing to another person.So if the word serves no purpose in the sentence and has nothing to do with the information you're passing on, why choose a word that will potentially inflame your opponent if that is not your intent as you claim?If the word has no emotional value as you claim and you aren’t trying to project that emotion to your opponent, why not choose a more benign word or leave it out when it serves no purpose?You say because you like the sound of it, take it or leave it. You write what sounds good to you. Buz writes what sounds good to him. DB writes what sounds good to him. If you don’t like the way they write, then don’t converse with them. Why keep insulting their style of writing and asking them to change when you aren’t willing to adjust yourself?People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones. IOW, until you fix your own drivel, don't worry about Buz. Argue the position presented and if you don't understand what your opponent said, just ask nicely and I'm sure he will enlighten you.I seriously doubt if you have anything intelligent to add to what you have already blessed us with, so time to shut the lid and flush.

quote:

---

You've tried to give examples of the "emotionless" speech you think the debate should engender, but no speech is emotionless.

---

Show me where I've done this. I've been trying to convince Hooah that what we write does carry emotion and he needs to be more aware of what emotion he is presenting. He's the one who claims there is no emotion in what he writes.

quote:

---

Debate is not just a process where I try to convince you to think I'm right. It's a process where I also have to try to convince you to feel that I'm right. And emotion-charged language is necessarily going to play a role in that, regardless of how Webster's defines "debate."

---

If used properly. If used indiscriminately, it can inflame and derail the debate. I don't consider you to be one who uses profanity indiscriminately. You also don't claim not to be expressing the emotion your strong language suggests.Hooah claims his profanity is not emotionally charged. My question to him is why use something that is expressing the wrong emotion?Edited by purpledawn, : New Subtitle

quote:

---

Do Hooah's opponents somehow lack any agency of their own? Don't they have any responsibility not to get "inflamed"?

---

Responsibility goes both ways.

Another piece of wisdom from Proverbs 27:17. It is good to have a constructive critique every so often. Sometimes we forget we aren't writing to ourselves. We may understand what we're writing, but it's the audience who has to ultimately understand what we're trying to say.

quote:

---

Debate is not just a process where I try to convince you to think I'm right. It's a process where I also have to try to convince you to feel that I'm right. And emotion-charged language is necessarily going to play a role in that, regardless of how Webster's defines "debate."

---

I think you're confusing emotionally detached with lack of emotion. This article, The Metaphor Rant, on why not to use metaphors in debate says it better than I can and he makes a good point about metaphors. I added the bold. I don't see how profanity makes one "feel" you're right.Another issue he points out is that on a board like this our opponents don't usually back down. (That's why we keep having the same debates over and over. Sometimes we get a new face.) We have seen all this play out here at EvC.The point of rule #10 and the quote is to remind members to not let their emotions play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc.On this board we are writing to a general audience. It isn't a closed club. Anyone can read it. Even professional writers have to decide how much profanity is honestly needed, if any, to make the point?If we're already in a hostile environment, does profanity help sell the point or just escalate the hostility? Edited by purpledawn, : Removed sentence

quote:

---

No, I think that you've mistaken calls for "emotional detachment" as having validity, instead of as always being a fallacious attempt to poison the well, which is what they are.

​

Anybody who is emotional about any issue - which is everyone, on every issue - is subject to accusations that they're not "emotionally detached" enough. These accusations should never be taken at face value, and I'm disappointed to see that you've fallen for the ruse.

---

What accusations are you talking about? Emotion is fine as long as it doesn't play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc. Emotional detachment is not lack of emotion.

quote:

---

I mean even your source admits that he can't maintain emotional detachment, that nobody is truly capable of it. How reasonable is it, purple, for you to expect debaters to cleave to a perfectly impossible standard? And why would the proponents of "emotional detachment" want people to do something they know is impossible? How can that possibly be taken in good faith? Clearly, it's a ruse.

---

The point of showing you the article is to show that the ideal setting for a debate is not in an internet debate forum because the sides aren't trying to come to a mutual agreement. We are in a hostile environment.You feel it's impossible not to intentionally insult someone in a written forum?

quote:

---

Well, it's quite simple. Humans are herd animals. The Milgram experiment proves that most people will determine right or wrong based on cues from the people around them. If I make you feel that I really feel like I'm right, my conviction - as evidenced by my passion, which is evidenced by my word choices - will be one more thing that eventually adds up to convincing you.

---

You didn't really answer my question and your explanation seems to support what I've been saying.Since we supposedly take cues from those who are similar to us; and we are more likely to follow those who are very similar to us, then odds are your powers of persuasion using profanity will only work on people who use profanity or aren't offended by it.When an opponent expresses that profanity offends them, that is a clue to change tactics if one's purpose is to persuade that opponent or people similar to that opponent.

quote:

---

And everybody understands that's a rule honored only in the breach. I mean, especially these days. Coming back was a bit of a shock because of the marked decline in administrator activity in regards to personal attacks. It is what it is, but maybe you had to be away during The Purge to see the dramatic difference in the tenor of the board simply due to the nonenforcement of rule 10.

---

Are you saying you do or don't like less administrator enforcement of Rule #10?

quote:

---

You're right. Writers have to decide on their own how much profanity to use. That's always been the case.

​

They don't need you to decide it on their behalf.

---

Why do you keep implying that I'm deciding or demanding something for anybody or from anybody? I haven't asked anyone to refrain from profanity in this thread. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to refrain from using profanity when responding to me.

quote:

---

It helps sell the point. That's the purpose of profanity.

---

But by your own explanation, profanity would not help sell the point to an opposition who is offended by profanity or people similar to the opposition. It would only sell the point to the people who probably already partially agree with you anyway.I need an example of how profanity sells a point more so than not using it, especially to an opponent who is offended by it.

quote:

---

I never said that we "take cues from those who are similar to us." That's not what I said at all.

---

It's a shame you don't bother to clarify. The people around us are usually similar to us. There aren't any nonverbal cues available through the internet. 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.

quote:

---

I don't believe that I said that I did or didn't like it, did I?

---

That's why I asked. Your comments didn't really say anything.

quote:

---

Because you keep on deciding for other people when they should or shouldn't use profanity. There's nothing implied about it - you keep deciding for other people when they should or shouldn't use profanity, when in fact that's something only they can decide. They don't need you to decide for them.

---

Show me where I've done this. So far each time I ask you to show me where I've done what you claim, you don't show me anything. My position is that this forum is "mixed company" and an individual's rule of thumb for profanity in mixed company should be applied. Do you adjust your profanity when in mixed company? We've found out in this thread that some members don't consider this forum to be equivalent to a mixed group. Some don't even feel they are talking to people.If an individual has no rule of thumb for mixed company, then their usage of profanity is bound by the forum guidelines. Ultimately, individuals have to decide who they wish to converse with whether they dislike the profanity in the post, lack of capitals, run-on sentences, or poor grammar.

quote:

---

It's precisely by that explanation that profanity is most likely to sell the point to those who view it as transgressive, because it indicates so much conviction that one must transgress the boundary against profanity to express it. That's a lot of conviction! People who are blase about profanity don't find it startling or convincing. They may not even notice its presence. But people who do find profanity offensive are far more likely to be convinced by it, because to them it indicates a substantial degree of conviction if one must transgress the boundary against profanity to express its extent.

---

People listening to the same message with mild profanity and then without do find the one with profanity more passionate and convincing. They didn't say whether they were listening to a man or a woman, but profanity serves men more than women concerning social power and acceptance. They also didn't run the test with more persuasive speech without profanity. It may or may not have been perceived just as passionate. It doesn't show me that profanity is the only means to showing conviction or passion.The next question (not necessarily for this thread) would be does mild profanity make people choose incorrect information over right information?In a study on Sex Differences in Uses and Perceptions of Profanity, men and women agree that profanity shouldn't be used in mixed company.Bottom line: We request (not demand) that people use capitals, punctuation, better sentences, etc., but people are made to feel they are out of line to request (not demand) a poster not to use profanity when responding to them. Why the difference?

I found the responses on profanity fascinating. Hopefully both sides learned something. (I did, which is good given my other ID.)We have to remember that in a written medium, the reader applies the emotion to what we write. The reader can't see our body language, facial expressions or hear our tone of voice. That's why authors use descriptive words to tell us what emotion to read into the words the character speaks.This is what I've gleaned from the discussion. (Yes, this is only my opinion.) For those who are offended by profanity.
If you've followed the discussion, you've hopefully learned that discriminate use of profanity is used for emphasis and not necessarily anger. In an adversarial situation one may be reading the wrong emotion into the comments. Try to discern the difference between use for emphasis and use for anger or personal insults. If profanity muddies the the point of the poster, ask nicely for clarification. Try to avoid assuming anger. For those who use profanity.
Opponents who don't use profanity may read profanity as anger, especially the harsher sexual profanity. Studies have shown that while mild profanity may bring like minded people to feel your passion and agree with your point, it can have the opposite effect for people who aren't agreeable to your overall message and are offended by profanity. Indiscriminate use of profanity is annoying and gets old. The profanity loses emphasis.Common sense tells us that if we don't like the way someone writes (just as with talking), don't converse with them.

quote:

---

Not the same thing. That's important, because it completely undercuts your point about using profanity making someone "different" than another person who doesn't. We take our cues from the people around us. If they're different than us, we still take cues from them.

---

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. I really don't understand what you're saying my point is that is supposedly undercut.

quote:

---

I don't understand how it is that you can ask me "where am I deciding for others when they can use profanty?" and then in the very next sentence you're providing your decision, on Hooah's behalf, about when he can or can't use profanity.

​

You want to know where you're doing it? How about in the text box where you're typing those messages, did you look there? Because that's where it's happening.

---

Not very helpful. Just as before, no quotes and no links. Stating my position in a debate is not deciding for others or have you forgotten this is a debate forum?

quote:

---

You mean, do I not swear in front of women? No, I don't "adjust my profanity." I don't live in the 19th century.

---

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. If you don't refrain from profanity or change your degree of profanity in a mixed group, then I guess that's your rule of thumb. Just say it.

quote:

---

So if there are alternatives, profanity shouldn't be used? How on Earth could that be your decision to make for anyone else?

---

I'm not making a decision. I'm having a candid discussion and I'm very disappointed. I though you of all people would have been able to have a candid discussion concerning profanity in a written debate forum.You've resorted to the same tactics as the fundamentalist who have no evidence for their position of belief other than because they want to.We can't have understanding through discussion if you're more concerned with saving the sacred cow.You obviously don't want to provide any real information, 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.Personally, I don't care what you personally do, Crash, as long as it's within forum guidelines.Thanks for the go round Crash.

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 95Until 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.

quote:

---

But it still requires minor changes?!?

---

Only if they really, really, really, really, really want to.