Cuss words

[po18guy]

I think most language is worldly and not godly, and so are most of the things we talk about in day-to-day living. I do, however, agree that we should not use language to debase and to dehumanise.

Such language debases oneself, even if there is no human object.

 

[edwest2]

Social standards matter. Society thrives when appropriate conduct is instilled in children in regard to dress, speech and their dealings with their peers, adults in general and those with authority over them. I was taught there are bad words. In America, and in the West, a few radicals have decided that a little bad language means nothing. It’s gotten to the point where comedians like Louis Black, based on nothing but their own authority, tell their audience: “There’s no such thing as bad language.”

Then, as time passed from the 1960s till now, Adult Language became the substitute term for profanity. If I was taught certain words were bad when I was a child, they remain bad when I’m an adult. It’s an illusion to believe that “Adult Language” is somehow OK. On magazine covers, I’m starting to see the term bad*ss. That repulses me and encourages me not to even look at much less buy such a magazine. I am an amateur media historian and I work in the publishing field as an editor. Words matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Publisher]

I don’t remember which verse it is…but the Living Bible paraphrases a passage from one of Paul’s letters along the lines of…“Dirty stories, foul talk, course jokes, are not for you…”

My grandmother use to say that “talking ugly…was ugly…and made you ugly”

Our words do matter…“it is not what enters a man that defiles him, but what come forth from him…” is another paraphrase Jesus is to have spoken…our words indicate the kind of people we truly are…on the inside…eyes might be the “window of the soul”…but our words indicate the state of our hearts.

 

[BlindManWalking]

Ya’ll ever heard of St. Thomas More and his use of the “s” word in describing Luther?

It’s some good ****.

 

[Publisher]

Ya’ll ever heard of St. Thomas More and his use of the “s” word in describing Luther?

It’s some good ****.

As I understand the development of the “s” word…at a time when manure was shipped by cargo boat…it built up methane gas…and often would explode when not vented…so a the manured was marked “Ship High In Transit”…which would allow the gas to escape and not ignite in the hold of a ship…perhaps when More wrote…it didn’t have the vulgarity it shares now…and if it did…shame on friend Thomas for being vulgar…what other men do, does not excuse me from using vulgarity and causing offense.

 

[BlindManWalking]

As I understand the development of the “s” word…at a time when manure was shipped by cargo boat…it built up methane gas…and often would explode when not vented…so a the manured was marked “Ship High In Transit”…which would allow the gas to escape and not ignite in the hold of a ship…perhaps when More wrote…it didn’t have the vulgarity it shares now…and if it did…shame on friend Thomas for being vulgar…what other men do, does not excuse me from using vulgarity and causing offense.

www.etymonline.com

No more the case than “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”.

 

[Merrin]

Hi Merrin.

Well, I’ve thought about the subject and in my previous post where I considered the contextual and linguistic aspects of these words, I think I’ve grown to understand your point of view more. Language is a very fluid thing and so the question hinges on one’s understanding of certain words, but words in and of themselves cannot be objectively evil. I amply demonstrated that in my previous post by the fact that one common and mundane American word is extremely vulgar and offensive in British English.

The way I see it, we agree in principle but our disagreement is based on idiolectical differences and nothing else. What you call “jelly” I call “jam” and what I call “jelly” you call “jello.” We can argue about the meaning of “jelly” until we’re blue in the face and never shall the twain meet, and we will simply have to respect our differences.

And so it is with taboo words. I hope you would agree with me that the word “b*tch” is very offensive when used in reference to a person but that a dog breeder can use the word legitimately and it will be free of all negative connotations. That is to say, its meaning depends on context, and again, it is not the word in itself that is evil but how you use it. And so it is with other words.

We each speak a particular dialect of our particular country or city, and we each have an individual idiolect based on the language used in our immediate surroundings. And quite simply, just like the meanings and rules governing the usage of certain words differ between our dialects, so too, and all the more, do the rules and meanings of words in my idiolect differ from those of your one. And just as I would do well to respect the dialect used in America should I one day go there, and attempt to learn and use American words so as not to be misunderstood, so too should I respect what I understand to be your particular idiolect, where some words are simply unacceptable under all circumstances.

It simply appears that most of the taboo words in my idiolectical understanding of the English language, which is based on the speech that I have grown up with, fall into a category similar to that of the conditionally offensive “b*tch” word and become devoid of negative connotation in certain contexts. And so I was no less surprised by the absolute condemnation these words received than you probably were by my defence of their use in particular contexts. So please understand that my defence of these words stems not from any bad will on my part but simply from an irreconcilable difference of understanding.

Greetings kch86,

Maybe we can simplify this a little.

There are words that are considered obscene, vulgar, foul, and socially inappropriate. That’s just the way it is. You know what these words are, as well as do most English/American speaking people who are above the age of reason.

There are also ways of speaking that are equally offensive and inappropriate, but do not contain foul or obscene language. You know what these ways are, as well as do most English/American speaking people who are above the age of reason.

As Catholic Christians, we are called to holiness. Therefore, we must shun all types of foul and offensive speech. We must strive for this and not make excuses.

You mentioned earlier that you would try to teach a young child not to use foul language and to speak properly. So why shouldn’t this teaching apply to yourself as well? That sounds like hypocrisy.

peace and blessings to you

 

[James924]

I disagree entirely. I admire the British greatly for their sense of civility and decorum. The United States has slid into a pit whenever cuss words are deemed acceptable. They are not. Ever.

Peace,
Ed

Are you kidding? I worked with the brits on my Aircraft, doing joint training missions, they are foul mouthed, not to mention the most Godless people I have ever met (and by most Godless I mean the ratio of atheists to theists).

 

[James924]

everything you’ve said

Its always entertaining to see a relativist who thinks he’s a Catholic. And its even more entertaining to listen to one talk.

 

[kch86]

Its always entertaining to see a relativist who thinks he’s a Catholic. And its even more entertaining to listen to one talk.

That’s an ad hominem and an insult. Even if you disagree with me, you do not have to be rude and offensive about it.

Merrin:

As Catholic Christians, we are called to holiness. Therefore, we must shun all types of foul and offensive speech. We must strive for this and not make excuses.

Merrin, I completely agree with you. I am not for a second advocating what you would term as foul and offensive speech.

At school, in English, I studied this poem by Ted Hughes. In that poem, there is a singular instance of a taboo word. I was going to say that I doubt you’d be offended, but I don’t know. Anyway, I’ve been taught that these words can be used legitimately and are useful for their emotive value.

So I am not condoning the foul speech of teenagers or any such thing, but merely pointing out that from my point of view there are some instances where taboo language is not wrong.

Now, James924 mentioned that Brits are probably the most foul-mouthed and godless people in the world. Although that is probably an exaggeration, there is some truth in that. And what this discussion has taught me is that the language I was taught is subtly different in its restrictions. In it, the ‘n’ word is one of the few words that is not permitted under any circumstances and always expresses hatred. Some other words, which in your dialect may be equal to the ‘n’ word in offensiveness have become conditionally offensive here.

I don’t make the rules of the language I speak, however, and I’m not an activist who will set about trying to change them. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that even from your perspective, you would find my speech generally very clean, even though I am conforming to a slightly different set of rules to you. And I’m not saying those foul-mouthed Brits were abiding by those rules - they probably were just foul-mouthed as James924 said. But the fact that we’ve unwittingly discovered a subtle difference in our two dialects does not make me a relativist, as he so insultingly suggested.

Given that this is an American forum, I fully withdraw my argument because it appears that these words are indeed offensive under all circumstances for the American speaker, and I fully support you in condemning their use.

Merrin:

You mentioned earlier that you would try to teach a young child not to use foul language and to speak properly. So why shouldn’t this teaching apply to yourself as well? That sounds like hypocrisy.

Given that these words can cause great offence when used inappropriately, it is best that a child first learns the rules of their use before he or she uses them (if at all and only if it is permitted under the rules of their dialect, which may mean never).

 

[Catholic_Prime]

Mind is like Dirty Water, all the moving thoughts are the dirt particles that stir the water of the mind and make it murky, but when you still the mind, the rest of the dirt drops to the bottom, and the water becomes crystal clear, this is the awareness of mind, with a mind like that you can go further than ever before.

The mind is like a weak muscle in the beginning, it can’t lift a lot of weight, but with continued practice, it becomes familiar and easier to do, eventually adding more weight to get stronger at what it is doing. The meditation helps increase the awareness of what you are doing so distraction does not tempt you away.

 

[Merrin]

At school, in English, I studied this poem by Ted Hughes. In that poem, there is a singular instance of a taboo word. I was going to say that I doubt you’d be offended, but I don’t know. Anyway, I’ve been taught that these words can be used legitimately and are useful for their emotive value.

If you are referring to “buttock”, then no I’m not offended. In the context of what he was saying, it was used tastefully. That word, when used in a tasteful context, is a proper and acceptable word in describing that anatomical region.

But rather than seeking to discern whether this or that is acceptable, I believe that it is best to side with caution and choose the cleanest and most tactful way to say things. There is always a clean and effective alternative.

In many cases, clean speaking will make a person stand out, and others will take notice and question either interiorly or exteriorly why that person doesn’t cuss like the rest of the gang. I’ve experienced examples of this, both as being the asker and the askee. This can be a very powerful witness, especially in a setting where foul language is prevalent.

This of course should not mean that we should have a condescending or uppity attitude about the way we speak. I believe that we can express ourselves in this way, in a very down-to-earth, relatable, and humble way.

Given that this is an American forum, I fully withdraw my argument because it appears that these words are indeed offensive under all circumstances for the American speaker, and I fully support you in condemning their use.

Bless you, me bruddah!
:bowdown2:

 

[kch86]

If you are referring to “buttock”, then no I’m not offended. In the context of what he was saying, it was used tastefully. That word, when used in a tasteful context, is a proper and acceptable word in describing that anatomical region.

There is a reference to “shackle pins bedded in cast-iron cow-s***” at the bottom.

But rather than seeking to discern whether this or that is acceptable, I believe that it is best to side with caution and choose the cleanest and most tactful way to say things. There is always a clean and effective alternative.

In many cases, clean speaking will make a person stand out, and others will take notice and question either interiorly or exteriorly why that person doesn’t cuss like the rest of the gang. I’ve experienced examples of this, both as being the asker and the askee. This can be a very powerful witness, especially in a setting where foul language is prevalent.

This of course should not mean that we should have a condescending or uppity attitude about the way we speak. I believe that we can express ourselves in this way, in a very down-to-earth, relatable, and humble way.

These are all very good points. God bless you

 

[Merrin]

There is a reference to “shackle pins bedded in cast-iron cow-s***” at the bottom.

Oh, I overlooked that part. Sorry, I can’t give any thumbs up to that one. In my opinion, it destroys the whole integrity and eloquence of the poem.

pax

 

[exnihilo]

Taboo words are functional units of language. They have a purpose in human linguistic expression or otherwise they wouldn’t exist. The fact that they are taboo adds a richness to human communication because it allows mere words to evoke and effectively convey strong emotional states, which would otherwise be impossible if the use of these words weren’t restricted in some sense. It’s this very fact of restriction that prevents them from becoming bland, everyday words and gives them their emotive power. I am by no means advocating any sort of liberality in their use because then they would lose their purpose.

I agree that cuss words have a function. The function is to allow one to be profane (as we also call this profanity). In order to profane we must have something sacred. The issue is one of morality. Cuss words exists for profane people to reveal themselves to others as wanting to degrade the sacred. Yes the words are ultimately arbitrary. Society arbitrary designates certain words as profane. But this is for the ultimate purpose of allowing man to reveal his character. The use of the words is itself not arbitrary.

I also agree that a cuss word from a person who rarely cusses does get your attention. But it gets your attention because they have lost control in some sense. They have reached a point where the emotion of anger controls them or they have been suddenly surprised. Regarding the later I have to admit that if I get really surprised I might say the s word. The reason the word comes out is that my mind is not really thinking but emotionally reacting and I’ve allowed that word to become a part of my vocabulary, even if rarely used. I need to rid my mind of that word. It has no value to me since I do not wish to be profane.