Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on March 30, 2006, 07:36:23 AM
-
An article in the Associated Press cites a survey which states that 74% of Americans interviewed admit to using or hearing profanity in public.
More women than men admit to hearing profanity, and younger people admit to using it more often than do older Americans.
Most interviewed stated that they believed the use of profanity is more prevalent today than 20 years ago...especially the use of the most profane word of all, the "F" word.
Was the First Amendment established to protect this type of offensive conduct in public?
The full article can be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_re_us/age_of_profanity
Regards, Shuckins
-
Everyone caught swearing should be ticketed! ****ing decline of western ****ing morals I ****ing say. ****.
-
No profanity in public in Virginia Beach..they canceled the first amendment here and will ticket you for using profanity in public.
-
ASTAC...
Is that for real? How can that even be Constitutional? Has anyone challenged that bit of garbage legislation?
I swear like a sailor when I choose to, because I'll express myself any way I choose (provided no one is actually harmed).
That ticket gets shredded and ignored. Being the contentious PIA that I am, I'd probably swear about getting the thing, and get cited again.
Thank Cod for the morally superior. Who would be our nannys otherwise? How would I ever know what's best for me without someone to tell me what to think, or what to do?
Jeebus...what next.
-
It's not so much that profanity is on the rise as language is simply changing over time. Just as nobody cares about many words which were considered profane 200 years ago, many current words are losing their shock value and being incorporated into normal speech. The words the older generation considers profane are often acceptible to the younger generations. My wife and I both often use various swear words as part of everyday speech, as do many if not most other people our age and younger (basically people under 30).
There are still plenty of "traditional" cuss words we don't say except in anger. The 4-letter C word is one of them. Other words which were often used by past generations have become taboo, the "N" word being an obvious example.
That article reads as though a bunch of holier-than-thou old farts wrote it.
J_A_B
-
This was the talk of the town for a while
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=10650
shamus
-
Think it was Lewis Black that said "In New York, '****' (starts with F ends with K) isn't a word. It's a comma."
-
Well most four letter words are saxon roots that french/norman overlords didn't consider ... proper.... it's also the reason we have french rooted words for meat, while haveing saxxon rooted words for the animal....like sheep/mutton or pig/pork
or so I've heard..... The winner's 'write' history I guess?
-
From the "Strip" (Atlantic Avenue) Va Bch, VA
and an article linked below.
I don't see how it is constitutional at all...But most people are too lazy to challege it..thinking it MUST be legal to ban free speech.
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/daveman123/no-bad-words-sm.jpg)
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/daveman123/ASNE-BetsySergeantsign.jpg)
Clicky (http://washingtonsocialites.com/2004/05/procrastination-what-fck-city-curses.html)
My favorite part of that article.
"The hungover Marines I bumped into on the beach Sunday said they just hide out in hotel rooms at night to avoid fines since their cursing is uncontrollable after a few Bud Lights - eek!"
-
Holy crapski! :O
No kidding...that just plain scares me. How in THE Hell are those regs to be enforced? Exactly what do the words 'appropriate', 'obscene', 'vulgar', 'revealing' and 'disrupt' mean, legally? Have they been given specific, measurable and objective standards, or just the "I don't know how to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it" logic?
I mean this in all honesty when I say that I find that sign, and the idea behind it, entirely vulgar, inappropriate and obscene. The presence of that sign would actively disrupt my ability to peacefully enjoy myself. Think I can hold the city government culpable, and have them all arrested?
I don't mean to suggest that it's OK to go running down the street screaming adult words at the top of your lungs, but this kind of legislation should frighten the snot out of any real American.
"I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
What has happened to Old Virginia, anyway?
Hell will have to freeze over solid before I'll accept anyone telling me what I can and cannot say.
Morality Police. Excellent concept.
Anybody from VA Beach coming to visit NYC better grow some bark on 'em, or they WILL go home all a-twitter.
EDIT: I just realized that they've gone and outlawed pretty girls in bikinis. Sounds like paradise.
-
profanity is for the immature and ignorant who can't express their feelings any other way.
-
Any "freedom" which, in fact, encroaches on others freedom is not a freedom. It is an intrusion.
Come up to my family and start calling them names, and you will be eating the bigger end of a baseball bat.
No freedom is without responsibility and/or consequences. A freedom is a precious thing and should never be allowed to be abused. It is a sad fact the above community felt they had to post that and a sad testimony to the state of our society.
-
I can understand someone cussing if they are in pain. For any other time it is an expression of weakness and frustration.
Les
-
Originally posted by john9001
profanity is for the immature and ignorant who can't express their feelings any other way.
ding ding ding!!
-
Take a walk into a public high school, or even a middle school for that matter, and you will hear the N word spouted off at least every minute. That is the hoice word, others follow behind it.
-
Somewhere along the line a court case was decided on the effect of profanity.. the gist of it was that if you verbally assial somebody a beating is appropriate.
Skuzzy's points are well taken.. say the wrong thing at the wrong time; yah just might find out how good the medical care is in jail.
-
Let's say someone crosses me, and I splurt out "F'in moron". How is that any different from putting it into a more eloquent format such as, "You mentally challenged 2 year old in a 40 year old body"?
Or, let's say I'm surprised and blurp out the Sheet word. Why is that any different from exclaiming jeepers.
In this day when Bootylicious get's put in the dictionary, why are we as a society still hung up on expletives? I mean come on, do words really hurt your feelings that much you want to take a baseball bat to someone?
I'm not claiming 1st amendment rights or anything like that, taking the devils advocate on this. I do believe the colorful vernacular of the vulgar adds to the english language. I'm really trying to grasp how this hurts your sensitivities to hear the "bad words".
-
Well, it's quite easy to make oneself feel self-righteous by declaring a form of speech fit only for the ignorant and weak, but it doesn't actually make it true. That's just preening.
Neither was I ever suggesting anything like accosting a family in the street and berating them with abusive language. That's already called simple assault, and is already illegal. Not to mention being beneath the dignity of a decent person. Please...I'm a family man and a professional.
Let's not trivialize the matter. The point is not to defend yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room, or to defend hateful and inciting language intended to do harm, but to point out that you may not like it, but the freedom to express oneself IS what freedom of speech is all about. And that includes a choice of words.
Like it or not, trying to dictate things like this (outside of the directly and intentionally harmful) is unacceptable to me.
It is unfortunate that a community feels the need for this, but for other reasons. What I say walking down the public street, to myself or a companion, is simply not anybody else's business. Even if I were overheard. Besides, I'm not talking about walking around uttering a never-ending stream of curses at the top of my lungs, either. That's disturbing the peace, and is also already legislated.
If it is OK to legislate language, then I want those blasted freak missionaries run out of town on a rail, and equally banned. The only reason they can accost me and my children, in my home, and against my will, is thanks to the protections we afford speech. I don't like it, and I don't want to be rousted every Sunday morning by these people, but they have the right to express themselves...apparently even to the point of inviting themselves to my front door and asking me intensely personal questions without a welcome. Now, I'm sure that would upset a bunch of folks who think this kind of thing is perfectly acceptable, but it's the same principle.
My interpretation is this is a manifestation of an overweening need to control other people, in order to foment someone's personal sense of 'proper' morality. It's always easy to accept when the idea fits your own personal worldview, but...there's more than one view, and I'm not willing to be forced to accept yours. The problem is that this is not legislation to prevent a directed verbal assault. That already exists. It's a sweeping, all-inclusive public prohibition that I believe is not the purvue of government. I just don't see some swearing as a sad testament to the state of our society. I think there's a couple-three items that are just a bit more significant.
When someone gets out of control, and becomes a public nuisance in the very real sense, I think every community has the needed regulations to put a halt to it. This however, is specifically targeted at regulating and defining acceptable speech in public places. It just don't sit right with me.
As for profanity legally justifying a beating...well, I'm sure that's true in some communities. Here, you go to jail for being the first one to lay hands on another. Words and deeds are not the same thing.
Anyway...we're each entitled to feel as we do. If the matter ever comes up in my neck of the woods...I'll be opposed.
-
Some 10 year old across the street were throwing sticks at each other. One of them then called the other a "****ing ho". :huh
-
At least the witnesses for Jesus didn't drive up in a car. Hehe. One time a police LT. came to the house and I was outside painting. Anyway, one of my friends was with me and he thought they were after him, for some misdemeanor. I told him to go inside and not worry.
I walk from the back yard to the front and say "Hi" and shake hands (Lt. Mike pulls back his coat to show his revolver subtely.) He starts asking about my neighbors, and I told him I was relieved he wasn't a Jehova's Witness, because he looked like one but they don't carry guns and drive up in cars. He rolled his eyes and asked, do you see your neighbor that lives two houses over? I said yes, sometimes, and she looks good in a bikini. He rolls eyes again and is beginning to realize I'm not gonna say anything. and then finally says "Bye" and goes to other houses.:D
Les
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
From the "Strip" (Atlantic Avenue) Va Bch, VA
and an article linked below.
I don't see how it is constitutional at all...But most people are too lazy to challege it..thinking it MUST be legal to ban free speech.
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/daveman123/no-bad-words-sm.jpg)
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/daveman123/ASNE-BetsySergeantsign.jpg)
Clicky (http://washingtonsocialites.com/2004/05/procrastination-what-fck-city-curses.html)
My favorite part of that article.
"The hungover Marines I bumped into on the beach Sunday said they just hide out in hotel rooms at night to avoid fines since their cursing is uncontrollable after a few Bud Lights - eek!"
The signs are also at Lynnhaven mall, Pembroke mall, at on a few sign posts at teh town center buildings, basically if you stump your toe, or break a heal, and say Damn you can get a ticket.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
An article in the Associated Press cites a survey which states that 74% of Americans interviewed admit to using or hearing profanity in public.
More women than men admit to hearing profanity, and younger people admit to using it more often than do older Americans.
Most interviewed stated that they believed the use of profanity is more prevalent today than 20 years ago...especially the use of the most profane word of all, the "F" word.
Was the First Amendment established to protect this type of offensive conduct in public?
The full article can be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_re_us/age_of_profanity
Regards, Shuckins
No chit,
They just now figured that out?
I could have told them that 20 years ago
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
It's not so much that profanity is on the rise as language is simply changing over time. Just as nobody cares about many words which were considered profane 200 years ago, many current words are losing their shock value and being incorporated into normal speech. The words the older generation considers profane are often acceptible to the younger generations. My wife and I both often use various swear words as part of everyday speech, as do many if not most other people our age and younger (basically people under 30).
There are still plenty of "traditional" cuss words we don't say except in anger. The 4-letter C word is one of them. Other words which were often used by past generations have become taboo, the "N" word being an obvious example.
That article reads as though a bunch of holier-than-thou old farts wrote it.
J_A_B
Thats pretty damn accurate
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Think it was Lewis Black that said "In New York, '****' (starts with F ends with K) isn't a word. It's a comma."
And thats 100% accurate.
Here in Joisey too
-
The question is, what are people that find this type of language coarse, vulgar, and offensive to do? Wear ear-plugs in public?
While you have the right to speak your mind you also have a responsibility to consider the rights of those around you. It seems to me that, increasingly, many people in our society would rather not consider the rights of others. Using such speech in a select group of friends is one thing, but unrestrained profanity in public is self-centered and juvenile.
The wife recently purchased the movie "Family Business" in dvd. Being a fan of Sean Connery and Dustin Hoffman, we eagerly looked forward to a couple of hours of relaxation with movie, popcorn, and soda.
After listening to 30 minutes of foul-mouthed dialogue, I had no appetite for anything edible. If the "f" word had be excised from the script, that movie would have been only 20 minutes long.
The dvd made a wonderful chew-toy for my blue-heeler.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The question is, what are people that find this type of language coarse, vulgar, and offensive to do? Wear ear-plugs in public?
While you have the right to speak your mind you also have a responsibility to consider the rights of those around you. It seems to me that, increasingly, many people in our society would rather not consider the rights of others. Using such speech in a select group of friends is one thing, but unrestrained profanity in public is self-centered and juvenile.
.
Rights of thouse around you? While there IS a right to Free Speech (which would include the vulgar stuff ) there is NOT a right to not be offended. People need to get this into their thick skulls.
I do not condone the use of that sort of language out in public, but it is protected, and to be fined for it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
-
Conversely, Astac, if your statement is true, neither is there a right to offend.
What I'm arguing for here is a return to a sense of public civility. Do you really suppose that the First Amendment was crafted to allow verbal boorishness? It's true intent was to protect freedom of opinion as it pertained to political expression. Restraint of vulgarity in the presence of mixed company was expected as a matter of course and would not have been deemed a type of behavior which required the protection of a Constitutional amendment.
Regards, Shuckins
-
How do you feel about the public display of pro-life posters which feature aborted fetuses? Just out of curiosity, because they seem to be all the rage the past 10 years.
-
Welllllll, I don't know Natty....never displayed one myself.
I guess it depends on whether or not one defines such a poster as profanity or as political and social commentary. Some of you guys who so stridently defend the sanctity of all speech shouldn't be bothered by that type of poster at all. It's protected by the First Amedment...right?
According to Astac, we have no right not to be offended. So I guess that those who are offended can simply look elsewhere.
What's your opinion?
Regards, Shuckins
-
So you switched it around on me rather than directly answer the question.
How do you feel about seeing it on the street? If it is offensive to people, should it be removed? If not, then what should those offended do? Drive/walk with their hands over their eyes, choose a new route, pass a law to prohibit public display of vulgar images, or just ignore it and proceed with their life?
Being offended due to the first amendment is easy, it's what you do afterwards that indicates whether you deserve that amendment or not.
-
Natty, sure I flipped the argument on you. I did it because I assumed, from the tone of your first post, that you agreed with Astac.
You tried to trap me with a Catch 22 question...but that works both ways.
You DO agree with him don't you? Did you agree with his statement that we have no right to not be offended?
Personally, while I would publicly argue against abortion, I would not use such a graphic poster myself.
While you might find such a thing offensive, if you truly believe in the protections of the first amendment, as you claim, then you have no right to not be offended by it. That argument kind of stands on its head, doesn't it.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Just because you don't have a right to be offended, doesn't mean you can't be offended. I've seen those posters, and they are vulgar. One person posted up on a street weekly with a whole slew of those posters. I knew the street, I chose a different path. Eventually that person was removed since they did not have a protesting permit.
You can't say that you have a right granted by the laws of the land to be offended to bring leverage against offensive material to have it outlawed when you have an explicit right to say or present that offensive material.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Conversely, Astac, if your statement is true, neither is there a right to offend.
What I'm arguing for here is a return to a sense of public civility. Do you really suppose that the First Amendment was crafted to allow verbal boorishness? It's true intent was to protect freedom of opinion as it pertained to political expression. Restraint of vulgarity in the presence of mixed company was expected as a matter of course and would not have been deemed a type of behavior which required the protection of a Constitutional amendment.
Regards, Shuckins
That's true, there isn't a right to offend. That doesn't mean that offensive language is therefor excluded from protection. If you choose to be offended by it, that's your issue. And whether it's "boorish" or not is entirely subjective, which is another reason why the protection exists. The government trying to restrict expression because they don't like it or agree with it...that is EXACTLY why the first amendment exists.
Grow a thicker skin, or stay in your house under the blankets with earplugs in. If I'm with someone who is offended by foul language, I edit myself, that's just common sense and courtesy. But that's certainly not something required by the constitution...if it were, that would really be sad.
-
There was something wrong with your last statement. Couldn't put my finger on what it was for a moment, but I think what you meant to say was;
"You can't say you have a right granted by the laws of the land to NOT be offended in order to bring leverage against offensive material to have it outlawed when you have an explicit right to say or present that offensive material."
If you return to my earlier post you will see that what I am arguing for is a return for personal civility. The law does not specifically grant a right to be offensive or to not be offended. That is a matter of personal choice and inclination... a concept the Founding Fathers understood perfectly well. The First Amendment was designed to prevent the citizens of this country from being imprisoned for commentary critical of the government.
As a matter of fact, private speech has always been controlled. Speech that inflames people to violence, or puts the public in danger has ever been restricted. So, as far as the law is concerned you cannot say "anything" you want to say.
Regards, Shuckins
-
"As a matter of fact, private speech has always been controlled. Speech that inflames people to violence, or puts the public in danger has ever been restricted. So, as far as the law is concerned you cannot say "anything" you want to say."
You'll also notice by reading my post that I didn't suggest that you could say "anything" you want to say.
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
Just because you don't have a right to be offended, doesn't mean you can't be offended.
Who says so? I have a right to be offended and I demand satisfaction!
I haven't been offended in a few weeks and its pissing me off!:mad:
-
Say, Holden, aren't you a Californian?
-
Thank you for your offensive question.
-
"If you return to my earlier post you will see that what I am arguing for is a return for personal civility.
That's the thing--there is no universal definition of civility. I can talk to a guy and we might be saying "F**K" every other word (exaggeration) but we'll both consider that perfectly civil and normal.
I don't think it's a matter of civility so much as a matter of a group of people who wish to ban any behavior they dislike.
J_A_B
-
To say, much less believe, that there are no limits to speech based on the first amendment, is an exercise in futility. There are limits to the freedom of expression in the United States and always have been.
There are severe penalties in expressing yourself in some circumstances. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a popular example. How about others. Distributing classified material as a means of expressing your distaste of the current state of affairs in the country's dealings with less than friendly nations. Distributing child pornography at all much less in areas that are accessible to children like schools for example.
Using the current thread topic, cursing. How many of you are fully able to use any word whatsoever in the workplace? What would happen if you started indiscriminately referring to women as "ho's" and b***hes, men as "bastards" or the "MF" combination while at work. The same for displaying the same on your clothing when dealing with co workers and the customers (or in the case of public servants) the general population?
How about another example. Religion. It used to be common practice to sacrifice people in religious observances. It was even codified in the bible as an Old Testament requirement of faith. It was also a key practice in several other religions. The same for multiple marriages (Mormonism) consuming the flesh of your family members (or enemies) after death as well as storage of body parts after death to maintain a relationship with the deceased.
If you think these practices will be allowed either under the free practice of religion or free speech I have a bridge for sale, very little used and conveniently located to a major population center. I might also have some Spanish prisoners remaining, please start the bidding soon before the selection runs low.
There is an old saying, your freedom to express yourself stops at the tip of my nose. There is no constitutional guarantee for the freedom to offend, harass, annoy, or endanger anyone else. If you think there is, try some of the examples I have listed above and see what happens.
-
You shouldn't use the workplace as an example of what you can and can not do.
On the road you can whistle at a pretty lady, or do cat calls. You'll be a giant sweetheart bag, but you can do it. You do that at work, and you get slapped with sexual harrasment and possibly fired.
You accepted the employer's terms of employment when you signed that contract. You CAN call anyone you want anything you want at work, but you'll get fired because of the aforementioned terms of employment. On the street you'll probably just get knocked the **** out.
-
Natty,
For many the workplace is out in public and I don't recall anyone claiming the constitution was limited by employment or that employment conditions were not also included in their zeal at spewing foul language.
But thanks for another example on how freedom of speech is curtailed.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
..you will be eating the bigger end of a baseball bat.
Hospitality, Skuzzy style.;)
If this is not just smack talk, you realise you would be prosecuted, even in Texas ? Assault, manslaughter, etc, depending of the outcome. And that would be right. Baseball bat can be a deadly weapon. That is the correct response for bad language ?
-
At all of the places I have worked, vulgar language and sexual harrasment were two of the top three things mentioned in my contract. The third being computer usage.
Even if your workplace is in the public, you are hired by an employer and agreed to their terms of employment. A business typically operates on private property, and they can restrict your second amendment rights by not allowing you to bring your weapon onto their property.
-
Next you'll be ticketed for talking to loud... or to low for that matter because you know everyone hates when people are wispering... OMG THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT ME!!!
Pssh..
-
The question might be;
Should the Government be used to legislate good manners?
Everyone should be cognizant of the environment, and the people and the circumstances around them. But these are personal, subjective decisions about manners and good taste.
I swear quite a bit. I don't do it in a church or temple, not in a crowded public place (except under my breath), not in the daycare center...I could go on. Walking down the street, minding my own business...I says, "Damn, but that's one ugly-*** car." A citation and a fine? 2x? Does that really sound so good to anyone?
Simply put...do you want the government to dictate good manners to you?
I may consider someone a monumental boob and a boor because of their behavior. I might even call him on it. But just 'cause I don't like it, doesn't necessarily make me any more right than him, and certainly isn't a good enough reason to give the authorities another reason to interfere. I agree that unrestrained invective is inapprpriate in certain situations. I think thats what other regs exist for...to permit the authorities to act when a person cannot take a polite request to maybe "tone it down around the kids".
And a last point...where is the list of "banned" words? You don't mean to say that you'd like to leave an open door for judgement, right? You wouldn't want to just take your chances with a local judge to determine whether a particular word is OK today, but maybe not tomorrow? Blend in all those other non-specific words, and this ordinance look ripe for abuse. Don't like the kind of tourists that are visiting? Too much ethnic flavor? Just send out the cops to ticket people for "engaging in any behavior which is likely to...disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of others".
Lordy, you could ticket people for laughing too loud! This is a recipe for abuse.
I, for one, do not need the government in my bedroom, in my TV, in my radio, checking my CD's, watching my internet surfing habits or telling me how to raise my children, or what I can and can't say.
Manners and the law are not compatible, in my opinion. Why are we so comfortable with a nanny State?
-
Originally posted by Timofei
Hospitality, Skuzzy style.;)
If this is not just smack talk, you realise you would be prosecuted, even in Texas ? Assault, manslaughter, etc, depending of the outcome. And that would be right. Baseball bat can be a deadly weapon. That is the correct response for bad language ?
If my family is being threatened, even verbally, I can defend them, if I have no other option. No, it is not smack talk. I do not take kindly to people who would attack my family.
-
I have to agree with Skuzz...all bets are off when you mess with family.
Maybe not a bat, though...hard to explain away the weapon vs. words thing.
-
I guess I should put it in perspective. A bat would be a last line type of deal. If someone cannot take a hint, a bat is a good reminder to listen next time (its not like they did not see it coming).
Besides, in Texas, not many courts would convict you for defending your family, if it was a last resort type of situation.
-
Lol... I suspect that if you used a bat on someone you would be prosecuted unless they were actually in the process of physically harming you or someone else.
Bu bu bu but JUDGE! I WARNED him I was goin' to hit him with a bat if he didn't shut up! What do you MEAN it is still illegal!?
But lets construct a hypothetical situation here... some random guy and a family member of yours are in an argument. It gets heated, name calling, swearing, etc. The random guy's dad shows up with a shotgun and tells your family member that if he doesn't stop yelling and leave he is going to shoot your family member.
Your family member says "Hey, you can't do that", and gets shot. It is your family member's fault right? That guy did give fair warning he was going to shoot, after all.
-
well.... the government is a slippery slope.
In the old days... if someone was being obnoxious to women or around children... the townspeople were likely to shoot him or beat him to death... in the old west women were raped so rarely as to be something that would be talked about for years. Those not polite were likely to be shot.
When the government steps in and says that they will take care of things thank you and that if you interfere then you will be arrested...
Well.... everything gets all screwed up. When the government takes away peoples ability to solve problems then....
problems don't get solved.
lazs
-
I believe that the use of profanity is just one part of a much bigger issue. That being: As a whole, we have forgotten how people should act in public.
From cell phones in movie theaters, to the non-stop chatter at a child’s choir concert… For the most part, people just don’t have a clue.
-
maybe bigger than that...
We as a people have abdicated our responsibility to enforce good manners or live peacfully and with respect to....
The government... we simply say.... "don't want to get involved" "might get in trouble" "that is what we pay the cops for" " that is what I/we pay taxes for"
Any of a number of excuses (and they are viable) to get out of doing the right thing.
We can't or won't admit that it isn't working and that govenment can't do a damn thing to make it better.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Was the First Amendment established to protect this type of offensive conduct in public?
The full article can be found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_re_us/age_of_profanity
Regards, Shuckins
Offensive is relative.
-
nope.... offensive is simple... whatever the majority or "a reasonable man" would find offensive is.... offensive. The people you are around also dictates what is offensive.
Grown male adults on the job have no right to act offended by words for instance.. Add women or children to the mix and it changes what can be said.
In the former case it may be annoying but hardly offensive.. in the latter...it is offensive and uncalled for.
lazs
-
I have to agree with lazs on this one.
And Urchin, there is no point in my responding to your situation. It is a matter of context and locale.
-
Yeah, it's gotten out of hand.
Remember this little girl?
http://www.nbc.com/Video/videos/snl_1439_natalieraps.shtml
-
Originally posted by G0ALY
From cell phones in movie theaters, to the non-stop chatter at a child’s choir concert… For the most part, people just don’t have a clue.
I learned my lesson when I lost my job and career when I was caught pleasuring myself in an adult theatre (http://www.dailywav.com/0101/mymistak.wav)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nope.... offensive is simple... whatever the majority or "a reasonable man" would find offensive is.... offensive. The people you are around also dictates what is offensive.
Grown male adults on the job have no right to act offended by words for instance.. Add women or children to the mix and it changes what can be said.
In the former case it may be annoying but hardly offensive.. in the latter...it is offensive and uncalled for.
lazs
Like I said, its relative. Your opinion is that relevance relates to that of a reasonable man. I personally like to make my own decisions, you can follow the common folks and I'll think for myself.
If West Hollywoods reasonible men decide having a girlfriend is offensive, I hope youre ready to re think who you let decide for you.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
You DO agree with him don't you? Did you agree with his statement that we have no right to not be offended?
Regards, Shuckins
I'll agree with it. Ther is no right protecting you from being offended anymore then there is a rght protecting you against getting a a sun burn.
If you dont want to risk getting it. dont go outside. Or you go outside and take your chances
And being offended is an individual thing.
Personally foul language doesnt offend me at all.
Orgainisations such as PETA telling me I cant eat meat,wear clothing made from animalsetc.. Or our government drafting legislation granting rights and priveledgesto illegal alians Does
Guess its all a matter of whats important to you
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Freudenberg-LouisJulius_05.jpg/180px-Freudenberg-LouisJulius_05.jpg)
Wearing anything less was considered vulgar
now you can go back farther to the 1850s and womens bathing suits looked like this
Now(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/75/Bathing_suit_1858.png/200px-Bathing_suit_1858.png)
Now we can fast forward to today when its not at all uncommon to see people in bathing suits that look like this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg/180px-Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg)
Or even like this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Bikini-Tanga.jpg/180px-Bikini-Tanga.jpg)
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
....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...
progress is not profanity
skateboarding is not a crime
i like ike
-
Originally posted by Debonair
progress is not profanity
skateboarding is not a crime
i like ike
One persons progress is anothers regression
Same thing could be said about the language.
While some wouldnt see it as progress. Its a part that comes with it.
As someone else mentioned the language is simply changing with the times
While I dont have any problems with the bathing suit issue either.
50 years ago such displays by many would have been considered just as profane,vulgar and obscene as this language issue is here now.
Even using words back then as minor as "Damn it" would have raised a few eyebrows
Hell even saying "Damn" or "Go to hell" on TV was considered a big nono as recently as 30 years ago
And had I made the same arguement I make now 50 years ago. someone else would have come along with the "reasonable man" arguement.
Yet here we are. Such things that were considered by the moral majority as being lewd,profane,vulgar and obscene. Are now considered no big deal. and now go almost unnoticed. (Course if they didnt look so good they probably wouldnt be noticed at all)
Finally. there is no such thing as the "reasonable man"
Typically people who my seem reasonable on one issue can be totally unreasonable about another. LOL Just look as the arguements between Laz and Beetle on guns.
Whether your reasonable or not depends on the crowd your with, and if they agree with your line of reasoning
No there has only ever been one reasonable man. (though Im sure his opponents at the time would probably have argued otherwise) and he got nailed to a cross for his troubles.
Everyone since has merely been a wannabe;)
-
the "reasonable man" idea is not that there is one man who is reasonable... it is simply that the majority of the people would think something reasonable.
morality can change over time... it does not change based on what is the most that the lowest among us will tollerate tho. It can go either way tho... the roaring 20's for example. Prostitution has been accepted more in the past as a legal activity also.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the "reasonable man" idea is not that there is one man who is reasonable... it is simply that the majority of the people would think something reasonable.
morality can change over time... it does not change based on what is the most that the lowest among us will tollerate tho. It can go either way tho... the roaring 20's for example. Prostitution has been accepted more in the past as a legal activity also.
lazs
Then you would agree with the quote I mentioned in the thread on the guy they were going to execute in Afghanistan that "Nothing is truely right or wrong. It is merely a common way of thinking that makes it so."
-
I would not say that a reasonable man would think that executing him was just.
Just because a few fanatics think so is not good enough reason. They may even be a local majority... that does not make it reasonable.
But then... we are talking internationaly in that example. Do you wish to take the entire world or just the U.S.?
lazs
-
So, basically, there are some laws that say you can't curse and use foul language in public in the US - home of the free.
We can't own handguns here. We can curse all we want though. And publish cartoons of The Prophet. Levels the playing ground a little right there.
Foul language has a place and anyone assuming that one using foul language is an idiot is a bigger fool him or herself.
Say three weeks ago, I was out swooping. Hooked it around a 180, perfect timing. Was skimming over the ground at 70km/h or so. Canopy sank a little, I bounced on the ground (snow), up into the air and had a rather interesting flight afterwards.
Translated, my first sentence was something like this:
"**** dude, are you ****ting me that was close! ****ing **** man!".
The response from my freefly buddy was worse.
Not language I'd use at work but very appropriate for the situation