1
   

Dirty language????

 
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 03:03 am
Good point about freedom of speach, but does that mean people must be forced to listen to your speech? If you were on a tv I could reserve the right to turn you off. But how do I turn your speech off when you are on the street or in a resteraunt and using the language around my children. Should I get up and leave? Doesn't that violate my freedoms as well?
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 05:13 am
I was thinking more of people around me, rather than myself.

As for swearing in front of kids - if you've explained to them the realities of life - why should it bother them?
Some people will swear around them. As long as they understand swearing for what it is, and know that they don't need to partake, its probably best to educate them in swearing anyway.

It's not going to go away, its part of life.
0 Replies
 
Foxy1983
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 07:19 am
I heard alot of swearing as a chid, due to my father, b

ut it's never made me want swear like a trooper. I think people should think twice if there are kids around, but as Endymion said, they're going to face it sooner or later, so when they are exposed to it, teach them what circumstances they shouldn't swear in!!
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 08:22 am
Children mimmic all behavior. Even if its from a sranger. They will copy that behavior and it takes a parent a long time to correct. How about an adult that doesn't like that kind of language. Does that mean that just because they are an adult people don't have to use proper language?
0 Replies
 
Foxy1983
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 01:52 pm
I didn't mimic any foul language as far as I remember. The one time I did, I chewed on a bar of soap....it worked.

Adults are responsible for themselves, and if they make a choice to swear, then thats up to them. If it's going to go that way then I could say I find it offensive when people chew gum while talking, or eat with their mouth open, I find that just as disgusting as swearing!
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 04:51 am
Foxy1983

Yeah, people who eat with their mouth open, that's offensive.
I was once seated next to a woman in a restaurant who not only chewed with her mouth open..smush smush smush... but talked about what she was eating, continuously, while doing so...
smush smush...ahhhh lovely... smush smush smush.
Everyone around the table was thinking, 'Oh for F*ck sake!'
It was horrible.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 08:40 am
That me reminds me of Elaine May's daughter (I'll think if her name after I post) eating an egg salad sandwich across the table from the young Charles Grodin in some movie, which I'll have to look up. Picturesque scene..
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 08:28 pm
The word that begins with c and ends with t can be even more offensive and is rarely used either in movies or print. I mean, what the f*ck?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 08:55 pm
I am not sure why c-t is worse that p-k, both terms for body parts... except perhaps through prevalence of usage over time, by whom. Usage of either term has evened out re genders, I am guessing, within the last batch of decades, but I'm not sure of that.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 03:15 am
This Weekend's Sydney Morning Herald has a op-piece on just this subject:

Quote:
Pringle thinks the diminishing power of the F-word to shock is further proof of the decline of civil society.

Yet there are worse ways of speaking. A 1997 British poll of swear words ranked it third to the C-word and the motherf---er word in shock value. Racial pejoratives carry far more powerful stings.

Despite the growth in acceptance of the F-word, it still carries a nasty taste in many mouths.

The Herald's policy on its use illustrates the ambivalence it inspires: the newspaper's style guide states that writers are not to use swear words in copy and can use them in quotes only under limited circumstances.

The two most controversial four-letter words take dashes after the first letter. The Good Weekend magazine and Spectrum can use the words in full but sparingly with the editor's knowledge.

The battle over the F-word in Australia was fought in literature long before Graham Kennedy's crow calls carried into loungerooms. Governments proscribed D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover and James Joyce's Ulysses.

Ulysses was banned in 1919, allowed in 1937 and banned again in 1941. The F-word was one of many difficulties with the text and one that remained a problem for the 1967 movie of Joyce's book, generally agreed to be the first mainstream film to use it. Australian censors banned it. New Zealand authorities allowed it, but only to sex-segregated audiences.

In February 1964, Oz magazine sent up the earnest American folk singer Joan Baez with the words "Get Folked". It was deemed so offensive that the editors Richard Walsh, Richard Neville and Martin Sharp were charged under obscenity laws.

Walsh recalls how "get folked" was endlessly and bizarrely debated in court proceedings. He went on to become the founding editor of Nation Review, a 1970s weekly magazine that pioneered the mainstream use of the F-word but Walsh cannot remember when he first allowed it in his pages: "But certainly if a politician said it in a public place, we were happy to report that."

In 1968, Jean-Claude van Itallie's play America Hurrah! was banned because one of the actors, wearing a giant papier mache head, was required to write the magic word on a blackboard. Yet the following year, Reg Livermore was singing the word to the rafters in Hair without police interference. Police remained inactive in 1970 when a character in the gay play The Boys in the Band uttered the line: "Who do I have to f--- around here for a drink?"

The impresario Harry M. Miller produced both and says he had backing from the Catholic Education Office in Melbourne for the play because it reflected homosexual experience, while the musical disturbed Catholics in Rose Bay such that Kincoppal offered prayers to save his soul.

In September 1962, the American comedian Lenny Bruce was banned from performing at the Aarons Hotel in Pitt Street after giving an account of the crucifixion littered with euphemisms. "When finally, he blurted out the Lady Chatterley word, there was a stunned silence," reported one Sydney newspaper, in a piece both dribbling and coy. Later that decade Kennedy's "faaaaaark" broke across the land. But nobody complained until 1975, when the Broadcasting Control Board banned him going live. Now the F-word lies undisturbed on late-night TV in the Sopranos, SBS movie sub-titles and Rage. The internet has more than 25 million listings for it but the Australian organisation responsible for registering domain names on the internet refused "f---.com.au".

And police try to turn back the clock, while O'Shane is part of a widespread movement in the courts throwing out offensive language cases for years. Here's magistrate David Heilpern's Dubbo court judgement dismissing a charge against a juvenile: "The word f--- is extremely commonplace now and has lost much of its punch. One cannot walk down the streets of any of the towns in which I sit, day or night, without hearing the word or its derivatives used as a noun, verb, adjective and, indeed, a term of affection.

"I have stood on Sydney suburban railway stations while private school uniformed kids (girls and boys) yell 'F--- off!' to each other across platforms without anyone looking up from their newspaper in surprise … I too have had the experience of having witnesses being cross-examined and responding to propositions by saying 'F--- off - it didn't happen like that'. I have had witnesses who, when asked their name, answer John f---ing Smith."
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 09:19 am
Words like **********, ****, ****, **** and ************ are not allowed on a2k. However, bitch and piss is allowed. See?
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 09:20 am
I take it back. ********** and **** ARE allowed.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 12:48 am
NickFun wrote:
I take it back. ********** and **** ARE allowed.


No ****, **********!!
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 12:50 am
In a fun way! No offence intended Nick!!
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 10:55 am
Don't let it get back to Craven that we are calling each other cocksuckers and telling each other to eat ****. He'll start banning those words - and the people saying them!
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 06:02 pm
There is a point here, somewhere

Somehow "fellator", "dung consumpter", and "vulva" don't quite have the same "ring" to them.

Which goes back to my point.

Strong language is a strong indication of a weak mind Exclamation

Conversly it is very easy to shock weak minded individuals.

Children may reasonably be assumed to have untrained (weak) minds.

Consequently anybody that uses strong language to children is---
a. Weak-minded.
b. Attempting to abuse (by shocking) a child.




Since children, by thier very nature as students of humanity, are unshockable see a (above). :wink:
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 07:44 pm
There are 450,000 words in the English language. Any combination can be used to replace such nasty words as ************, **** or ****. At the same time I sometimes wonder why such words are considered so offensive whereas words such as vluva, vagina, clitoris and intercourse are tame even though they mean the same thing.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 08:08 pm
Excessive cursing is not an indication of a weak mind. I can see how it might indicate a person with a small vocabulary, and possibly a limited imagination.
However, the language someone uses says very little about them as a person overall.

Cursing in front of a child is not abuse. It COULD be used to abuse; but the fact of cursing by itself is not abusive.
0 Replies
 
finalspike
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:04 pm
No bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions...but no bad words

G Carlin
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 10:23 am
I was wondering when somebody was going to start quoting George
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dirty language????
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 01:39:34