@Kielicious,
If the opposing views would seriously like to further this discussion, I would like to see them at least try to take a step in the oppositions shoes just for the sake of enabling a better understanding of their outer edges.
As I have been trying to point out all along, I do not think this issue can be concluded without considering the aspect of 'degree of intensity'. As with anything that evolves, it cannot be defined as its previous stage of development, and it cannot be defined if it is in a changing state at any given point in time. A frog cannot be defined as a four legged creature when it is in its two legged state of transformation, now can it.
There is a very fine line here between two states of being that we are attempting to define. On one side is the mind as it relates to the biological functioning of the brain, and the other is the mind in a state of transformation being undergone as it is exposed to its environment.
Lets apply this same thinking to the thin line between vulgarity and decent courtesy (ODEN). As intelligent beings we define what is moral by our own conceptions and perspectives. Some would suggest that because the definition it is up to individual perspective, that there is really no such thing as vulgarity, and that we create morality ourselves by drawing that line into thin air, where there really is no actual line except in our own minds.
But lets look closer!
Regardless of where that line is drawn, is there such a thing as vulgarity or not?
If you are sitting to a meal at your dinner table and the person sitting next to you passes some nasty smelling gas very loudly and unsympathetically, than that line of vulgarity is drawn by the tolerance of the person being exposed to the action. They may be far more affected by it than another person may have been, and therefore that line could be drawn at various degrees along that plane of existence.
So the question is asked about whether or not it is actually vulgar if the definition is based upon the reaction of an individual response.
However, what if the offender decided to drop his drawers and crap on the floor right to next your seat, because he was too lazy to go elsewhere and felt no need for courtesy because he believes such a thing does not really exist.
At this degree of extremity I think everyone with a mind would agree that the act falls well on the other side of a very obvious line of definition that crosses into vulgarity, not to mention many other lines as well.
Here , there is no doubt about the existence of vulgarity, no matter how one tries to say it is a matter of tolerance based upon individual definition. There is such a thing as vulgarity when it reveals itself by degree.
There is a definite difference between the character of Oden and Rich. It becomes obvious when they reach particular degrees of revelation about themselves.
As with this fine line of revelation, I say to you that human consciousness does exist and will also not be defined by scientific terminologies, brain scans and local points on one side or another of a fine line. Unless one considers the evolving nature of the mind and its various degrees of development, you are calling a frog a two legged creature because you are not considering its further state of being.
