From Schopenhauer's "Essay on Women."

[seeds]

You are too uptight and you are getting all offended by very basic things like a child saying "shit". If you grew up in the 50s I expect you will have used words like faggot and retad and that naughty N word too. Times changed, nobody is all that offended by minor references to bodily functions any more.

Somehow, Flash, you managed to acknowledge my point (as seen in that bolded last sentence), while at the same time completely missing the greater point I was attempting to get at.

Again, the point (and question) is, where is the "endpoint" to the gradual devolution of our general sense of morality and civil discourse?

In other words, HOW FAR can a society devolve in its general sense of morality before it becomes toxic and destructive to its own existence?

(Take the fall of Rome, for example. Or the completely mythical [but cautionary] fable of Sodom and Gomorrah.)

Should each successive generation gradually become so permissive and unoffended by the lustful and hedonistic tendencies of their peers that they eventually allow for, say, open sex orgies on the streets?

Or do you simply think, yes, that would be perfectly okay, because that's just bodily functions, so why be offended about people having, say, anal sex in full view of an elementary school playground?

Or, how about we start tolerating men dressed-up as women and exposing their crotches to little girls in public venues?

Oh wait,... we've already reached that point...



Do you see no problem with that?

I think I remember you mentioning somewhere that you are in your 40s? Is that correct?

Well, with me being in my 70s (a generation apart from each other) we seem to be demonstrating - in real time - the point of my argument.

So, the question I pose to you, Flash, is where is the cut-off point for you?

In other words, does there exist a point where you might think to yourself that perhaps we've gone a little too far in the acceptance of lewd, vulgar, and aberrant behavior?

Or is it possible that in your desensitized worldview, there is no such thing as lewd, vulgar, and aberrant behavior?

I guess what I'm getting at, from your own personal generational perspective, where would you draw a line where you say "...this far is acceptable behavior, but no further..."?

And more importantly, how would you justify that to the next generation who sees you as being nothing more than an old prude (as you see me) who is just being "uptight" and "offended" by something that seems completely harmless to them?
_______

[FlashDangerpants]

You are too uptight and you are getting all offended by very basic things like a child saying "shit". If you grew up in the 50s I expect you will have used words like faggot and retad and that naughty N word too. Times changed, nobody is all that offended by minor references to bodily functions any more.

Somehow, Flash, you managed to acknowledge my point (as seen in that bolded last sentence), while at the same time completely missing the greater point I was attempting to get at.

Again, the point (and question) is, where is the "endpoint" to the gradual devolution of our general sense of morality and civil discourse?

In other words, HOW FAR can a society devolve in its general sense of morality before it becomes toxic and destructive to its own existence?

You missed my point because you bolded the wrong the bit. Who are you to decide that this trivial thing counts as devolution? You are just an old man shouting at clouds who got left behind in a fantasy of white picket fences. You lionise the era of wife beating and red lining as if it was some moral high water mark.

Should each successive generation gradually become so permissive and unoffended by the lustful and hedonistic tendencies of their peers that they eventually allow for, say, open sex orgies on the streets?

You sound like Immanuel Can, get a grip on yourself, this hysterical nonsense is silly.

Or do you simply think, yes, that would be perfectly okay, because that's just bodily functions, so why be offended about people having, say, anal sex in full view of an elementary school playground?

How did you get there? What insanse train of thought takes you to this from merely complaining about words like shit and fuck?


I'm not wasting my time on more of this substandard nonsense.

[seeds]

You are too uptight and you are getting all offended by very basic things like a child saying "shit". If you grew up in the 50s I expect you will have used words like faggot and retad and that naughty N word too. Times changed, nobody is all that offended by minor references to bodily functions any more.

Somehow, Flash, you managed to acknowledge my point (as seen in that bolded last sentence), while at the same time completely missing the greater point I was attempting to get at.

Again, the point (and question) is, where is the "endpoint" to the gradual devolution of our general sense of morality and civil discourse?

In other words, HOW FAR can a society devolve in its general sense of morality before it becomes toxic and destructive to its own existence?

You missed my point because you bolded the wrong the bit. Who are you to decide that this trivial thing counts as devolution?

And who are you to decide that it's trivial?

You are just an old man shouting at clouds who got left behind in a fantasy of white picket fences.

You got the "old man" part right, however, my head is so far above the clouds that I'm barely an inhabitant of this universe anymore.

You lionise the era of wife beating and red lining as if it was some moral high water mark.

No (and setting aside your strawman arguments), I was simply trying to carry on a philosophical conversation with someone whose opinion I respected; someone who (up to this moment) I thought was highly intelligent; someone who I thought could infer more from my argument, as opposed to getting all hung-up on just one tiny example...

(out of the dozens of examples I could have provided)

...of what it is that suggests the gradual devolution of our general sense of morality.

I'll not make those erroneous assumptions again.

I'm not wasting my time on more of this substandard nonsense.

Someone needs a nap.
_______

[FlashDangerpants]

You are too uptight and you are getting all offended by very basic things like a child saying "shit". If you grew up in the 50s I expect you will have used words like faggot and retad and that naughty N word too. Times changed, nobody is all that offended by minor references to bodily functions any more.

Somehow, Flash, you managed to acknowledge my point (as seen in that bolded last sentence), while at the same time completely missing the greater point I was attempting to get at.

Again, the point (and question) is, where is the "endpoint" to the gradual devolution of our general sense of morality and civil discourse?

In other words, HOW FAR can a society devolve in its general sense of morality before it becomes toxic and destructive to its own existence?

You missed my point because you bolded the wrong the bit. Who are you to decide that this trivial thing counts as devolution?

And who are you to decide that it's trivial?

It's not me, it's the rest of the world. I already mentioned this, but to help you out, let's try again. There aren't just words like shit and piss that are ok to say now, there are definitely words that were ok to say when you were a child that are not ok now, you know, the nasty words for jews and black people, disabled kids and so on. We didn't become any less of a prudish society just because we stopped caring about goddamn and wank, we just have new stuff that we don't tolerate instead of the old stuff.

The basic predicate of your spiel about 'no general sense of morality' is blatant hokum, it is boloney I tells ya.

You are just an old man shouting at clouds who got left behind in a fantasy of white picket fences.

You got the "old man" part right, however, my head is so far above the clouds that I'm barely an inhabitant of this universe anymore.

You lionise the era of wife beating and red lining as if it was some moral high water mark.

No (and setting aside your strawman arguments), I was simply trying to carry on a philosophical conversation with someone whose opinion I respected; someone who (up to this moment) I thought was highly intelligent; someone who I thought could infer more from my argument, as opposed to getting all hung-up on just one tiny example...

Oh the dudgeon and calumny..... wait a minute.... You just invoked the fall of Rome, and went on some rambling rant about greased up buttsex in front of children for the sake of a debate about using naughty words. Why am I to be the one accused of strawmen or overreaction here?

(out of the dozens of examples I could have provided)

...of what it is that suggests the gradual devolution of our general sense of morality.

I'll not make those erroneous assumptions again.


Someone needs a nap.
_______

You are imagining this gradual devolution of our general sense of morality. All that's happening is that stuff is continuing to change and you are kind of not. You are correct about my age, and I am indeed old enough to remember some TV from the late 70s in England. They didn't have swear words. They did have: Slant-eyed Japanese persons waiting up a tree to shoot poofs

The moral shit we react about is supposed to change to reflect changes in our culture. It isn't gone just because you don't recognise it anymore.

[Astro Cat]

Swearing is generally where one resorts to personal attack. When one does so early in the dialogue one must wonder just how insecure the party is in engaging in dialogue in the first place. Besides taking the low road as a matter of form it is disruptive of good intentions and intellectual honesty. Not to mention the utter lack of manners and degrading the forum as an intellectual medium.

I don’t know about all that. When I speak in a relaxed manner it’s littered with profanity, that doesn’t mean it’s insulting to anybody. I think profanity is more like an exclamation point most of the time.

[popeye1945]

Flashdangerpants,
Your not inventing anything new with vulgar vocabulary. It is when it is used as it often is on this site in the form of personal attacks. Why is it necessary to attack the integrity of fellow participants if you don't agree or you do not like someone else's understanding? It is immature, childish and just plain ignorant. Everyone has some emotional attachment to their views call it an emotional investment, but if you are anywhere near a decent fellow you control those emotions. Even those who are good at controlling their emotions in these dialogues lose it sometimes out of frustration in trying to make themselves understood. A number of people here don't even try, if you going to come in hostile take it to a bar somewhere, someone will put your lights out. This is not rocket science, if you don't understand what I mean, put your mother on.
[/quote]


How is that relating to what I wrote to Seeds not you?
Why are you adopting such a hostile tone with me? I don't remember swearing at you. I barely notice you.
[/quote]

Flashdangerpants.

If you are not in support of personal attacks in a medium like this, which is by the way considered a logical fallacy, then I owe you an apology and you indeed have it, if I have misunderstood your input here.

[popeye1945]

Swearing is generally where one resorts to personal attack. When one does so early in the dialogue one must wonder just how insecure the party is in engaging in dialogue in the first place. Besides taking the low road as a matter of form it is disruptive of good intentions and intellectual honesty. Not to mention the utter lack of manners and degrading the forum as an intellectual medium.

I don’t know about all that. When I speak in a relaxed manner it’s littered with profanity, that doesn’t mean it’s insulting to anybody. I think profanity is more like an exclamation point most of the time.

Astro Cat,
It just makes you sound like a moron, and if it is in the form of a personal attack it is a desperate measure of a man who knows he really has nothing worthwhile to say. Rather than admit to losing an argument one attacks the character of one's opponent, bad form and a logical fallacy, not to mention dishonest and disruptive.

[Astro Cat]

Astro Cat,
It just makes you sound like a moron, and if it is in the form of a personal attack it is a desperate measure of a man who knows he really has nothing worthwhile to say. Rather than admit to losing an argument one attacks the character of one's opponent, bad form and a logical fallacy, not to mention dishonest and disruptive.

First: I am not a man (no biggie though).

I think profanity is a good way to emphasize, and I don't think it casts any doubt on the intelligence of the speaker. There is such a thing as too much profanity and too vulgar of profanity, but I suppose this is a personal judgment each of us makes.

Profanity can increase power during physical tasks, increase pain tolerance, it can enhance the persuasiveness of argument, it can be an emotional outlet as opposed to more negatively impactful outlets, and apparently people that swear more tend to be more honest.

Also, I happened to look up whether there was a link between profanity and lack of education/intellect: turns out that it's the opposite than you describe (people that are better with language are better at swearing, unsurprisingly).

Swearing can be a way to bond. I remember not really letting my guard down around some professionals until they talked to me as themselves rather than just business-speak, and I could usually tell that they were being real with me from the choice words that they employed. I began to trust them more, and vice versa.

So, my stance is this. I conversationally swear, it's a tool in the toolbox to use. It's a form of linguistic dampening to demand that certain terms aren't used. I don't use them unnecessarily just like I don't use other tools when they're not needed. Occasionally, though, there's the right place for a choice word, and I'm not going to skip that if I don't have to.

[Flannel Jesus]

Fuck yeah

[popeye1945]

Astro Cat,
It just makes you sound like a moron, and if it is in the form of a personal attack it is a desperate measure of a man who knows he really has nothing worthwhile to say. Rather than admit to losing an argument one attacks the character of one's opponent, bad form and a logical fallacy, not to mention dishonest and disruptive.

First: I am not a man (no biggie though).

I think profanity is a good way to emphasize, and I don't think it casts any doubt on the intelligence of the speaker. There is such a thing as too much profanity and too vulgar of profanity, but I suppose this is a personal judgment each of us makes.

Profanity can increase power during physical tasks, increase pain tolerance, it can enhance the persuasiveness of argument, it can be an emotional outlet as opposed to more negatively impactful outlets, and apparently people that swear more tend to be more honest.

Also, I happened to look up whether there was a link between profanity and lack of education/intellect: turns out that it's the opposite than you describe (people that are better with language are better at swearing, unsurprisingly).

Swearing can be a way to bond. I remember not really letting my guard down around some professionals until they talked to me as themselves rather than just business-speak, and I could usually tell that they were being real with me from the choice words that they employed. I began to trust them more, and vice versa.

So, my stance is this. I conversationally swear, it's a tool in the toolbox to use. It's a form of linguistic dampening to demand that certain terms aren't used. I don't use them unnecessarily just like I don't use other tools when they're not needed. Occasionally, though, there's the right place for a choice word, and I'm not going to skip that if I don't have to.

Astor Cat,
I do not think you would be the problem here if your intention remains to engage in civil discourse, very few people would have a problem in a little lively language. It is when it becomes alienating and used to disrupt honest dialogue. As I believe myself swearing is almost vital in a given situation, if I strike my thumb with a hammer there is nothing quite so soothing to me like FUCK'EN BASTARD! You get where I am going context is all important. Here name calling is defeating the point of the medium this is supposed to be a place for intelligent conversation. It is a safe place for some people to be rude and ignorant they are out of reach, no one is going to put their lights out. It is a common problem all over the internet macho men in the safety of their own rooms doing what they don't out in the world.

[Astro Cat]

Astro Cat,
It just makes you sound like a moron, and if it is in the form of a personal attack it is a desperate measure of a man who knows he really has nothing worthwhile to say. Rather than admit to losing an argument one attacks the character of one's opponent, bad form and a logical fallacy, not to mention dishonest and disruptive.

First: I am not a man (no biggie though).

I think profanity is a good way to emphasize, and I don't think it casts any doubt on the intelligence of the speaker. There is such a thing as too much profanity and too vulgar of profanity, but I suppose this is a personal judgment each of us makes.

Profanity can increase power during physical tasks, increase pain tolerance, it can enhance the persuasiveness of argument, it can be an emotional outlet as opposed to more negatively impactful outlets, and apparently people that swear more tend to be more honest.

Also, I happened to look up whether there was a link between profanity and lack of education/intellect: turns out that it's the opposite than you describe (people that are better with language are better at swearing, unsurprisingly).

Swearing can be a way to bond. I remember not really letting my guard down around some professionals until they talked to me as themselves rather than just business-speak, and I could usually tell that they were being real with me from the choice words that they employed. I began to trust them more, and vice versa.

So, my stance is this. I conversationally swear, it's a tool in the toolbox to use. It's a form of linguistic dampening to demand that certain terms aren't used. I don't use them unnecessarily just like I don't use other tools when they're not needed. Occasionally, though, there's the right place for a choice word, and I'm not going to skip that if I don't have to.

Astor Cat,
I do not think you would be the problem here if your intention remains to engage in civil discourse, very few people would have a problem in a little lively language. It is when it becomes alienating and used to disrupt honest dialogue. As I believe myself swearing is almost vital in a given situation, if I strike my thumb with a hammer there is nothing quite so soothing to me like FUCK'EN BASTARD! You get where I am going context is all important. Here name calling is defeating the point of the medium this is supposed to be a place for intelligent conversation. It is a safe place for some people to be rude and ignorant they are out of reach, no one is going to put their lights out. It is a common problem all over the internet macho men in the safety of their own rooms doing what they don't out in the world.

Ah I see where you’re coming from now, and I agree. Profanity to abuse and degrade is a problem, yeah. It’s the other more “legitimate” uses I’m defending.

[popeye1945]

Astro Cat,

EXCELLENT!!

[Walker]

Ah I see where you’re coming from now, and I agree. Profanity to abuse and degrade is a problem, yeah. It’s the other more “legitimate” uses I’m defending.

Why do you figure some folks consider cursing to be a form of moral turpitude, with no legitimate use?

Are they just out of fashion?

Ever listen to Brian Regan? He's a funny guy. In an age of casual filth of all kinds, including lazy thought and language, the guy doesn't talk like a pig.

He's near the top of comedy mountain. Go figure.

I'll tell you something else. Cursing is bad. That's why the funny lady said that when she's good she's good, but when she's bad she's better. Time and a place for everything, or else it's a turn-off. It detracts. Come to think of it, she didn't curse either.

The time and place for cursing isn't everywhere, and anytime. It detracts from both the transmission and reception relationship, unless of course it's required by both as a mutual limitation, and unless the relationship isn't word-based, but then you're in the realm of grunts which isn't this place, at least in theory.

[seeds]

I don’t know about all that. When I speak in a relaxed manner it’s littered with profanity, that doesn’t mean it’s insulting to anybody. I think profanity is more like an exclamation point most of the time.

Astro Cat,
It just makes you sound like a moron, and if it is in the form of a personal attack it is a desperate measure of a man who knows he really has nothing worthwhile to say. Rather than admit to losing an argument one attacks the character of one's opponent, bad form and a logical fallacy, not to mention dishonest and disruptive.

Again, popeye1945, well said.
_______

[seeds]

_______



_______