Can't help it my brain just went this way

Mark Harris said:
well I think "view of the majority without examination" is the basic principal of tyranny. ;)
Click to expand...

So Democracy = Tyranny?

EDIT:

I have to go to bed now, I'll be back, the answer has already been computed. I'll see if you can figure it before I post back tommorrow. :D
 
Last edited:
Anhar Miah said:
OK heres another twist;

suppose that we follow as per Mark's wishes to re-examine the "worthy-ness" of these current "bad-lists" upon re-examination we formulate better words more "worthy" for the new "bad-list"; let us call this "Marks bad-list", would anything actually change?
Click to expand...

Well, this isn't at all what I've been saying, so it's impossible for me to argue.

BUT I will sum up my case with this:

The whole history of the 20th century is my argument for questioning norms and getting results. It used to be the norm that women couldn't vote. That people were legally treated as inferior due to the color of their skin, it's still the norm in some places to murder a woman for "bringing shame" on her family. And in some really, really backward places, it's still the norm to shoot 30p!!!!

If you can't see the point I'm making about not blinding following these things, then...well best of luck to you. History is paved with people who never questioned why things are the way they are.
 
Mark Harris said:
History is paved with people who never questioned why things are the way they are.
Click to expand...

Thankfully I've never stopped questioning everything, down to reasoning and logic itself.

Mark I need to sleep, will continue this tmr, very interesting indeed.

(in summary) your saying:

Its not logically valid to accept "X is true because the majority accept it"

if thats your case, I'll be disect it tmr when I'm awake again.
 
Last edited:
Mark Harris said:
There is a norm of not saying the F-word. Why? Er...well...cuz...er...well...everyone says so...I dunno, really...
Click to expand...

Most swear words are considered as such because of religious reasons -- they were deemed offensive because they either referred to sexual and/or private acts, or take the lord's name in vain. I think they remain norms because although there are far fewer people offended by the words for these reasons, people in public speak under the assumption that their might be someone in earshot who will be, so we curb our tongues.
 
Mark Harris said:
Well, this isn't at all what I've been saying, so it's impossible for me to argue.

BUT I will sum up my case with this:

The whole history of the 20th century is my argument for questioning norms and getting results. It used to be the norm that women couldn't vote. That people were legally treated as inferior due to the color of their skin, it's still the norm in some places to murder a woman for "bringing shame" on her family. And in some really, really backward places, it's still the norm to shoot 30p!!!!

If you can't see the point I'm making about not blinding following these things, then...well best of luck to you. History is paved with people who never questioned why things are the way they are.
Click to expand...


This makes little sense to me. What norms are there to question? The F-word is exactly where it wants to be; it's offensive because its purpose is to offend. Arbitrary? Of course, but if it weren't that it would be something else... how about "flurgen?"

I appreciate the extremes of language-- why try to pretend words don't have power when they clearly do? If the F-word gets to be legitimized than I think you'd have to say racial slurs are "just words" as well.

Anyway, the F-Word will always be taboo in polite society. It's not like there aren't plenty of polite synonyms to use instead-- no matter the syntax :)
 
Jared Meyer said:
This makes little sense to me. What norms are there to question? The F-word is exactly where it wants to be; it's offensive because its purpose is to offend. Arbitrary? Of course, but if it weren't that it would be something else... how about "flurgen?"

I appreciate the extremes of language-- why try to pretend words don't have power when they clearly do? If the F-word gets to be legitimized than I think you'd have to say racial slurs are "just words" as well.

Anyway, the F-Word will always be taboo in polite society. It's not like there aren't plenty of polite synonyms to use instead-- no matter the syntax :)
Click to expand...

You need to read above. I specifically separate racial slurs because they have more legitimate power in my eyes than the F-bomb.
 
Anhar Miah said:
What rational answers would those be?

Majority rule = Law of the Jungle
Click to expand...

No, the rational answers are laws. Democracy is base on laws. As opposed to the whim of a leader. Didn't you read American history?

What Jefferson was saying was, we left this England place because it was bogus. If we don't get some cool rules, ourselves, pronto, then we'll just be bogus too...
Click to expand...
 
Jared Meyer said:
No, I read it. I just happen to think that line of thinking is inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Well, possibly. Lenny Bruce tried to de-mystify racial slurs with the same intent.

But my point is for instance, calling someone a "spic" or a "nigger" has very specific connotations about what you think about the value of that person. And these words have been used to actually, really affect peoples' lives.

Apart from making an old lady gasp, the F-bomb is not in the same league to me.

I just gave a real concrete answer as to WHY racial slurs are bad. All I'm doing it asking why the F-bomb is bad. So far no one has a real answer.
 
I'm awake :D

I'm awake :D

Mark Harris said:
No, the rational answers are laws. Democracy is base on laws. As opposed to the whim of a leader. Didn't you read American history?
Click to expand...

Merely because something is based upon arbitrary laws (because Democratic laws are indeed at the root arbitrary and transitional) does not automatically infer they are rational:

Case in point:

If all the paedophiles were exiled to another island, where they formed a democratic system of governance. If they then passed a law to “legalise” paedophilia, according to the principles of Democracy those laws would be undeniably legitimate. According to your theory these “laws” would have be “rational”.

Mark Harris said:
No, I am not saying anything about logic. I am saying it's not worthy of free, adult people.
Click to expand...

Well that’s fine, if your case is based upon “worth”, then this is purely subjective, what is “One mans worth is, another mans trash”; therefore there is no objective and strong reason to suggest that the “F-bomb” is NOT any more valid than anybody else’s.

Mark Harris said:
I just gave a real concrete answer as to WHY racial slurs are bad. All I'm doing it asking why the F-bomb is bad. So far no one has a real answer.
Click to expand...

But I already have given a very clear reason in my previous post, but I’ll reiterate it:

Just like racial slurs, there exists in human nature the need to Insult/ Curse/ Defame/ Humiliate/ and Profane, etc.

Some of these needs may even equally apply to racial slurs. However despite whether the target is based upon racial or non-racial motivation the base NEED is always the same.

Now what groups of words we attach those to have those meaning is INDEED arbitrary. This is because that is the nature of both the roots of logic and natural language; such that therein lies principles that are born out of arbitrary definition.

Unlike real world objects such as shoes what have physical constraints that can be rationalised, words are symbolic in nature and thus are not constrainted to the same degree and can be defined arbitrarly, to assume these two entities are under the same scope is manifestly in error.


Anhar,
 
Last edited:
It still all comes back to this -- if it didn't have the stigma, you (the rhetorical arty cool kids) wouldn't be very interested in using it. You'd find something with the stigma instead.

If "very" had the naughty air, you'd use it.

So, you thrive on the naughty. Try to wrap it up in some rationalizing philosophical bow if you want, but there it is, nonetheless.
 
Mark Harris said:
Well, possibly. Lenny Bruce tried to de-mystify racial slurs with the same intent.

But my point is for instance, calling someone a "spic" or a "nigger" has very specific connotations about what you think about the value of that person. And these words have been used to actually, really affect peoples' lives.

Apart from making an old lady gasp, the F-bomb is not in the same league to me.

I just gave a real concrete answer as to WHY racial slurs are bad. All I'm doing it asking why the F-bomb is bad. So far no one has a real answer.
Click to expand...

No words are truly 'bad', only the intent behind them. Even "nigger" can be a friendly term between two blacks (or even whites these days). The F-bomb isn't considered polite language because there are many people who find it vulgar for what it refers to. But it's a free country. You're free to say it. And people are free to be offended by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top