Toddler's cuss word on Modern Family draws ire (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57360900/toddlers-cuss-word-on-modern-family-draws-ire/)
I can understand why some people are touchy about cussing -- I do swear myself sometimes, but not much, and I'll admit it shocks me when I hear it out of kids. But in this case I think the anti-swearing activists are missing the point and over-reacting. We all know little kids say what they hear, whether they understand it or not, and it can pop out at awkward times and places, like weddings.
In the case of this show, the cussing doesn't seem gratuitious, but a way of introducing a common problem for parents -- the dreaded learning moment, when you have to explain something essential and rather complex to someone very young without either freaking them out or confusing them even more than they already are.
It's just a word, people really need to grow up.
Quote
"If we don't, at least ABC knows that people all over the world don't want to have a 2-year-old saying the 'F-bomb' on TV."
Yes! People all over the world actually care what comes out of some tiny little brat's mouth... ::)
Profanity has its uses. For instance, a very long string of curses is called for when you hit your favourite finger with a hammer or when you drop your perfect sandwich good stuff down on the floor.
I agree that they are over-reacting. I try not to curse too much, but it does happen. And a toddler saying fuck is probably like me rattling off nuclear physics. It sounds cool, but in the end, we both have no clue what we're saying. :D
Quote"Our main goal is to stop this from happening," said McKay Hatch, an 18-year-old college student who founded the No Cussing Club in 2007
Not to indulge in an ad hominem attacks, but that guy sounds like he'd be a real hoot at parties.
This guy is totally missing the point, I think. I agree with BookCats, the point is that kids imitate what they hear, and it
is a shocking moment as a parent when your kid drops their first f bomb. It happens. It's actually not a huge deal, unless you make it into a huge deal, and mostly it's a good reminder that little pitchers have big ears. I think Mr. Hatch needs to grow up. There are times when a well placed expletive is almost a work of art.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 18, 2012, 05:41:28 PM
Quote
"If we don't, at least ABC knows that people all over the world don't want to have a 2-year-old saying the 'F-bomb' on TV."
Yes! People all over the world actually care what comes out of some tiny little brat's mouth... ::)
Hey! She's a very cute tiny little brat, probably a worthy appetizer for the Asmo.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 18, 2012, 06:04:57 PM
Hey! She's a very cute tiny little brat, probably a worthy appetizer for the Asmo.
Yes. If people are too dissatisfied with the kid's language, The Asmo has the perfect cure. Stuff an apple into its mouth, stick it on a spit and roast until ready. Add a dash of lemon and serve with mashed potatoes and red wine.
Just like Ali mentioned above, kids imitate what they hear, especially at that age. If you hear them.curse, there are very.limited sources where they got it from. Be a responsible parent and not freak out over it. It is not a big deal. I can't believe this is what america freaks out over on t.v. Shut up, america.
Cursing is not cool, but dressing up four year olds with padded bras amd make up for beauty pagents is totalllly cool. e_e;; i'm looking at you, Texas.
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 05:37:53 PM
It's just a word, people really need to grow up.
Words are symbols of meaning, they convey information, emotional intent etc. To say "It's just a word." is to obviate the purpose of the written language. If words held no transmittable meaning "You miserable fucking cunt!" would be no different from "I love you!".
I love you, Tank. ;D
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 19, 2012, 02:57:47 PM
I love you, Tank. ;D
I think you're a miserable fucking cunt ;D
Even though you're a fucking wanker, I still adore you, Tank. :)
I do believe words have meaning as well, but when a kid is unaware, just sit him/her doen to explain why it isn't a nice word to say. They usually get it.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
Even though you're a fucking wanker, I still adore you, Tank. :)
I do believe words have meaning as well, but when a kid is unaware, just sit him/her doen to explain why it isn't a nice word to say. They usually get it.
Yes. Kids quickly learn what is acceptable language in a given situation. Showing bad language on kids TV is not a good idea as it implies that some language is acceptable in all circumstances, which it is not.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 19, 2012, 02:57:47 PM
I love you, Tank. ;D
Hahaha, nice one.
I don't see any issue with the way the program used swearing, it was attempting to deal with that first moment when a child swears and the parent has to try and sort it out, even though they probably learned that language from their parents. Could make for some good comedic moments. Some people are over touchy about language but I personally like swearing especially when its used creatively like in the TV series 'The Thick of It', 'Nathan Barley' and 'Dead Set'.
Well then, of we're going to play that game, I hate all of you. :P
Quote from: Tank on January 19, 2012, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
Even though you're a fucking wanker, I still adore you, Tank. :)
I do believe words have meaning as well, but when a kid is unaware, just sit him/her doen to explain why it isn't a nice word to say. They usually get it.
Yes. Kids quickly learn what is acceptable language in a given situation. Showing bad language on kids TV is not a good idea as it implies that some language is acceptable in all circumstances, which it is not.
To me , I don't watch a lot of t.v . That show is meant to break what american families consider "the norm." Me, personally, I think it's great, aside from the obnoxious stereotypical gay men.
I'm sure every parent has gone thtough the cursing phase, sex talk, beer phase, etc.
I think this show is pretty okay, especially compared to garbage like jersey shore and ANY SHOW on VH1, where girls think Snooki.is a role model. Now, that's disturbing.
My point is: if you dont know what you're kids are watching /doing, then get on it I guess. You cant control them, but you can help them know that tv/media is NOT REALITY. Dont take tv too seriously.
I hate you the most, budhorse. XD <3
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 04:08:44 PM
I'm sure every parent has gone thtough the cursing phase, sex talk, beer phase, etc.
No, some kids go through their phases alone. The Asmo, for instance.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Tank, you're one of my new favorite fucking people.
I agree that words have meaning, but I don't think that's the point of that episode. The F word doesn't seem to have much real meaning to a 2 year old, other than they know that it's "bad". But IME, the more you react to it, the more they realize that it's a powerful word, and the more likely they are to use it again. If you just calmly say "That's not a nice word, we don't use that word", that seems more effective. Of course, when I said "That's not a nice word, we don't use that word" my son came back with "Daddy does!"
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 04:08:44 PM
I'm sure every parent has gone thtough the cursing phase, sex talk, beer phase, etc.
No, some kids go through their phases alone. The Asmo, for instance.
Well, so did I. My parents duvorced when I was 6, and I basically raused myself after 12 due to my mom's alcohoism.
I'm sorry I didnt word that better ;;
*hugs the Asmo* <3
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 04:42:52 PM
Well, so did I. My parents duvorced when I was 6, and I basically raused myself after 12 due to my mom's alcohoism.
I'm sorry I didnt word that better ;;
*hugs the Asmo* <3
It's ok - I was just correting the wording error. Considering the alternatives, going through my phases alone was probably the very best thing for me.
Quote from: Tank on January 19, 2012, 02:23:13 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 05:37:53 PM
It's just a word, people really need to grow up.
Words are symbols of meaning, they convey information, emotional intent etc. To say "It's just a word." is to obviate the purpose of the written language. If words held no transmittable meaning "You miserable fucking cunt!" would be no different from "I love you!".
Yes, words have meanings, I'm not nor will I ever dispute that. It seems very silly to me that you would even bring that up. Now the second thing you said demonstrates my point against words just being words. My issue is that people aren't throwing up a hissy fit over the meaning of the word, but the word itself. It's when people make a big stink over the word "shit" but not not "crap", "poop" or "feces". It's not the meaning people have a problem with, but the word, which I find childish, because they're just words.
Now, "you miserable fucking cunt" isn't offense because of the individual words. "You" is hardly offensive. "Miserable" is equally not offensive. "Fucking" is offensive to some, but other things that mean the same thing is not offensive to people, so again, it's the word that they find offensive, not the meaning. And "cunt" is about the same as "fucking" in terms of why people are offended by it and not the meaning. When you add them all in together, "you miserable fucking cunt" then the whole statement is only thing I can see a decent reason for people to take offense, but singling out certain words as offensive is just childish.
In the same way that "I", "love" and "you" are pretty useless on their own, but then put together describe how one feels about another, "you miserable fucking cunt" is useless unless put together to describe how one feels about another person.
In short: it's not the meaning of the words that people find offensive, apparently the only reason people find the words offensive is because people find the words offensive.
And different people find different things offensive. Can't please everyone.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
And different people find different things offensive. Can't please everyone.
Nor should you try to, methink.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 08:56:33 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
And different people find different things offensive. Can't please everyone.
Nor should you try to, methink.
I think people have the right to be offended, but I don't think they have the right to control how I speak.
Quote from: Davin on January 19, 2012, 09:45:42 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 19, 2012, 08:56:33 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 19, 2012, 08:55:36 PM
And different people find different things offensive. Can't please everyone.
Nor should you try to, methink.
I think people have the right to be offended, but I don't think they have the right to control how I speak.
Oh, they do have a right to be offended. A right never to be offended though... That's another story.
I agree, Asmo.
My dad got on my case cuz I cursed about something as a little kid got on the elevator. Caught the end of my rant. Too fucking bad.
I remember a Rugrats episode on swearing, good old Rugrats.
Derek and Clive have their way with words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTifRi3qDkU
Making me feel old, Puddin. So remember Rugrats.
Quote from: Ali on January 19, 2012, 04:22:54 PM
;D ;D ;D ;D
Tank, you're one of my new favorite fucking people.
I agree that words have meaning, but I don't think that's the point of that episode. The F word doesn't seem to have much real meaning to a 2 year old, other than they know that it's "bad". But IME, the more you react to it, the more they realize that it's a powerful word, and the more likely they are to use it again. If you just calmly say "That's not a nice word, we don't use that word", that seems more effective.
In my opinion this forum is nothing but a coven of shrieking, disease-riddled morons. (And I didn't use a single cuss word!)
You're right about the episode --it's an adult-oriented show, and the kid doesn't actually swear (she says "fudge" and her mouth is pixalated and the word bleeped to suggest the little tot said fuck). The comedy was supposed to be in her parents dealing with the common, awkward situation of a child innocently doing something considered inappropriate among adults. Of course, when you have to explain it . . .
QuoteOf course, when I said "That's not a nice word, we don't use that word" my son came back with "Daddy does!"
My funny cussing story does not involve a child, but my Dad, whom I heard swear only twice in my life and both times it was well deserved. One of them was at the reception after my brother and sister-in-law's wedding. Dad had just met my brother's new father-in-law for the first time, came back to the table where his wife and I were sitting, looked at us in disbelief and said, "what an asshole!" I nearly choked on my salad.
Quote from: Davin on January 19, 2012, 04:51:46 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 19, 2012, 02:23:13 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 18, 2012, 05:37:53 PM
It's just a word, people really need to grow up.
Words are symbols of meaning, they convey information, emotional intent etc. To say "It's just a word." is to obviate the purpose of the written language. If words held no transmittable meaning "You miserable fucking cunt!" would be no different from "I love you!".
Yes, words have meanings, I'm not nor will I ever dispute that. It seems very silly to me that you would even bring that up. Now the second thing you said demonstrates my point against words just being words. My issue is that people aren't throwing up a hissy fit over the meaning of the word, but the word itself. It's when people make a big stink over the word "shit" but not not "crap", "poop" or "feces". It's not the meaning people have a problem with, but the word, which I find childish, because they're just words.
Now, "you miserable fucking cunt" isn't offense because of the individual words. "You" is hardly offensive. "Miserable" is equally not offensive. "Fucking" is offensive to some, but other things that mean the same thing is not offensive to people, so again, it's the word that they find offensive, not the meaning. And "cunt" is about the same as "fucking" in terms of why people are offended by it and not the meaning. When you add them all in together, "you miserable fucking cunt" then the whole statement is only thing I can see a decent reason for people to take offense, but singling out certain words as offensive is just childish.
In the same way that "I", "love" and "you" are pretty useless on their own, but then put together describe how one feels about another, "you miserable fucking cunt" is useless unless put together to describe how one feels about another person.
In short: it's not the meaning of the words that people find offensive, apparently the only reason people find the words offensive is because people find the words offensive.
Ok. So is the word 'Glarsmit' offensive or not?
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 09:34:55 AMOk. So is the word 'Glarsmit' offensive or not?
I don't think any words are offensive. In order for me to even think something is offensive, it would need to be more than just a word, but someone expressing that they think something offensive about me... and then it's not the word that's offensive, it's what the other person meant. Words in themselves are pieces of a thought, much like flour is pretty useless on its own but cake is a delicious lie.
I used to swear as a teenager with my peers.
I'd go home and I wouldn't swear, it was switchable.
By the time I was twenty I didn't swear much.
Driving is a possible exception, it's a life and death thing.
Golf, I played golf, it's such a frustrating thing.
I don't think I sweared much at all in front of my children.
I wouldn't have liked them to swear when little.
They hardly do now, not at home anyway.
Why is it that the kids need to be protected from profanity, rather than taught to use it to better express themselves?
Quote from: Asmodean on January 20, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
Why is it that the kids need to be protected from profanity, rather than taught to use it to better express themselves?
Probably the same reason parents lie to their kids to believe in god instead of allowing them to make their own choices.
I can give them a few keywords to google and they'll never believe in god again. XD
And what about lying to kids about the baby-making process? What's up with that? >:(
Because, apparently words in the baby-making process are just as bad as curse words now. ::)
Mommy meets daddy, daddy sticks his penis into mommy's vagina. Daddy squirts some sperm into mommy. One tiny specklet meets the egg. The egg grows into a baby.
How be that uncivil in any way? ???
I never understood lying about where babies come from. I'm not a parent, nor will.i ever be, but I just find that irritating as hell.
You dont even have to go into detail about sex. Just discuss sperm, fertilization , and the fetus growing in the womb.
Oh nooo, it is tooooo much for our "innocent" children. e__e
Quote from: Asmodean on January 20, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
And what about lying to kids about the baby-making process? What's up with that? >:(
I think that's just an awkward thing a lot of times. I have tried to be fairly frank with my son thus far, and not use cutesie words for his body parts. He calls his penis a penis, because that's what it is. Even so, I recently had a fairly awkward (for me) conversation with him. I had just given him a bath, and he was wrapped in a big towel. He goes "Mommy! I'm pulling on my penis! It feels funny!" I hadn't really thought ahead of time what I was going to say to a penis pulling conversation with my 3 year old, so I was just making it up on the fly. Basically, I told him that it's his penis and he's free to pull on it if he likes, but some things are done in private, such as going to the bathroom and pulling on your penis. Then he says "Do you pull on your penis?" Another awkward moment. Do I really want to talk about my own habits to my 3 year old? So I side step the question and say "Women don't have penises." "What do they have?" "Vaginas." "You have a VAGINA?!?" "Yes." "Oh, okay." I think I handled it okay, but it was still really embarassing for me, so I can kind of see why some people freeze and just start making stuff up. When I went downstairs my husband was like "Was he yelling 'vagina' up there?"
Quote from: Asmodean on January 20, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
Why is it that the kids need to be protected from profanity, rather than taught to use it to better express themselves?
Does it help them better express themselves?
If they were taught it they'd abandon it and seek something else to offend with.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 20, 2012, 04:22:36 PM
Mommy meets daddy, daddy sticks his penis into mommy's vagina. Daddy squirts some sperm into mommy. One tiny specklet meets the egg. The egg grows into a baby.
How be that uncivil in any way? ???
I'm not sure if most pre teens would be well served by witnessing their parents going through the motions.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 20, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
Does it help them better express themselves?
If they were taught it they'd abandon it and seek something else to offend with.
Who knows, maybe one day dog will be a curse word.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 20, 2012, 05:14:11 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 20, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
Does it help them better express themselves?
If they were taught it they'd abandon it and seek something else to offend with.
Who knows, maybe one day dog will be a curse word.
And what would happen if people stopped being offended by words? Then they'd be seeking endlessly for a magical offensive word that doesn't exist. And hopefully they'd be forced to be offensive creatively.
By the way, what is 'Glarsmit'?
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 09:34:55 AMOk. So is the word 'Glarsmit' offensive or not?
I don't think any words are offensive. In order for me to even think something is offensive, it would need to be more than just a word, but someone expressing that they think something offensive about me... and then it's not the word that's offensive, it's what the other person meant. Words in themselves are pieces of a thought, much like flour is pretty useless on its own but cake is a delicious lie.
Then it appears we will have to agree to differ ;D
Quote from: Ali on January 20, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
By the way, what is 'Glarsmit'?
A nonsense word I made up to illustrate that the meaning of a word is only conveyed if you know what it means before you read/hear it. Thus any random collection of letters/sounds conveys no meaning, the actual letters in the word are simply the symbolic construct humans use to communicate meaning.
I do decree that glarsmit now means to be utterly taken by surprise at the sight of a never before see word. ;D
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 20, 2012, 06:00:05 PM
I do decree that glarsmit now means to be utterly taken by surprise at the sight of a never before see word. ;D
:D
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 20, 2012, 06:00:05 PM
I do decree that glarsmit now means to be utterly taken by surprise at the sight of a never before see word. ;D
Motion seconded and passed!
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 20, 2012, 06:00:05 PM
I do decree that glarsmit now means to be utterly taken by surprise at the sight of a never before see word. ;D
It kind of works but glarsmit isn't very catchy.
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 20, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
By the way, what is 'Glarsmit'?
A nonsense word I made up to illustrate that the meaning of a word is only conveyed if you know what it means before you read/hear it. Thus any random collection of letters/sounds conveys no meaning, the actual letters in the word are simply the symbolic construct humans use to communicate meaning.
But I had never disputed this, nor would I ever say that random sounds on their own convey meaning. This, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 20, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
By the way, what is 'Glarsmit'?
A nonsense word I made up to illustrate that the meaning of a word is only conveyed if you know what it means before you read/hear it. Thus any random collection of letters/sounds conveys no meaning, the actual letters in the word are simply the symbolic construct humans use to communicate meaning.
But I had never disputed this, nor would I ever say that random sounds on their own convey meaning. This, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".
Ah! I understand what you're getting at now, I think. I think that the two examples that you give are not actually emotionally equialent. To me the level of the aggression in "you miserable fucking cunt" being far higher than theother phrase. And to me that is because of the use of 'taboo' language.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 20, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
I'm not sure if most pre teens would be well served by witnessing their parents going through the motions.
The few parents I know who pretty much did it the Asmo way got reactions ranging from "Oh." to a slightly creeped out "Yuck!"
Harm in that, The Asmo sees not.
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 06:24:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 20, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
By the way, what is 'Glarsmit'?
A nonsense word I made up to illustrate that the meaning of a word is only conveyed if you know what it means before you read/hear it. Thus any random collection of letters/sounds conveys no meaning, the actual letters in the word are simply the symbolic construct humans use to communicate meaning.
But I had never disputed this, nor would I ever say that random sounds on their own convey meaning. This, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".
Ah! I understand what you're getting at now, I think. I think that the two examples that you give are not actually emotionally equialent. To me the level of the aggression in "you miserable fucking cunt" being far higher than theother phrase. And to me that is because of the use of 'taboo' language.
But why is that language "taboo" in the first place? Can you provide a description of which words are "bad" words to let me know how to determine which words they are without using the words as an example?
This is not meant as a Socratic Method or some kind of trick. The reason I ask for this definition is that I cannot find one, yet people act as if one should not say certain words. I don't think such a definition exists, just lists of words. Which leads me to think that the words themselves have no offensive nature on their own, it's merely because people treat their offensiveness as if it were sacred and thereby use that to irrationally attempt to limit my speech. Other people attempting to limit my speech is something I find far more offensive than any word. And people supporting that certain words have a sacred offensiveness only helps people to limit my speech.
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 06:38:28 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 06:24:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 20, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
By the way, what is 'Glarsmit'?
A nonsense word I made up to illustrate that the meaning of a word is only conveyed if you know what it means before you read/hear it. Thus any random collection of letters/sounds conveys no meaning, the actual letters in the word are simply the symbolic construct humans use to communicate meaning.
But I had never disputed this, nor would I ever say that random sounds on their own convey meaning. This, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".
Ah! I understand what you're getting at now, I think. I think that the two examples that you give are not actually emotionally equialent. To me the level of the aggression in "you miserable fucking cunt" being far higher than theother phrase. And to me that is because of the use of 'taboo' language.
But why is that language "taboo" in the first place? Can you provide a description of which words are "bad" words to let me know how to determine which words they are without using the words as an example?
This is not meant as a Socratic Method or some kind of trick. The reason I ask for this definition is that I cannot find one, yet people act as if one should not say certain words. I don't think such a definition exists, just lists of words. Which leads me to think that the words themselves have no offensive nature on their own, it's merely because people treat their offensiveness as if it were sacred and thereby use that to irrationally attempt to limit my speech. Other people attempting to limit my speech is something I find far more offensive than any word. And people supporting that certain words have a sacred offensiveness only helps people to limit my speech.
There isn't a 'list' AFAIK. I think it's a matter of the social group one lives in and the norms within that group overlaid with the circumstances and subjet matter of the discussion taking place. It's much easier to tell a kid "That's a bad word" than to go through a detailed discussion of when some words are acceptable and when they are not. As one gets older one normally learns by example when and why to use particular language and that goes for all language 'bad' or not.
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 06:55:58 PMThere isn't a 'list' AFAIK. I think it's a matter of the social group one lives in and the norms within that group overlaid with the circumstances and subjet matter of the discussion taking place. It's much easier to tell a kid "That's a bad word" than to go through a detailed discussion of when some words are acceptable and when they are not. As one gets older one normally learns by example when and why to use particular language and that goes for all language 'bad' or not.
Then I suppose it's my failure, because I can't understand the examples. I think raising a kid saying, "that is a bad word" without knowing why it is a bad word, is not a good example of critical thinking. When one learns to choose their language based on a situation, that should be their choice, not the choice of others (unless in someone else's home, who decides to evict anyone for any reason... because it's their home). Which brings me back to why I find it irrational: the word is offensive because poeple think the word is offensive. I guess there is no more to go into on this, you and others seem to hold the words as offensive without questioning, and I'm just supposed accept that they're offensive merely because you and others take offense to them. Much like Muslims take drawing cartoons of Muhammad offensive and want everyone to not draw them. I'll admit that the comparison is extreme in regards to how some Muslims had violently reacted, but the essential nature of the argument is the same.
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 07:16:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 06:55:58 PMThere isn't a 'list' AFAIK. I think it's a matter of the social group one lives in and the norms within that group overlaid with the circumstances and subjet matter of the discussion taking place. It's much easier to tell a kid "That's a bad word" than to go through a detailed discussion of when some words are acceptable and when they are not. As one gets older one normally learns by example when and why to use particular language and that goes for all language 'bad' or not.
Then I suppose it's my failure, because I can't understand the examples. I think raising a kid saying, "that is a bad word" without knowing why it is a bad word, is not a good example of critical thinking. When one learns to choose their language based on a situation, that should be their choice, not the choice of others (unless in someone else's home, who decides to evict anyone for any reason... because it's their home). Which brings me back to why I find it irrational: the word is offensive because poeple think the word is offensive. I guess there is no more to go into on this, you and others seem to hold the words as offensive without questioning, and I'm just supposed accept that they're offensive merely because you and others take offense to them. Much like Muslims take drawing cartoons of Muhammad offensive and want everyone to not draw them. I'll admit that the comparison is extreme in regards to how some Muslims had violently reacted, but the essential nature of the argument is the same.
Interesting points. While I may consider/understand a word to be in the group generally considered 'offensive' that doesn't mean I find them offensive if used in general conversation or say hearing them on the TV. In those contexts I don't find any word offensive. But I am aware that others might. Thus I told my kids that some words shouldn't be used on a day-to-day basis.
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2012, 07:27:13 PMInteresting points. While I may consider/understand a word to be in the group generally considered 'offensive' that doesn't mean I find them offensive if used in general conversation or say hearing them on the TV. In those contexts I don't find any word offensive. But I am aware that others might. Thus I told my kids that some words shouldn't be used on a day-to-day basis.
Ah yes, my baseless assumptions should be corrected. I can understand letting children be aware of what others might find offensive, I think it's a good trait to be moderately considerate of others.
If I may interject, one more angle of this argument not yet expressed is the stigma attached to use of certain words in society at large. That is reason enough to curtail children's use of profanity.
I refrain from using 'bad' language in front of my son because I don't want him using the same words. Not because it is itself offensive to other people (though, of course it is), but because he will be viewed much more negatively by the people around him. So when I say "don't use that word", and he replies "why not?", my answer is "because people hearing you use that word will think you're not very clever". That is the fact of it. The explanation is accepted - and heeded with positive understanding.
I find great pleasure in swearing around friends (and other people who already know I'm not very clever), but I have learned the situations where it might be to my detriment (at a work meeting for example) to use bad language. My children, at their age, are incapable of making such a judgement so I therefore consider it important to disallow profanity in any situation.
Quote from: RunFromMyLife on January 21, 2012, 12:16:52 AM
I actually just watched this episode last night.
I love swearing and I do it often. I can't believe people are offended by this episode and are throwing fits. It's just another case where I want people to pick their fucking battles. It was one episode. It was bleeped out. It wasn't gratuitous. Obviously it served its purpose for a sitcom plot...a plot which I'm sure many parents can relate to.
The final scene where Lily swears is CUTE (in my opinion). Her dad was crying because he always cries at weddings. She knew swearing would make him laugh so she did it. She didn't swear because she knew the meaning of what she was saying and was trying to be offensive. She only did it because she thought her dad was sad and needed to laugh. That's sweet.
That's nice in the contextual bubble of a sitcom, but in reality when the child goes to school and considers profanity a means to humour and/or consolation we have a socially inappropriate learned use of language.
I'm not lambasting this use of 'offensive' language in this show - it worked in its own context. But the secondary argument about common use of profanity by minors is a separate issue.
The question of offence does not bother me, it is the stigma attached to use of language that is most damaging - to the swearer, not the swearee.
"What's a Twat" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=9160.45;num_replies=61)
if the kid is under 4 the funny word may be inconvenient, embarasing or cute - they replicate, mime and reflect what the caretaker-parent shines. If you dont want that occuring, dont swear yourself, but also grab a presciption for anxiolytics because your control-freaking verges to OCD symptoms, chill out, smoke a spliff, relax
if the kid goes to school, you just sit, watch and learn. Instruct it so that it learns the meaning and all-important associations that convey the actual communication in emotions. if the school is rough they will come back not only knowing swear words but also knowing their use and effect- the meaning doesnt matter at that stage.
between adults, I have differentially appreciated a lot of swearing inside witty critisism and biting sarcasm that doubled the shocking effect from all corners. I have also identified imbeciles/morons that do not see any light at all and the shock response of the few swear words is all that there is in their attempt for communication. Also i have seen swearing as inappropriate or discordant when the general vibe and sensation of what is communicated has no call for profanity.
everything goes, havent and probably wont see the tv show
How can a word - any word - be shocking? It's a combination of sounds, that gives something a sound value.
So someone calls your dear old grandma a bitch. To you, the assessment is incorrect, but how does it carry enough weight to create sufficient impact on your or her life to be shockingly incorrect?
And if it is indeed correct, well, what's the problem?
Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2012, 12:23:24 PM
How can a word - any word - be shocking?
to the rest of your argument, especially if its correct, it is hurtfull. No one likes the mirror when its depth of reflection mirrors the wrinkles and zits of behaviour.
the absurd or not so reasonable lies when the fuck/bitch etc characterisation is obviously not a fitting description.
there the reason is word connotations
fornication or whoring , fuck or sex, make love, all describe coitus but carry also a judgement
eskimoes have 17(?) words for snow, each describing a further attribute of the varieties not familiar outside the poles
hence words do carry associated meaning so much so that they reach symbolism
Quote from: pytheas on January 23, 2012, 02:33:27 PM
No one likes the mirror when its depth of reflection mirrors the wrinkles and zits of behaviour.
"No-one" likes a mirror that makes them look fat either.
I, however, do not think that I have any right to be offended if what someone says about me - no matter the wording - is correct, and no
cause to be offended if it is not.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 23, 2012, 02:56:04 PM
I, however, do not think that I have any right to be offended if what someone says about me - no matter the wording - is correct, and no cause to be offended if it is not.
sure
the issue with right is what you do when offended. Also a little scepticism as to the level of conscious control in the generation of offense responses. we reason upon the emotion and subdue it at best. If it doesnt arise, how very desirable, but does it happen via a conscious block?
Edit: Quotes fixed - Tank
Oh, it is quite possible to offend me. However, it will take more than curses or bringing up aspects of my life or personality - be they true or false. Name-calling goes in one ear and out the other unless you are one of the tiny handful of people whos opinion of me I respect and/or value, in which case an examination of causes is warranted.
I'm not an insecure person, and I do know myself, my strengths, weaknesses and capabilities well enough... Maybe that's why I'm so laid back when it comes to words thrown at me.
In some cases, I may decide to take offence, but that would normally be the result of someone spreading flase information about me around in a way that negatively affects me somehow.
So to answer the question, no, I do not supress being offended. Quite the opposite, in fact. I decide whether or not I should be and act accordingly.
crystal, dear forumite
the ballgame is in knowing thyself
the practical attributes of wisdom
not to linger on co-precipitates
there is an oppinion= we should respect, befriend or value all people, at least the more (the merrier). I haven't managed, though I gave it a shot. In times of distress I devalued my standards to include a wider more bland entourage. The operation resulted in me offending myself.
They do say that although everyone was permitted in the garden, a newly arrived member was advised and guided to meet and bond with alike minded people
I am out searching my tiny percentage, very hard to gather in a physical perspiring form. I believe there are places that differentially congregate more certain types.
I feel I belong in the society circle the movie Simon(2004) -dutch production- is played in. Beautiful subconsiously humanist moral movie- I wont spoil the plot just in case.
I have not seen that one, so you have probably just saved The Asmo from a night of boredom :D
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 20, 2012, 09:59:10 PM
If I may interject, one more angle of this argument not yet expressed is the stigma attached to use of certain words in society at large. That is reason enough to curtail children's use of profanity.
I refrain from using 'bad' language in front of my son because I don't want him using the same words. Not because it is itself offensive to other people (though, of course it is), but because he will be viewed much more negatively by the people around him. So when I say "don't use that word", and he replies "why not?", my answer is "because people hearing you use that word will think you're not very clever". That is the fact of it. The explanation is accepted - and heeded with positive understanding.
I find great pleasure in swearing around friends (and other people who already know I'm not very clever), but I have learned the situations where it might be to my detriment (at a work meeting for example) to use bad language. My children, at their age, are incapable of making such a judgement so I therefore consider it important to disallow profanity in any situation.
I think the bolded is a bad characterisation of those who use profanity and should not be taught or supported by anyone.
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2012, 05:09:04 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 20, 2012, 09:59:10 PM
If I may interject, one more angle of this argument not yet expressed is the stigma attached to use of certain words in society at large. That is reason enough to curtail children's use of profanity.
I refrain from using 'bad' language in front of my son because I don't want him using the same words. Not because it is itself offensive to other people (though, of course it is), but because he will be viewed much more negatively by the people around him. So when I say "don't use that word", and he replies "why not?", my answer is "because people hearing you use that word will think you're not very clever". That is the fact of it. The explanation is accepted - and heeded with positive understanding.
I find great pleasure in swearing around friends (and other people who already know I'm not very clever), but I have learned the situations where it might be to my detriment (at a work meeting for example) to use bad language. My children, at their age, are incapable of making such a judgement so I therefore consider it important to disallow profanity in any situation.
I think the bolded is a bad characterisation of those who use profanity and should not be taught or supported by anyone.
I absolutely agree with you. It is a very real and widespread prejudice though whether we like it or not.
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 06:11:44 PMThis, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".
If I'm following you correctly Davin, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with this. Tank, you argue that "you miserable fucking cunt" carries an emotional charge that the other phrase does not, but of course it's emotionally charged because we've been taught to find it so. Cunt isn't going to be offensive to someone who doesn't speak English the same as Fotze isn't offensive to people who don't speak German. The words themselves need context to be offensive-it's not a power the individual words hold on their own. Although what I do find interesting is that many words are offensive across different languages and cultures-Fotze IS offensive in German like cunt is in English, and the words are equivalent. But then between British and American English, fanny goes from meaning vagina to meaning ass. Maybe Tank or someone else could elaborate on how offensive fanny might be perceived in a culture that uses British English, but I don't imagine most Americans would be incensed if someone said "ouch, I fell on my fanny and boy it hurt!".
There are so many nuances to language-even something "offensive" could sometimes be seen positively. Think about it-"he's a stupid motherfucker" carries a whole different connotation than "he's a badass motherfucker". One of those reads as an insult, the other a compliment, and yet the same supposedly offensive word was used in both. Then of course there is prick/dick/asshole vs cunt. All of these words are considered offensive, but I'd argue that cunt is more offensive to most people than prick/dick and yet both of those are words for genitalia. Asshole is maybe more neutral because everyone has one, I guess. I'll have to see if I can't dig up the article, but I remember reading a few years ago that "cunt" became offensive because it was a way of further marginalizing women, by making their sex a dirty, nasty thing. Makes you think.
Quote from: philosoraptor on January 23, 2012, 07:15:19 PM
Maybe Tank or someone else could elaborate on how offensive fanny might be perceived in a culture that uses British English, but I don't imagine most Americans would be incensed if someone said "ouch, I fell on my fanny and boy it hurt!".
Not offensive in the slightest its parallel with calling a penis a willy. When I hear Americans use the word fanny in reference to their backside it usually just makes me laugh as its usually used in complete innocence, I must have laughed for a good ten minuets when my little cousin said her fanny was hurting from horse riding.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 23, 2012, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2012, 05:09:04 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 20, 2012, 09:59:10 PM
If I may interject, one more angle of this argument not yet expressed is the stigma attached to use of certain words in society at large. That is reason enough to curtail children's use of profanity.
I refrain from using 'bad' language in front of my son because I don't want him using the same words. Not because it is itself offensive to other people (though, of course it is), but because he will be viewed much more negatively by the people around him. So when I say "don't use that word", and he replies "why not?", my answer is "because people hearing you use that word will think you're not very clever". That is the fact of it. The explanation is accepted - and heeded with positive understanding.
I find great pleasure in swearing around friends (and other people who already know I'm not very clever), but I have learned the situations where it might be to my detriment (at a work meeting for example) to use bad language. My children, at their age, are incapable of making such a judgement so I therefore consider it important to disallow profanity in any situation.
I think the bolded is a bad characterisation of those who use profanity and should not be taught or supported by anyone.
I absolutely agree with you. It is a very real and widespread prejudice though whether we like it or not.
I don't like people trying to tell me which words I can or can't say, so I'm doing something about it by questioning it and not perpetuating it. The very idea that someone would express that not limiting their word choice makes them less clever than those who limit their word choice for illogical reasons, is very silly and lacking in self-awareness.
Quote from: philosoraptor on January 23, 2012, 07:15:19 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 20, 2012, 06:11:44 PMThis, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".
If I'm following you correctly Davin, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with this.[...]
Yeah, I agree with what you've stated.
Quote from: Crow on January 23, 2012, 07:41:19 PM
Quote from: philosoraptor on January 23, 2012, 07:15:19 PM
Maybe Tank or someone else could elaborate on how offensive fanny might be perceived in a culture that uses British English, but I don't imagine most Americans would be incensed if someone said "ouch, I fell on my fanny and boy it hurt!".
Not offensive in the slightest its parallel with calling a penis a willy. When I hear Americans use the word fanny in reference to their backside it usually just makes me laugh as its usually used in complete innocence, I must have laughed for a good ten minuets when my little cousin said her fanny was hurting from horse riding.
Spot on.
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2012, 07:47:49 PM
I don't like people trying to tell me which words I can or can't say, so I'm doing something about it by questioning it and not perpetuating it. The very idea that someone would express that not limiting their word choice makes them less clever than those who limit their word choice for illogical reasons, is very silly and lacking in self-awareness.
It is not necessarily illogical. Cursing is a blunt tool for communicating ideas - unless emotive exclamation is the idea. If communication is the name of the game then why use cursing if you have other, sharper tools at your disposal? Is that silly?
I would prefer my children use only words suited to communicating ideas, and that means not exposing them to superfluous, redundant and negatively perceived terms.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 23, 2012, 10:55:18 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 23, 2012, 07:47:49 PM
I don't like people trying to tell me which words I can or can't say, so I'm doing something about it by questioning it and not perpetuating it. The very idea that someone would express that not limiting their word choice makes them less clever than those who limit their word choice for illogical reasons, is very silly and lacking in self-awareness.
It is not necessarily illogical. Cursing is a blunt tool for communicating ideas - unless emotive exclamation is the idea. If communication is the name of the game then why use cursing if you have other, sharper tools at your disposal? Is that silly?
By calling other words "sharper" you're perpetuating the illogical idea that certain words are less "sharp" than others. I find it silly to think that certain words shouldn't be used because people irrationaly think that some words are sharp and some are blunt. Or, pehaps you would be able to give the long overdue definition of which words are sharp and which are blunt? I mean, without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word.
Quote from: ScissorlegsI would prefer my children use only words suited to communicating ideas, and that means not exposing them to superfluous, redundant and negatively perceived terms.
Aye, as many parents would prefer their children to be just like all other around them, mediocrity is as fine a goal as any others. But to say that not using certain words to acheive this goal makes one more clever, is hilariously ironic. "Superfluous," if only people would refrain from most superfluous words... like using the word "superfluous" as a coordinate adjective along with the word "redundant." I did enjoy that joke, but do you actually make sure your children are not exposed to such uses? Do you also have your children protected from hearing all negatively perceived terms? If not (which is much more likely), then what is your rational for deciding which negatively perceived terms you'll allow your kids to hear and which you won't?
Quote from: Crow on January 23, 2012, 07:41:19 PM
Quote from: philosoraptor on January 23, 2012, 07:15:19 PM
Maybe Tank or someone else could elaborate on how offensive fanny might be perceived in a culture that uses British English, but I don't imagine most Americans would be incensed if someone said "ouch, I fell on my fanny and boy it hurt!".
Not offensive in the slightest its parallel with calling a penis a willy. When I hear Americans use the word fanny in reference to their backside it usually just makes me laugh as its usually used in complete innocence, I must have laughed for a good ten minuets when my little cousin said her fanny was hurting from horse riding.
That bothers me SO much. It's like "why are you using brit slang improperly??"
Americans can be such morons who dont bother to research their terms.
Fanny and bum. How hard is that to remember?
In an American interview with Kelly Osbourne, the woman asked was it embarrassing to show her fanny in a bikini?
And Kelly was like "wth, I did not show my fanny!"
I face palmed so hard.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 23, 2012, 10:55:18 PM
It is not necessarily illogical. Cursing is a blunt tool for communicating ideas - unless emotive exclamation is the idea. If communication is the name of the game then why use cursing if you have other, sharper tools at your disposal? Is that silly?
I would prefer my children use only words suited to communicating ideas, and that means not exposing them to superfluous, redundant and negatively perceived terms.
You know, your avatar, it would benefit from replacing the red face with an Asmo. Maybe flip it 180 degrees too, to keep proper alignment.
The Asmo is invading avatars, you see. And a robot, that's just... Useful. :D
I can't figure out where to put the Asmo face in my avatar. Maybe replacing my face? The only other thing I could think of was putting a floating Asmo over my midsection, but then that would make me look like either Asmo is eating his way through my middle, or has knocked me up.
Asmoboobs! ;D
Quote from: DavinBy calling other words "sharper" you're perpetuating the illogical idea that certain words are less "sharp" than others.
Exactly correct and but not illogical in the slightest. Do you really think you can communicate ANYTHING in detail and specifically with profanity? How about what an Apple looks like, or how you're feeling, or what you do for a living or explain how a helicopter works... or any other concept. Any profanity used would be non-specific, redundant and/or superfluous - (and your dislike of those adjectives is of no concern to me). You are not communicating anything useful by cursing. So, yes, some words are sharper tools for communicating than others.
Quote from: Davin
I find it silly to think that certain words shouldn't be used because people irrationaly think that some words are sharp and some are blunt. Or, pehaps you would be able to give the long overdue definition of which words are sharp and which are blunt? I mean, without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word.
I didn't ever say that certain words shouldn't be used. I am making a case for replacing profanity with other words - if they are within our vocabulary - where communicating with specifics and detail is desired.
Sharp/blunt: I'm sorry you are unable to grasp the rationale. It's really not a large leap of imagination to understand. An analogy with a knife will suffice; Sharp = effective, blunt = not effective.
Now, if we are to assume that the purpose of talking is to communicate then why would we choose to use profanity if we have more effective words (sharper tools) at our disposal.
Let's see some examples:
"That car is shit"
"He's a cunt"
"it's fucked"
There are no specifics here, or insight, or detail. What has been communicated? These words do not communicate effectively and it is not irrational to consider the communication tools blunt.
"That car is slow/small/pink/ugly"
"He's a pedant"
"It's burnt/soggy/ripped/motionless"
These words communicate much more effectively, with specifics, insight and detail.
Quote from: DavinAye, as many parents would prefer their children to be just like all other around them, mediocrity is as fine a goal as any others.
Unnecessary sarcasm aside, it is exactly the reason why I choose to educate my children out of the mediocrity of ineffective communication around which we live.
Quote from: DavinBut to say that not using certain words to acheive this goal makes one more clever, is hilariously ironic.
It doesn't make one more clever, and you know full well that is not what I said. To reiterate, it is a common prejudice that people will think you are not very clever if you use 'blunt' language. I do not apologise for wanting my children to communicate better than their local peers with a view to better connecting with the people who are likely to offer gainful employment.
Quote from: Davin
[pedantic rant, followed by]...but do you actually make sure your children are not exposed to such uses? Do you also have your children protected from hearing all negatively perceived terms?
I do what I can, but I do not deny the existence of such language. They are aware of it but are encouraged not to use it themselves. They understand there really isn't any need.
You will no doubt predictably want the last word on this, but I have no appetite for debating with sarcasm and pedantic questioning of my less-than-perfect English.
If you cannot argue the points - or (god forbid) concede when presented with reasonable argument then I'm out.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 24, 2012, 10:30:49 PM
Quote from: DavinBy calling other words "sharper" you're perpetuating the illogical idea that certain words are less "sharp" than others.
Exactly correct and but not illogical in the slightest. Do you really think you can communicate ANYTHING in detail and specifically with profanity? How about what an Apple looks like, or how you're feeling, or what you do for a living or explain how a helicopter works... or any other concept. Any profanity used would be non-specific, redundant and/or superfluous - (and your dislike of those adjectives is of no concern to me). You are not communicating anything useful by cursing. So, yes, some words are sharper tools for communicating than others.
It cannot be both exactly correct and logical, as illogical was part of what you are saying is exactly correct. I have no dislike of those adjectives, I just thought you were being funny in using redundant words to describe something you find redundant. But it's also funny and/or hilarious as the "dichotomy" you presented here. There are many things that are usefully communicated with "profanity": I fucked her. He stepped in shit. We all fell on our asses. She's being a bitch. He's being a little bitch. That smells like shit. And many more.
It is true that words that are not considered profane can be used to replace the "profanity," but that only shows exactly my point that the words are irrationally considered profane. If "shit" means the same thing as "poop" why is one considered profane?
Quote from: ScissorlegsQuote from: Davin
I find it silly to think that certain words shouldn't be used because people irrationaly think that some words are sharp and some are blunt. Or, pehaps you would be able to give the long overdue definition of which words are sharp and which are blunt? I mean, without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word.
I didn't ever say that certain words shouldn't be used. I am making a case for replacing profanity with other words - if they are within our vocabulary - where communicating with specifics and detail is desired.
Sharp/blunt: I'm sorry you are unable to grasp the rationale. It's really not a large leap of imagination to understand. An analogy with a knife will suffice; Sharp = effective, blunt = not effective.
Now, if we are to assume that the purpose of talking is to communicate then why would we choose to use profanity if we have more effective words (sharper tools) at our disposal.
I don't see your point. Blunt is as effective as sharp, just depends on what you're doing. Try driving a nail into wood with a very sharp blade, you'll find a blunt hammer more effective.
Quote from: ScissorlegsLet's see some examples:
"That car is shit"
"He's a cunt"
"it's fucked"
There are no specifics here, or insight, or detail. What has been communicated? These words do not communicate effectively and it is not irrational to consider the communication tools blunt.
"That car is slow/small/pink/ugly"
"He's a pedant"
"It's burnt/soggy/ripped/motionless"
These words communicate much more effectively, with specifics, insight and detail.
I don't see how either example is any more or less effective at conveying someone's meaning than the other. See my list above for examples of how those words can be used specifically and satisfy your "sharp" requirement for acceptable words.
Quote from: ScissorlegsQuote from: DavinAye, as many parents would prefer their children to be just like all other around them, mediocrity is as fine a goal as any others.
Unnecessary sarcasm aside, it is exactly the reason why I choose to educate my children out of the mediocrity of ineffective communication around which we live.
It was not sarcasm, raising children to be compliant to the irrationally held norms of society is the goal of many parents, as it seems to be yours. Maybe not the norms of other children their age, but the norms that you're trying to enforce on them.
Quote from: ScissorlegsQuote from: DavinBut to say that not using certain words to acheive this goal makes one more clever, is hilariously ironic.
It doesn't make one more clever, and you know full well that is not what I said. To reiterate, it is a common prejudice that people will think you are not very clever if you use 'blunt' language. I do not apologise for wanting my children to communicate better than their local peers with a view to better connecting with the people who are likely to offer gainful employment.
I know full well what you said because it's there for me to go back to and reference: "because people hearing you use that word will think you're not very clever", "and other people who already know I'm not very clever[.]" Both statements, are expressing the idea that using certain words make one appear less clever, and perpetuates the idea that using certain words means one is less clever. I have no problem with teaching your children to follow certain social norms, even if those norms are irrationally derived, in order to respect other people up to and including ones employer (as can be seen by my agreement with Tank on the subject). However it's far different to perpetuate something, than to explain how and why something is irrational but to refrain from doing something.
Quote from: ScissorlegsQuote from: Davin
[pedantic rant, followed by]...but do you actually make sure your children are not exposed to such uses? Do you also have your children protected from hearing all negatively perceived terms?
I do what I can, but I do not deny the existence of such language. They are aware of it but are encouraged not to use it themselves. They understand there really isn't any need.
Of course there is no need, just like there is no need to use both superfluous and redundant in the same list of coordinate adjectives. However, because you seem to use much superfluous language, I'm really doubting that you use this, "if it's not needed then don't use those words" rule consistently.
Quote from: ScissorlegsYou will no doubt predictably want the last word on this, but I have no appetite for debating with sarcasm and pedantic questioning of my less-than-perfect English.
Of course it's predictable for me to express the logic problems in what people publicly express, it's been my M.O. since I've started posting here. I don't criticise people on less than perfect English, I merely thought it was intentionally funny. I'm sorry it was not intended to be funny for you to criticise something as redundant while using superfluous words. Even if it wasn't intentional, it's still a little funny, like someone saying "the only thing I hate more than racism, are Jews."
Quote from: ScissorlegsIf you cannot argue the points - or (god forbid) concede when presented with reasonable argument then I'm out.
I concede when I'm wrong, as I've done on many occassions. This can be seen in this thread when I was talking to Tank and a previous conversation I've had with you in another thread when I failed to correctly read the stuff you wrote about googol numbers. Have you ever conceded to a reasonable argument? I really have no problem with being shown that I'm wrong and enjoy being incorrect more than being correct, because being shown to be incorrect is usually much less boring. However, it's not enjoyable for me to concede to irrational arguments.
Speaking of not arguing the points:
"[...]without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word."
"[...]do you actually make sure your children are not exposed [superfluous word] uses?"
"[...]what is your rational for deciding which negatively perceived terms you'll allow your kids to hear and which you won't?"
I have to say that I disagree that profanity lacks specificity, at least in certain circumstances. The reason people find profanity more objectionable than its watered-down synonyms is because it carries a much larger emotional punch. There are times when "Oh poopie!" simply cannot convey the depth of my feelings on the matter - only a "SHIT!!!" will do.
I seem to have been unwittingly dragged into an argument about whether or not swearing at all is bad. This was not my intention. The thrust of my original arguments were with respect to children - as in the title of the thread.
It is important that children learn effective methods of communication before allowing 'blunt' (and offensive to many) words to become their default communication tools. I will do what I can to ingrain more descriptive, detailed and specific words in my childrens vocabulary. And limiting exposure to profanity will minimise the chances of such displacing more informative words.
Valid or not, the perception of youngsters using profanity is predominantly negative. I do not say "only stupid people use profanity", I say "while it is seen as negative in society I will do what I can to ensure my children are not the subject of that negativity". You can make a stand against this prejudice if you see fit, I'd rather not involve my children.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing better than a good 'shit', or more cathartic than a well-aimed 'cunt'. It is the use of gratuitous profanity that has no value.
I will acknowledge that in some applications profanity may be interchangeable with less contentious words without losing specificity - particularly where the profanity IS the subject, object or verb (stepped in shit, the shit hit the fan, he fucked her...). It is when profanity is used as an adjective or qualifier that lacks concise communication (it's fucking rubbish, that's a shit car etc...).
I agree with you that I don't particularly want my young child to use curse words, even though I myself sometimes find cursing highly satisfactory. I do try to teach my son to stay more or less within societal norms. He's got plenty of time to work on his potty mouth once he's old enough to really appreciate the joy of a well placed swear.
Quote from: Davin
Speaking of not arguing the points:
"[...]without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word."
"[...]do you actually make sure your children are not exposed [superfluous word] uses?"
"[...]what is your rational for deciding which negatively perceived terms you'll allow your kids to hear and which you won't?"
Just so I'm not accused of not arguing the points:
1. The sharpness or bluntness of any tool can be tested by practical experimentation. How sharp is your knife? Well, let's cut a tomato to find out. In any context, we may see good or bad communication of ideas by use of a word. Often (but not always, as you have previously demonstrated) the profanity will be seen to ineffectually communicate when compared to another word. Occasionally, when emotive exclamation is the desired communication, then profanity may be sharper. In everyday conversation (where faeces or sex aren't on topic) communication of ideas is much better served without profanity.
2. Children's exposure to profanity: I do what I can.
3. The greater the negativity, the more likely I am to discourage a word. 'Bum' might invite mild scorn from some quarters, but I'll let that go. I trust that communicating with prospective employers will not require discussion of body parts.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 25, 2012, 10:45:56 PM
I seem to have been unwittingly dragged into an argument about whether or not swearing at all is bad. This was not my intention. The thrust of my original arguments were with respect to children - as in the title of the thread.
It is important that children learn effective methods of communication before allowing 'blunt' (and offensive to many) words to become their default communication tools. I will do what I can to ingrain more descriptive, detailed and specific words in my childrens vocabulary. And limiting exposure to profanity will minimise the chances of such displacing more informative words.
Valid or not, the perception of youngsters using profanity is predominantly negative. I do not say "only stupid people use profanity", I say "while it is seen as negative in society I will do what I can to ensure my children are not the subject of that negativity". You can make a stand against this prejudice if you see fit, I'd rather not involve my children.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing better than a good 'shit', or more cathartic than a well-aimed 'cunt'. It is the use of gratuitous profanity that has no value.
I will acknowledge that in some applications profanity may be interchangeable with less contentious words without losing specificity - particularly where the profanity IS the subject, object or verb (stepped in shit, the shit hit the fan, he fucked her...). It is when profanity is used as an adjective or qualifier that lacks concise communication (it's fucking rubbish, that's a shit car etc...).
I pretty much agree with what Scissorlegs has said.
An adult who swears continuously in front of their children may do so to instil some virtuous philosophical view of freedom. Often it seems to me they just don't give a shit, I don't like that philosophy.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 24, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
You know, your avatar, it would benefit from replacing the red face with an Asmo. Maybe flip it 180 degrees too, to keep proper alignment.
The Asmo is invading avatars, you see. And a robot, that's just... Useful. :D
Only if you can guess who the current face is...
EDIT: Pic added below of original Avatar:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7152%2F6770344497_da2b27122f_z.jpg&hash=9a64639a0963ee761e70243014e96d858b14eefc)
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 26, 2012, 02:26:00 PM
Only if you can guess who the current face is...
It looks a bit like Patrick Stewart.
I hope not though, assimilating Loqutos didn't work out well for the Borg.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 26, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 26, 2012, 02:26:00 PM
Only if you can guess who the current face is...
It looks a bit like Patrick Stewart.
I hope not though, assimilating Loqutos didn't work out well for the Borg.
Scissorlegs not Borg. Scissorlegs admire Carbon Unit.
Congratulations, you get first assimilation... Your designation is 'Pud of Scissorlegs'
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=5318;type=avatar)
Ah! My biological and technological distinctiveness has be added to Scissorlegs, without a distinctive hat!
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 27, 2012, 12:01:37 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=5318;type=avatar)
Ah! My biological and technological distinctiveness has be added to Scissorlegs, without a distinctive hat!
Au contraire! I thought the swimming-cap look was quite fetching.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 27, 2012, 06:54:35 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 27, 2012, 12:01:37 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=5318;type=avatar)
Ah! My biological and technological distinctiveness has be added to Scissorlegs, without a distinctive hat!
Au contraire! I thought the swimming-cap look was quite fetching.
The Pudding in rubber! :o
Pudding started taking over avatars too! We should ally and begin full invasion. IMMEDIATELY! ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on January 27, 2012, 09:10:55 AM
Pudding started taking over avatars too! We should ally and begin full invasion. IMMEDIATELY! ;D
I have been known to take over avatars in the past, their heads anyway.
That's zombie Tank under my wheelbarrow as I recall.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FemiCA.png&hash=378f9d84120aae6fa7c5d2fe068719e435a0b77f)
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 27, 2012, 09:23:50 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 27, 2012, 09:10:55 AM
Pudding started taking over avatars too! We should ally and begin full invasion. IMMEDIATELY! ;D
I have been known to take over avatars in the past, their heads anyway.
That's zombie Tank under my wheelbarrow as I recall.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FemiCA.png&hash=378f9d84120aae6fa7c5d2fe068719e435a0b77f)
Yes, and the smugly scheming Asmo was right there to claim the headless bodies for his army of robozombies :D
Oh dear. I hope statues can't be assimilated.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 27, 2012, 01:45:27 PM
Oh dear. I hope statues can't be assimilated.
Scissorlegs assimilate stone nul function.
Juliet of Scissorlegs abort
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7159%2F6771006637_686e190d16_z.jpg&hash=250e911392c3770cce967b3a3a0f0b9741c70007)
This has become a very borg like thread.
It has, hasn't it? :D And the Borg looks perfect for being ridden by a lance-armed Asmo.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 27, 2012, 05:56:01 PM
It has, hasn't it? :D And the Borg looks perfect for being ridden by a lance-armed Asmo.
Scissorlegs assimilation routine off-line.
Two rotations reinitialise.
Category 5 grumpy threat. Status: Caution.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 27, 2012, 08:40:24 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 27, 2012, 05:56:01 PM
It has, hasn't it? :D And the Borg looks perfect for being ridden by a lance-armed Asmo.
Scissorlegs assimilation routine off-line.
Two rotations reinitialise.
Category 5 grumpy threat. Status: Caution.
Luckily, The Asmos are sneaky and camouflaged against pavement. :D
Asmossimilation error - x0xMatter incompatiblex0x.
Status elevation [Caution]: "Destruction imperative".
Scissorlegs activation; [Snipmode level 6]
Grumpy threat neutralised. Status: alert - reanimation potential: 84%
Scissorlegs activation; [Snipmode level 1]
[MatterAnalysis]
Superstructure: Putty
Core: Lime flavour jelly
[/MatterAnalysis]
Scissorlegs standing down.
Searchmode...searching...
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7161%2F6790486493_8304a29191_z.jpg&hash=7ead1bbeea6fd510e88aec21f7a67a0fe9ac41a4)
:o
The Asmo needs Photoshop! Righteous vengeance, it will be his. Oh, yes it will.
You KILLED the X-Files styled Asmohybrid! >:(
Quote from: Scissorlegs on January 30, 2012, 02:45:06 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7161%2F6790486493_8304a29191_z.jpg&hash=7ead1bbeea6fd510e88aec21f7a67a0fe9ac41a4)
Terrifying!