Public Profanity on the Rise?

[Shuckins]

Hmm...that's sort of the equivalent of moral relativism, isn't it?  Aren't you settling for the lowest common denominator of personal responsibility when it comes to public discourse?

Does taking into consideration how one's speech effects others require too much forethought?  Aren't you saying that all those who find such speech offensive can be hanged, that your first consideration is to yourself?

If so, then anything is permissible.  Each generation will push the edges of the envelope...

[SOB]

What do you suggest?  We all limit ourselves from doing anything that someone else might find offensive unless we're safely hidden in our homes with the shades drawn?

[Shuckins]

I'm suggesting that the explosion in vulgar language use by the current generation of Americans is not a good thing and should not be so cavalierly accepted.

Certainly restraint can only come from those willing to practice it.

While it may not be humanly possible to live the kind of life that offends no one, we as a people can surely do more to cause as little offense as possible.

Stating that others should toughen their hides abrogates one's own responsibility to treat your fellow man with respect, and is a moral argument that is founded upon shifting sand.

[NattyIced]

Indeed Shuckins, which brings me to my previous argument. While you state that offensive images you haven't displayed, you won't state that they are vulgar. I am of the belief that you are only against offensive material if it does not agree with your rendition of vulgarity.

Am I right, or are bloody dead fetuses in public potrayal vulgar regardless of any political or "social" (moral) stance?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Hmm...that's sort of the equivalent of moral relativism, isn't it?  Aren't you settling for the lowest common denominator of personal responsibility when it comes to public discourse?

Does taking into consideration how one's speech effects others require too much forethought?  Aren't you saying that all those who find such speech offensive can be hanged, that your first consideration is to yourself?

If so, then anything is permissible.  Each generation will push the edges of the envelope...

Not at all. And personally I dont go out of my way to intentionally offend anyone. Well..most of the time I dont. But when I do intentionally offend someone they damn well know it was intentional LOL
And I dont go out of my way to cuss at inaproperiate times.
But I do that out of respect. Not out of recognition of any right of someon to not be offended.
There is a difference

But in general I dont sweat it too much if I unintentionally offend someone.
If your going to get that offended over a word, or combination of words. Then really you need to grow a thicker skin and worry more about the things that truely are offencive and worth being offended by. Starving children. Drug addict mothers Etc. Now those are worthy causes to be offended by. Not some silly word some mindless dink might spew out.

Sorry but neither you or I dont have the right to not be offended.
Just as you dont have the right to not get your feelings hurt.
Now you might not like either, being offended or getting your feelings hurt. but that doesnt give you the right for neither to happen.
Its a part of life.
One can either learn to live with the fact that its going to happen from time to time. Or Rope is cheap and a slipknot is easy to tie.
Find an expose ceiling joist and ya wont have to worry about either ever again.

There are all sorts of crap that I fond offencive. But I know that being offended is a part of life I shrug it off,and I move on

Just to be clear. when I say "you" I mean it in general terms. Not necessarily you in particular

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by SOB
What do you suggest?  We all limit ourselves from doing anything that someone else might find offensive unless we're safely hidden in our homes with the shades drawn?

Or for that matter one might lock themselves in their homes to prevent ever being exposed to something that they might find offensive.

LOL the worlds a dirty place. Always has been. always will be.
50 years ago saying the word "damn" would probably have offended many.
50 years form now it will probably be something else.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Shuckins

Stating that others should toughen their hides abrogates one's own responsibility to treat your fellow man with respect, and is a moral argument that is founded upon shifting sand.

Indeed as is your arguement.

Think of some of the images that are posted on this board on a regular basis.

Half clad women in string Bikinis would have definately been considered vulgar as recently as30-40 years ago

Now we just put them up and look at them and its no big deal

Back in the 1920's my Grandfather was arrested for indecent expsure for wearing a bathing suit that exposed part of his chest. Not his entire chest mind you. but only "part" of his chest

The acceptable form of swimwear back then looked like this

Wearing anything less was considered vulgar

now you can go back farther to the 1850s and womens bathing suits looked like this


Now

Now we can fast forward to today when its not at all uncommon to see people in bathing suits that look like this


Or even like this


Transport those people in any of those pics to the time before them and each would have been considered "Vulgar"

So you see your arguement also is based on shifting sand

[lazs2]

xmarine... I have no idea of what you mean.... how would that pass a "reasonable man" test?

Do you think that the majority of reasonable people would go for that?  We use the reasonable man idea in court all the time in criminal and civil cases.

The "reasonable man" idea of morality is how we evolve our morals.   The examples of bathing suits are good ones.   By the same token... you could probly not get a "reasonable man" to say that wearing a thong bikini in while teaching class was not acting in a way that was appropriate.

let's take the cell phone in the theatre example.... people should be able to tell the cell user to stop... if he did not or had a rude reply...  one or more of the people should be able to beat the crap out of him.   If it is a woman they should be able to drag her out of the theater.

But... even tho that is the perfect solution and a reasonable man would agree.... we can't because we have abdigated our responsibility to government... we sit and bear it in the hope that some nanny we have paid ror with our taxes will make the bad person stop.

If we act in a reasonable way... it is us that will incur the rath of our "protectors".

lazs

[Urchin]

Lazs, your method would work fine if people were reasonable.  Some (I'd go so far as to say most) people aren't reasonable.  

So the whole "reasonable man" theory is based on a flawed premise.

[J_A_B]

So Lazs, what are you going to say when the "Reasonable man" decides gun ownership isn't such a great idea?


At some point, pure democracy becomes nothing more than tyranny by the majority.  


Yelling "fire" in a theatre isn't the same thing as using the word "fire" in conversation with your wife.   At the same time, calling someone a "F***ing dumb***" isn't the same thing as casually using those words in conversation with your wife.  

Only busybodies and old ladies can't see the difference.  

Oh, wait, since it's bad to yell "fire" in that theatre, let's give someone a ticket every time he says "fire" regardless of the circumstances!


J_A_B

[lazs2]

you guys are off track.... you are most welcome to shout fire in a theatre if there is indeed a fire.

If you shout it and there is no fire then a jury of "reasonable men" will convict you of the damage.. Do you doubt that?

Tyranny of the reasonable man?   hardly... constitutional gurantees would still exist.

If you went on a profanity tirade in front of children or women then... a jury of reasonable men would decide your fate or that of your attackers.

Just because you feel you are acting reasonably does not make you right.  You have to convince your peers of that.

Free speach would apply but not your right to offend children say.  A reasonable man would convict you.... If you as a man complained of a co worker offending you with obcenity a reasonable man would most likely call you a sissy and tell you to shut up...

A reasonable man would not find a show obcene that was adults only and was described beforehand and yu had to pay to get into..  

Any other examples?

lazs

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lazs2
A reasonable man would not find a show obcene that was adults only and was described beforehand and yu had to pay to get into..  

Any other examples?

lazs

Refer back to the bathing suits and what is deemed acceptable or  not.

Now Bikini and string bikini type attire back in the 1920s might have very well been acceptable back then in the hoochi koochi adult shows and Burlesque theaters back then but not deemed acceptable for children to view.

Fast forward now.
Go to virually any beach on a hot summer day and you will see people dressed in bikinis, and string bikinis. and in some places even less. Children or no children.


My guess is like it or not 50 years from now the F word or even the c words wont raise so much as an eyebrow. if that.
and some other group of people will be having the exact same arguement only about different words.

On the other hand we could start heading back in the other direction back to our puritan ways.
Throughout history these things tend to run in cycles from ultra conservative to ultra liberal and back again.
But I dont foresee it getting any cleaner within our lifetimes.

This whole notion of "protecting our children" has gottent to the point of absurdity. While yea we should protect our kids from some things. it gotten way out of hand
We now tend to try to protect our children to every little thing.
and that woould be cool if the rest of the world all played by the same rules.
But it doesnt. In the end we really end up protecting them from nothing as at some point they have to deal with the real world.
and the real world isnt some shangrala where everyone is fair and kind and only wants to make nice nice.
The real world is cold and unfair, largely uncaring, vulgar, obscene eat or be eaten and by and large an "unreasonable" and offensive place to live.

In short. the world is by and large a mean unfair nasty "unreasonable" place broken up by moments of bliss

I'd rather have my kids learn to be hardened to it then unprepaired and shocked by it.
You adapt to your elements. The elements do not adapt to you.

Now that doesnt mean I  go out of my way to expose my kids to all these things. I dont. but I dont go out of my way to try to sheild them from it either.
And anyone with a kid older then 12 who honestly beleives "their" kid doesnt use foul language on a regular basis is living in a fantasy world.
they may not be using it in front of you. But you can bet the farm they are using it.

[lazs2]

dred.... what is your point?  that the view of the reasonable man changes?

Of course it does.   In 50 years a reasonable man may have a diffierent view of what is obscene.   I have no idea what that may be....

In that respect... people do make the morality.    As for profanity being on the rise?

Maybe... it is possible that it is what people want but it is also possible that because we have all given over our responsibility to do the right thing over to a huge faceless government... that we are the victims of our own apathy.

If we expect big brother to make everything right and be everywhere at once and have a law that covers every single circumstance then we have made ourselves helpless.

It is indeed a fact that governement can't regulate like men do.   They can't be at the movies when someone is talking loudly on a cell phone or swearing at a school or kids event.    They can tell howard stern to get off the public airwaves and onto pay radio tho.

lazs

[Maverick]

Something most of you are forgetting regarding language. The litmus test of offensiveness is not just the "reasonable man" test. That comes after the offense was noted and legal action was taken. The "reasonable man" test would be used by an independant panel (jury or magistrate) not at the scene. The innitial judge for being offensive is in the perception of the one being offended.

There is another point that is being missed and that is "intent". This is where a law, IE. dissorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, comes into play. If you are doing something to violate the statute you can and may well face legal action for it.

You may well feel comfortable referring to your family as "pimp" (you), potato or b***h (your female companion) and bas***d for your kids. If you use those terms to another and attempt to describe their family members like that you might be thinking about some kind of reaction as you will likely get one. Using those terms with the intent to offend or incite the other is most definately a violation.

It's true you cannot protect your kids from everything. That does not mean you should merely acquiesce to the situation and put up with it. It also does not mean you have the unrestricted right to say what you want, where you want and how you want in the presence of everyone else. If you do think that, I'd bet you are somewhat in for a rude awakening at some point in time.

[lazs2]

well put mav.... I think that the reasonable man idea comes into effect every time the case goes before a jury tho.   Just as you say... intent is very important.

lazs