Articulating In The Debates; The Proper And The Improper.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.

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. 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. Then by all means, correct my comprehension. Where have I failed to correctly apprehend your meaning? Both of those messages have responses from me which quote the relevant material from your posts. It's the part where you say "this is what you should and shouldn't do."

I don't have any specific study in mind, and I've already laid out at length what it has to do with profanity - people determine what is right or wrong based on cues from the people around them.If you still have questions about my position, you need to ask more specific questions, not telling lies about how I've refused to explain my meaning. ...and? Would you care to elaborate or inform us as to what your position really is? I mean, talk about not following through - you abandoned that train of thought so quickly you forgot to take the period with you! Where did you? Be specific. No, you didn't. Messages 104 and 130 are responses to my points, not clarifications of your positions. In several of your remarks, you don't "clarify", you contradict yourself by denying positions you previously were asserting. Except that you did, as I have repeatedly quoted you doing. I don't understand what this refers to. We don't have competing testimony about events that only the two of us were privy to, so I don't see how we could possibly be in a "he said, she said" situation. We're talking about remarks and arguments that you have made on the record, which are instantly available to anyone who chooses to go back and read them.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.