Dirty words?... Obscene words?

[vz71]

I agree with everything you said here. What I do not accept is the arbitrary designation of some words as “profane” (another nice synonym). Let’s be clear. There are many things that a certain society holds good or acceptable. There are also many things that a certain society considers bad or unacceptable. These are facts, and I accept facts. Some of these are simply “words”. What I am wondering about is how come that some “words” get bad reputation?

As I said, the meaning is dictated by the usage in society.

And whether or not you ‘accept’ them, the word still means what society has agreed upon. If you wish to not conform, you run the risk of judgement by others upon your language and likely upon your character.

You are still responsible for the words and meanings that utter forth from your mouth.
Not the people that hear you.

 

[Luvya]

The point is that, in some small way, the use of words clearly designed to denote lack of respect contribute to the sum of a person’s actions, using your terminology.

Not really. Their non-respectable actions come first, and my assessment comes later.

I don’t think you answered my last question.

Do you see this in Christianity- that the Christian is mandated to respect a person no matter what their actions?

Sorry. I don’t have that information.

 

[Luvya]

As I said, the meaning is dictated by the usage in society.

And whether or not you ‘accept’ them, the word still means what society has agreed upon. If you wish to not conform, you run the risk of judgement by others upon your language and likely upon your character.

I already agreed. What is the point to bring it up again?

You are still responsible for the words and meanings that utter forth from your mouth.

Obviously.

Not the people that hear you.

That is debatable. Here is another true story:

On a university campus there were a couple of misbehaving students, who conducted a loud conversation during the night (spingtime, windows open in the dorms), and thereby disturbed the others. One of the students, who wanted quiet, shouted out from his window: “Shut up, you water buffaloes”. Well, it just happened that the loud students were black, and they took that call as a racial slur and insult. They went to complain and the student who uttered those “insulting words” was forced to apologize, even though no racial insult was uttered nor was one intended.

Instant “obscenity” due to rampant political correectness. All those supposed “dirty” words are the result of some form of political correctness.

 

[vz71]

Here is a true story, quoted in Allan Sherman’s wonderful book (The rape of the APE*) about the American sex revolution…

To illustrate, here is an old joke…

For the fun of it, here is another one, about Dan Quayle…

Here is an interesting and true story…

Here is another true story…

A story for every occasion.
This is starting to sound like my children when they are guilty of something and know it.

Why not simply drop the stories, drop the excuses, and simply clean up the language?
Treat people with respect and get on with our lives?

We will all be better off with less profane language and mutual respect.
And even if the respect is one sided, we still come off the better person for it.

 

[phoooiee]

Sorry. I don’t have that information.

I see. Might be worth thinking about.

 

[OscarsMama]

Most of my life I couldn’t figure out why my parents would get after my sister and I for swearing (using “bad” words). I never thought that it was a big deal. I understood that those words were not to be used at work or in front of people in a professional environment.

But… that is just the tip of the iceburg.

The real fact is that WORDS HAVE POWER. Words MEAN something. Words are very very important. When a culture deems a word “bad,” “cussing,” “swearing,” etc. it is because of the strong meaning attached to the word. Words are much much more than a series of letters.

Words are so powerful. Words can hurt somebody for years to come. Tell somebody who is struggling with a verbally abusive childhood that there is no meaning behind words. Tell somebody who can’t talk that there is no meaning behind words.

And, as an idea for all those with little kids who learn these various words and how to teach them that those words are not to be used… if they want to use “potty” words they have to go into the bathroom and say them to themselves. That is what my parents did with us. And we stood in the bathroom at our house for two nights in a row saying bad words and laughing. Then it got old and we learned how to speak properly. Just an idea…

 

[Luvya]

I see. Might be worth thinking about.

Well, I am not sure about “respect” in particular. However, I am aware about the teaching considering interpersonal relationships: “you must love your neighbor as much as yourself”, “you must love your enemies”, and “it is the greatest virtue to give your life for your enemy”, or “turn the other cheek”, or “if someone asks for your shirt, give them your coat, too”… and stuff like that.

You see these teachings are absolute proof that they were not uttered by an omni-knowledgable God. In the times when these commands originated, people were quite simple, they had no idea about proper conflict resolution, they knew nothing about game theory - and thus their “commands” are the sheerest nonsense. The optimal strategy during a conflict is not unconditionally giving in to your opponent. Even without the mathematical background, by using common sense only it is obvious that this strategy brings awful results. A wise God would never teach such nonsense. Therefore these teachings did not come from God, they came from uneducated, rather dumb humans.

But this is a deviation from the intents of the thread. We can discuss it elsewhere.

 

[Luvya]

And, as an idea for all those with little kids who learn these various words and how to teach them that those words are not to be used… if they want to use “potty” words they have to go into the bathroom and say them to themselves. That is what my parents did with us. And we stood in the bathroom at our house for two nights in a row saying bad words and laughing. Then it got old and we learned how to speak properly. Just an idea…

That is a very wise idea.

You do not get de-sensitized, just put them into proper perspective. It does not mean that one uses such words, even when there is absolutely no reason to say them (I don’t like those comedians whose whole performance is a string of cuss-words), but when there is a good reason to use them, people will not feel outraged, just take them as information. And then poo-poo will be just as innocent as kaka, or turd, or any other synomym I can think of.

 

[vz71]

You see these teachings are absolute proof that they were not uttered by an omni-knowledgable God. In the times when these commands originated, people were quite simple, they had no idea about proper conflict resolution, they knew nothing about game theory - and thus their “commands” are the sheerest nonsense.

A quick read through the political structure of the Roman empire of the time will reveal something quite different.
Far from being ‘simple’ these people and cultures had many of the same conflicts that we have today. And they had similar ways to deal with them.
And let us not forget that it was even centuries before then that the civilization brought us Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc.
This was not a simple people that you have been led to believe.
Circumstances have changed, information now travels faster, weapons are now stronger, technology has become a part of our lives. But the human condition has remained the same.
We still have peer pressure. We still have drug problems in society.
We still have nations competing with each other and we still have war.
We are very much the same people that were at the time of Christ.

The optimal strategy during a conflict is not unconditionally giving in to your opponent. Even without the mathematical background, by using common sense only it is obvious that this strategy brings awful results.

And yet it was this strategy that brought about the christianity of the Roman Empire.
In only a few hundred years, christianity went from a bizarre offshoot of Judaism to the official religion of the empire.
Throughout the majority of this time, the empire was actively hunting down and killing all the christians it could find.
Perhaps the wisdom of God is much deeper then it appears to be.

A wise God would never teach such nonsense. Therefore these teachings did not come from God, they came from uneducated, rather dumb humans.

And yet, the church lives on.
Name another organization that has lasted as long as it has without following the teachings as laid out by these ‘rather dumb humans.’
Perhaps there is more wisdom in the teachings then you realize.
Often the misapplication of the teachings of Christ prove fatal. But the church still lives.

 

[Luvya]

And yet it was this strategy that brought about the christianity of the Roman Empire.

No, not the strategy. It was the stupidity of the opponents which did it. The error was on the side of the persecutors. Creating martyrs is a very dumb way to combat fanaticism. They should have left the early Christians alone and most probably it would still be a fringe religion (if at all). Against a dumb opponent ever sub-optimal strategy works.

Of course the “what if”-s cannot be proven. The fact is that the basic strategy of “turn the other cheek” is a suboptimal strategy and a smart opponent can capitalize on the mistake. Mathematics can prove it, and that mathematics is quite recent.

And yet, the church lives on.

True, but not relevant. The momentum of such an organization is huge. The basic strategy devised by the institution (induce guilt for deviating from the commands and employ the carrot-and-stick method) is nothing if not the sign of a genius (oh yes, I am willing to give credit where credit is due). But times are a’changing. The flock is shrinking. And even the remaining ones start to think for themselves and discard many of the rules issued by the Vatican. Look at the millions of “cafeteria Catholics” who actively practice birth control and support abortion. And this is not just my “opinion”, The Catholic Church realizes it, too.

Let’s get back to the topic, if possible.

 

[vz71]

No, not the strategy. It was the stupidity of the opponents which did it.

The history is written.
On the one side was an obscure group of Jews employing the stratagem you claim is unwise.
On the other side was an empire that had at one point conquered most of the known world and is now working to kill off the first group.
And what do we have now? The Roman Empire is no more.
The Roman Catholic church is solidly in place.
You can play all of the what-if’s you wish, the facts speak to the wisdom of the principles taught us by Christ and his church.

Mathematics can prove it, and that mathematics is quite recent.

Mathmatics are not recent. Math has been with man for nearly as long as language. Every structure man builds has some measure of math incorporated into it. And then there are the great mathmaticians and astronomers of the time.
Have you ever used Euclidean geometry?
Archimedes, Apollonius.
Sorry, but your case that math is recent will only stand if you consider recent to be within the past couple thousand years.

Or are you speaking of only that math that supports your theory?
If so, please explain it. And account for the numerous examples in history that show the principles taught us by Christ work.

True, but not relevant. The momentum of such an organization is huge.

A momentum that was not there at the beginning.
You theorum runs contrary to the known facts.

The flock is shrinking. And even the remaining ones start to think for themselves and discard many of the rules issued by the Vatican. Look at the millions of “cafeteria Catholics” who actively practice birth control and support abortion. And this is not just my “opinion”, The Catholic Church realizes it, too.

Do you have documentation to support you conjecture here?
The ‘flock’ is not shrinking. That fact is supported by poll numbers and encyclopedias. If you need actual bibliographic refrences, let me know.

 

[Luvya]

TMathmatics are not recent.

Listen to this and learn: First lesson about game theory

Do you have documentation to support you conjecture here?
The ‘flock’ is not shrinking. That fact is supported by poll numbers and encyclopedias. If you need actual bibliographic refrences, let me know.

Listen to the voice of Rome, complaining about the shrinking attendace, about the growing number of “cafeteria Catholics” (heretics!) who engage in ABC and abortion.

 

[vz71]

Listen to this and learn:

Great.
So we are going to ignore the history and the math in favor of an obscure application of math that has been around for a few hundred years.
Not knowing enough about game theory, I’ll simply say it is not adequate to model the situation since it does not match historical record.

Listen to the voice of Rome, complaining about the shrinking attendace, about the growing number of “cafeteria Catholics” (heretics!) who engage in ABC and abortion.

I ask for references and I get conjecture.

Have you no backing at all for your argument?
Please provide statistics to show that these ‘cafeteria Catholics’ are growing in number relative to those that hold fast to the faith.

 

[Luvya]

Great.
So we are going to ignore the history and the math in favor of an obscure application of math that has been around for a few hundred years.
Not knowing enough about game theory, I’ll simply say it is not adequate to model the situation since it does not match historical record.

Do you understand what I am saying? The model is good and tested. People did not know about the best strategy, so they haphazardly tried all sorts of methods, and they simply did not happen to stumble upon the optimal solution. Not surprisingly, since it is not obvious. That is what the historical record shows. Game theory is pure math. What it says is PROVEN, whether you understand it or not.

If you want to learn more about it, I sent you the link. There are 24 lessons, each a bit over an hour long.

I ask for references and I get conjecture.

Have you no backing at all for your argument?
Please provide statistics to show that these ‘cafeteria Catholics’ are growing in number relative to those that hold fast to the faith.

Judging by your reluctance (directly above) to look at the evidence when it is provided, it would be futile to spend time on it. The Vatican itself is complaining about the shrinking role of religion. In Europe only 5% of the people attend church regularly. The number of people who identify themselves as non-religious is growing. Your ostrich-policy does not work.

I am not interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut any more, unless you return to the topic of the thread.

 

[vz71]

Do you understand what I am saying? The model is good and tested. People did not know about the best strategy, so they haphazardly tried all sorts of methods, and they simply did not happen to stumble upon the optimal solution. Not surprisingly, since it is not obvious. That is what the historical record shows. Game theory is pure math. What it says is PROVEN, whether you understand it or not.

The math may work.
But it does not encompass the full dynamics of the situation.
This is shown us by the fact that history shows the opposite conclusion to be true.

If you want to learn more about it, I sent you the link. There are 24 lessons, each a bit over an hour long.

It does not apply to the case you wish to argue.
Else the records would prove it out.
Why should I spend 24 hours listening to something that does not apply at all to the case at hand?

Judging by your reluctance (directly above) to look at the evidence when it is provided, it would be futile to spend time on it.

It seems a very hard sell to claim someone does not wish to look at evidence when they are asking for it.
Witness my previous request for documentation backing your conjecture that ‘cafeteria Catholics’ are growing in number faster then faithful Catholics.

The Vatican itself is complaining about the shrinking role of religion.

A shrinking role does not indicate a shrinkage in numbers of faithful.
By what process did you come to believe these were the same thing?

In Europe only 5% of the people attend church regularly. The number of people who identify themselves as non-religious is growing. Your ostrich-policy does not work.

‘Ostrich-policy’??
How exactly can you arrive at that conclusion when my position has asked for your documentation a few times now.
I have shown that I take the charge seriously, and I have indicated a willingness to learn what I can.
If anything, there is an unwillingness on your part to provide information or even defend your position.
So who exactly has the real ‘ostrich-policy’ here?
One of us has asked the questions, been willing to learn, and wants sources.
The other cannot or will not do any of that…save for providing volumes of data on a topic that has been shown to be unrelated to the facts.

I am not interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut any more, unless you return to the topic of the thread.

OK, forget I asked about the ‘ostrich-policy’ question.
Your disinterest in the debate tells all that is needed to know.
You are perfectly willing to stand to the side and snipe at what you perceive to be defenseless targets, but when pushed back to defend your positions…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Well, I am not sure about “respect” in particular. However, I am aware about the teaching considering interpersonal relationships: “you must love your neighbor as much as yourself”, “you must love your enemies”, and “it is the greatest virtue to give your life for your enemy”, or “turn the other cheek”, or “if someone asks for your shirt, give them your coat, too”… and stuff like that.

You see these teachings are absolute proof that they were not uttered by an omni-knowledgable God. In the times when these commands originated, people were quite simple, they had no idea about proper conflict resolution, they knew nothing about game theory - and thus their “commands” are the sheerest nonsense. The optimal strategy during a conflict is not unconditionally giving in to your opponent. Even without the mathematical background, by using common sense only it is obvious that this strategy brings awful results. A wise God would never teach such nonsense. Therefore these teachings did not come from God, they came from uneducated, rather dumb humans.

But this is a deviation from the intents of the thread. We can discuss it elsewhere.

So we’re still arguing for the right to have a potty mouth?

 

[vz71]

So we’re still arguing for the right to have a potty mouth?

Apparently that is not all.
There apparently is a need to bash God and his church…

You see these teachings are absolute proof that they were not uttered by an omni-knowledgable God…Therefore these teachings did not come from God, they came from uneducated, rather dumb humans.

 

[phoooiee]

Well, I am not sure about “respect” in particular. However, I am aware about the teaching considering interpersonal relationships: “you must love your neighbor as much as yourself”, “you must love your enemies”, and “it is the greatest virtue to give your life for your enemy”, or “turn the other cheek”, or “if someone asks for your shirt, give them your coat, too”… and stuff like that.

You see these teachings are absolute proof that they were not uttered by an omni-knowledgable God. In the times when these commands originated, people were quite simple, they had no idea about proper conflict resolution, they knew nothing about game theory - and thus their “commands” are the sheerest nonsense. The optimal strategy during a conflict is not unconditionally giving in to your opponent. Even without the mathematical background, by using common sense only it is obvious that this strategy brings awful results. A wise God would never teach such nonsense. Therefore these teachings did not come from God, they came from uneducated, rather dumb humans.

But this is a deviation from the intents of the thread. We can discuss it elsewhere.

I actually think that this is the point of the thread. We believe that curse words are negative because we believe in the principles stated above. Speaking disrespectfully to either your neighbor or your enemy is no way to love them, and we believe it is our duty to love them.
You have stated that you do not believe in principles like “turn the other cheek” but are more interested in power and winning in conflicts. Thus curse words are acceptable.

It is not possible to discuss our opinions on curse words without discussing the philosophical ideas that give rise to our opinions.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that so many were martyred during the days of early Christianity, it did still manage to spread like wildfire, mathematics or no mathematics. Perhaps God is wiser than we thought

 

[Luvya]

I actually think that this is the point of the thread. We believe that curse words are negative because we believe in the principles stated above. Speaking disrespectfully to either your neighbor or your enemy is no way to love them, and we believe it is our duty to love them.

Yes, I know that this is what you believe. So tell me, how come that poo-poo is not a “bad” word, while “sh*t” is? By the way these words are not “curse” words.

You have stated that you do not believe in principles like “turn the other cheek” but are more interested in power and winning in conflicts. Thus curse words are acceptable.

Hold it. I did not “state” anything of that kind. From the fact that I do not accept “turn the other cheek” it DOES NOT follow that I am interested in power or winning conflict. These non-sequiturs are truly ridiculous. I am interested in RESOLVING conflicts not winning them. And I am interested in peaceful resolution, not exterminating the opposition.

It is not possible to discuss our opinions on curse words without discussing the philosophical ideas that give rise to our opinions.

I am more interested in finding out why are some words declared “curse words”, even if there is no “cursing” involved. But you are right, the declaration of “bad words” is the result of a specific philosophy, which declares certain, perfectly normal and natural activities as “dirty” and “sinful”.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that so many were martyred during the days of early Christianity, it did still manage to spread like wildfire, mathematics or no mathematics. Perhaps God is wiser than we thought

Listen to the link provided about game theory. The fact that the dumb opponents of Christianity employed a bad strategy allowed Christianity to employ their sub-optimal strategy, and still reap rewards has NOTHING to do with finding the optimal strategy. And picking one era, and one conflict where the sub-optimal strategy still worked is not much of an argument. Against a lousy chess player a lousy strategy still can work. Against a good player, only a good strategy can work. So I hope you guys will drop this nonsense argument. The “turn the other cheek” or “do not resist evil” type of behavior only works against a dumb opponent. A smart opponent can rip this strategy to shreds.

Obviously God would know that. That is why I said that the inferior strategy offered by the Bible is the ironclad proof that it was NOT offered by God.

 

[phoooiee]

Yes, I know that this is what you believe. So tell me, how come that poo-poo is not a “bad” word, while “sh*t” is? By the way these words are not “curse” words.

Honestly, I think most of us here would agree that the concept is what is important, not the word. However, sh*t has become a curse word because it is often used in anger. The only difference between these two words is that one has come to be used in anger. If one were to say “poo-poo” in anger, I would be equally offended by it.
Society as a whole does tend to legalism, meaning that some people may look at some words as “bad” just because the “rules” say so. I hope you won’t find us doing this. Spiritually speaking, legalism kills.

Hold it. I did not “state” anything of that kind. From the fact that I do not accept “turn the other cheek” it DOES NOT follow that I am interested in power or winning conflict. These non-sequiturs are truly ridiculous. I am interested in RESOLVING conflicts not winning them. And I am interested in peaceful resolution, not exterminating the opposition.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

I am more interested in finding out why are some words declared “curse words”, even if there is no “cursing” involved. But you are right, the declaration of “bad words” is the result of a specific philosophy, which declares certain, perfectly normal and natural activities as “dirty” and “sinful”.

No Catholic would decry any normal and natural activity as dirty or sinful. In fact, many have been condemned by the Church as heretics for doing just that. However, any natural act must be used for its intended purpose.
The Hebrew word “sin” means “to miss the mark.” When we take sex, a healthy, natural, sacred activity, and use it to treat another person as an object, then we have missed the mark, and so it is a sin.
Listen to the link provided about game theory. The fact that the dumb opponents of Christianity employed a bad strategy allowed Christianity to employ their sub-optimal strategy, and still reap rewards has NOTHING to do with finding the optimal strategy. And picking one era, and one conflict where the sub-optimal strategy still worked is not much of an argument. Against a lousy chess player a lousy strategy still can work. Against a good player, only a good strategy can work. So I hope you guys will drop this nonsense argument. The “turn the other cheek” or “do not resist evil” type of behavior only works against a dumb opponent. A smart opponent can rip this strategy to shreds.

This is the point. The Christians using this strategy were NOT interested in winning. They were instead interested in the greater good. Any discussion of strategy is not important, because those employing the strategy were completely disinterested in conflict.

Obviously God would know that. That is why I said that the inferior strategy offered by the Bible is the ironclad proof that it was NOT offered by God.
As I said, God is not interested in offering strategies one way or another. God is interested in the greater good. This is only proof that the resolution of earthly conflicts is trivial to God.