Staying with George’s original point, you can’t be a stoic and live in a reality that doesn’t exist. This site has these rules and you have signed up to them - no other reality exists (there is no point during this saga at which either the rules have been different or you haven’t consented to them). If you don’t like them then stop posting and delete your account. Do not go down this route - this is not stoical at all.
I can only think that you have this much better site that it is unregulated. So anyone can post anyhting. So I can post three pages of gibberish. And wait. Then in a couple of days time I can do it again. Then again. Then again…
... what I’m getting at there is that this site of yours can’t be all that perfect otherwise you wouldn’t still be posting to this one if you are so bothered about the moderator policy. I feel that there is a reason why you still do and would hazard a guess that this is it: an unmoderated site has no quality control. In an ideal world, that would not be a bad thing. However, we don’t live in an ideal world, do we. You get the odd toe-rag out there who will happily post voluminous trash as often as they wish. To stop that happening you would need rules and enforcers. That’s anathema to you. However, the fact that we have toe-rags means we need policing and you can’t get away from that fact. I’m glad I don’t inhabit your head if this is the case, because it must be absolutely tumultuous in there, what with real life contradicting theory and all. Ask yourself this: if real life does not agree with your theory that an unregulated site should be better, which one (real life or theory) is correct?
Disclaimer: my use of the word toe-rag is purely illlustrative; it does not contradict in any way my counterpoint to the “vulgarity” argument that there are conditions of humanity that are debased and lower and others that are higher and that we can appoint ourselves arbiters of which is which and can be higher than that which is ordinary. It also in no way seeks to claim that (even if there were parts of humanity that were lower or higher) demonstrating that I was academically intelligent would elevate me one iota above people who were less so - it would not. I remain no better than anyone else.
<So is child pornography.>
Oh indeed; I have seen the morphing software take what looks like an adult female…. Playboy did a spread on the virtual reality bimbos recently, and you havta pay attention to realize that they are only software. If dressed normally, they’d pass for real when pasted in normal settings.
But then, they lengthened the legs, flattened the tits, removed pubic hair, flushed out the cheeks a little. They can make the figure look like whatever turns you on. Boys if you want. Looks just like child porn,.... but there aint no child. I think Orwell had a word for this.
I have worked in clinical settings, both kids and adults, and have friends now who run nursing homes. Of course, I give thot, when I am not dealing with mature rational individuals, to be careful in how I express myself so I dont unnecessarily disturb the the sensibilities of children, the senile, and demented. If you all want to put yourselves in these vulnerable classes, I dont have a problem with it.
It seems a lot of people here have put in a fair bit of time and effort to explain to you what the guidelines are and why they are so. Nobody is, of course, obligated to do this, but we take seriously the goal of having a variety of perspectives here, and we try to make an effort to accomodate people with different ideas and styles. Yet you repeatedly make insulting allusions to how much more intellectually and philosophically sophisticated you are than those who are trying to find an accomodation between our guidelines and your opinions. We are all unwitting slaves to Christian traditions, drones not so fortunate as to share your isolation from the mainstream media, etc. You show an arrogance and lack of interest in anyone else’s point of view that would be hard to justify even with a much greater insight, wisdom, and cogency of writing than you display. You will undoubtedly persist until we are obliged to ban you from the site and then sit back happy and smug that you have been martyred for your principles. FWIW (and note I am speaking in the voice of a forum member, not a moderator here), I think it would be more mature, stoic, and humanist of you to give your ego a break and consider the ideas and feelings of others, and to make an effort to find a common ground on which we can agree to discuss and debate, rather than insisting that your voice and style is inviolable and you will not moderate it to suit anyone else’s feelings. I think you can see, if you take the time to read and think deeply about what others have posted throughout the forum, that there are many strong minds and personalities here, that we do not all agree on all points of fact, ideology, principle or style, but that we make an effort to be civil, respectful, and flexible in order to preserve the benefit of the opportunity for discussion and debate we have here. Whatever I or the other moderators/administrators think of your voice and your ideas, you are welcome to participate if you can muster the character to make this same effort.
Following Stoic tradition, I speak & write the same way, the same as those I regularly interact with. You know, when you shovel it, you just dont have a lotta patience for those who want you to call it manure. You say you want a variety of views, but my pagan tradition is offensive. As it has always been to Christian sensibilities.
Wallace, in his anthro classic, “Culture & Personality” noted that when a system is on the skids, and people’s coping skills dont work so well any more, they engage in “magical thinking”. A term he coined. Thus the rise in Christian fundamentalism. And you all are immersed in it. You dont have any control over the political process, you cannot agree on what should be done, so you pile on the one thing you’ve found agreement on. Profanity.
Not my problem. My culture is still functional. http://normessasweb.uark.edu/reportcards/select.php is the school reports. Look up the small hill towns like Alread, Bee Branch, Clinton, Deer, Eureka Springs, Flippin, Greer’s Ferry…. You can prolly go thru most of the alphabet. look at the rates of violence consistently at zero. Dropout rates in the single digits. Graduation rates near 90%. Classes that regularly average, not 50% but 65%. Hillbillies always had a reputation of being stupid, and have profited from it.
It has something to do with why half the Green Berets grew up on family farms, which are all over this area. People out here dont call it manure. Nobody cares if the kids use profanity outside of school, which tend to have flatland teachers with advanced degrees. The kids get flack about it. But not at home, not with us. We have more important things to think about for crysake.
You have my email address, my website, and usenet. I’ll check the postings from time to time, just as I watch Fux News from time to time, not that I like it, but I like to know how people think. If that’s what you call it.
Stoicism teaches that self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased.
sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e. an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention if their argument is logical and factual.
Hmmm why is it that all true believers that I have sampled in life thus far, must take great pains to make loud and brash shows of their “true belief” (almost as if they had lingering doubt that would somehow be calmed by force) and must also insist that if the simple non-believers only understood, all would become true believers just like them….reminds me of the alcoholics I know who get angered when others do not drink.
As a skeptic I find your many claims (ethics, what stoics believe, why it is wrong to temper our excesses in public, and on and on) to be without sufficient evidence to be considered true. If you insist on making truth claims (as opposed to stating belief) I expect you should take some time to do the empirical work necessary to justify your truth claims.
Oddly I feel rather indifferent in regards to both obscenity and your alleged just cause…maybe I am a stoic after all.
And, Mriana, I know you have better critical thinking and rhetorical skills than that; kindly use them.
I was. Vulgar means common. I’m sure you are above the common people and can speak as though you are knowledgable about a subject without being common or breaking the rules on the board. Not to mention, if you have a strong enough vocabulary, you don’t need the vulgar and can use words that show critical thinking, rhetorical skills and intelligence. To use profanity seems to me a sign of lack of vocabulary and inability to express oneself in an intelligent manner.
My favorite comments on language have been from George Carlin. I suspect he would argue that it is not the words, but the manner in which they are used, that has fueled this debate.
I have no idea what initiated this debate, but from the small number of threads I have participated in, where DayBrown has been involved, have not been insulting to me. Perhaps they were meant to be, but I ignored the jabs.
My roots are on farm land too. I know how crude the vernacular can be. It can be used in a charming way, but also in a very disturbing/hurtful way. I suspect whatever the cause of this fracas, is due to the latter.
I see no advantage in insulting people during a debate, so I make every effort to avoid it. Adding “vulgar” language to a debate, if done in a charming way, can help sway the debate in your direction. If used in a hurtful or disturbing way, it does nothing for your credibility much less your argument.
Just so everyone is clear, there were some complaints from members about daybrown’s use of language, and he was asked to moderate it out of consideration for the community. While plenty of people were not bothered by his profanity, we feel that the best way to foster an atmosphere conducive to free and open discussion and debate is to encourage respectful and civil communication. Both in public and in private, daybrown was completely disrespectful and unwilling to consider any alteration in his style in order to accomodate the feelings of the community or the guidelines instituted by the moderators and administrators. As a consequence, he is not permitted to participate in discussions on this board at this time.
The general topic of profanity and it’s role in language and communication is a valid and interesting one, and all opinions are welcome. But as several members have pointed out in this thread, accomodation and consideration are important elements to civil discourse, and ultimately we think the breadth and quality of inquiry will be superior if everyone exhibits those qualities when participating in discussions here.
I think your gripe with common people might be that you can never get a good shot at them from that high horse you appear to be riding on. None of us are above common people, and certainly perjorative terms like common and vulgar show a lack of inclusivity and respect. As to swearing (in England nobody ever calls it profanity - rather anachronistic terminology), it does not in anyway decrease my vocabulary. I use many of these “vulgar” terms in my everyday life. I have an extensive vocabulary. If I got rid of all the expletives, I would still have an extensive vocabulary, only somewhat reduced. That suggests to me that getting rid of a whole load of words from your everyday parlance reduces your available vocabulary. In short, it’s a no-brainer; your idea that it is a sign of a lack of vocabulary is incorrect and actually appears to be a prejudice. This thing about swearing seems like another of these nonsensical and superstitious rules that we intelligent, rational people have to pander to on a daily basis. I want rid of them. They’re unhelpful, have no real basis and wouldn’t matter at all if people left aside their intolerance to it and just dealt with the irrational anxieties that they choose to experience upon hearing them. If society appeases people who arbitrarily take exception to certain phonemes, it’s the thin end of the wedge. I would say to anyone who dislikes such words: “Well, don’t use them then” and I don’t take kindly to being told that I can’t, since I’m not the problem in that case.
That said, I respect the rules of this forum and will not use them on here (and have been in complete agreement throughout this thread that what a certain other member was doing was not on). However, I find this idea that we’re any better than the average Joe very offensive. What makes a good person? Decency towards others, etc. Part of that decency should be tolerating the manner in which they express themselves as long as it not done with any intent to incite hatred or violence against another person. I think most “common” (redundant word) people are reasonably decent towards others, I am no better or worse than that myself and would not seek to elevate myself to some self-invented higher stratum of humanity.
FWIW, and speaking in the simple black of the “common man” , I tend not to be too disturbed by swearing for intensification or humor, and I have to make an effort to avoid such usage myself here. As a parent, I see the excitement that comes from discovering that a certain word elicites a reaction from adults and the obsessive, awkward use of it that often follows for a time. Personally, I deal with this by allowing the behavior to extinguish itself and by quietly pointing out that such words, like any others, are effective and appropriate in some contexts and not others. My daughter seems capable of learning the lesson, which sadly not all adults are. Anyway, I avoid technical medical jargon here because it would obfuscate, and I avoid profanity because not everyone feels as I do about it and I have no wish to gratuitously offend. Such language is not so critical to my capacity for cogent self-expression, nor do I feel so strongly that it is my inalienable right to use it any time I choose, that I feel it necessary to insist upon using it if it is unwelcome by any significant segment of the community. Perhaps it’s the thin edge of the wedge, but I would argue very, perhaps negligibly thin.
What I think most of us can agree on is that we’re rarely at a significant disadvantage in expressing ourselves without it and that the value of consideration and flexibility in order to facilitate a welcoming community forum is probably worth the price of avoiding expletives. And Occam has been kind enough to suggest some quite clever alternatives for situations in which the intensification or humorous effect we usually achieve with swearing is called for. As a biologist, I for one have found “micturates me off” indispensible since he first shared it with me! :grin:
While I don’t feel embarrased or offended by crude language, I understand that others could. So,for me, it’s not a big deal getting rid of them. In some way, I suspect, this is somnething necesary to live in a society: leave behind certain uses that are no important to you in order to avoid bothering your neighbor (of course, without resigning important things as your own freedom).
I don’t feel free inquiry has something to do with being disrespectful with people. It’s certainly possible to be unflexible with ideas and respectful with people, so, if someone feel bothered by certain word, why not avoid it if we can express the same idea without using it?