If you determine that someones form of expression is offensive to you, ignore them the way they patiently (or perhaps less patiently for some) ignore an evangelical advocate of a religion they do not identify with. Its an unnecessary data set for you then, but that does not mean forbid the speech. For yourselves, change the channel; ignore the dude on the subway. For your children, control their exposure and instill in them your values while they're young.
Whether the squeamish wish to admit it or not vulgarity has been, is, and will be a human universal. To revel in it is to revel in what is considered debase and one will be treated/acknowledged accordingly. To deny it's existence and try to hide it is simply delusional. For ourselves we can change the channel, leave the area or possibly ignore the offending broadcast. For our children we can monitor and control their content exposure while they are young, and instill in them the same disdain for such content that we hold for it.
It is entirely possible to elevate thought without "Elevating" language. Giving class to language merely denies that ALL these words have their specific meanings and contexts in very specific situations. The concept of a certain vocabulary denoting a certain level of thought is a throwback of the days of aristocracy, as I have heard rather profound statements orated in the most horrific non-broadcastable language ever from old men at the bars in PEI. I have also heard some of the most arrogant and willfully ignorant statements delivered with silver tongues, as well as some of the more infuriating experiences in my life.
One thing i will agree with you is that the current glorification of vulgarity in society today is despicable. The problem i see though is that by forbidding vulgarity it has given its use added impact and power. The proper response is to treat it with contempt (and I see you're a valiant fighter on that front already) when used without real context or purpose beyond that of offending.
As you said, the problem is not in the language itself but in the BOORISHNESS pervasive in society at the moment. Not only the boorishness itself, but the glorification of these mindsets in popular culture.
Civility isn't measured by vocabulary, it is measured by intent.
Then why focus on the obscenity instead of the boorishness? If what you are fighting against can exist without obscenity, why are you against obscenity instead of the mental archetype in question?
As you prefer to speak eloquently enough to give emily carr a conniption fit over using unnecessarily complex words in the place of the common vernacular, I will use a more common form.
Plato says you're screwin up first and final causes here.
If you take issue with boorishness and lack of dignity then you should focus on the causes of these issues not the result. If you honestly think that such behaviour is CAUSED by profanity as opposed to public profanity and obscenity being CAUSED by said behaviour then i'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree.
If you find yourself striding through courtrooms with the judge on your side, do not be triumphant; for you aren't in Ellysium. Your market's already dead.
What I do not understand is why people believe these words to have any sort of impact to begin with. Why is it that "fucking" is terrible but "coupling" is not if the context is still there? Can you honestly say people would get the same message from a bumper sticker that says "Feces Happens" as opposed to "Shit Happens"? It is the MEANING that is the important point of any communication, not the language, protocol or delivery method.
Obscenity and profanity are relative measures, and no two people measure them exactly the same. I believe most people can agree with this. What I want to know is why are ANY words considered profane or obscene to begin with, as if no one was unconfortable with these words they would simply not be used for shock effect nor expression the way they are now. Course, then people would simply start using the words that do still make people unconfortable like "Audit".
Let's put it this way, if someone was cursing you up one side and down the other with the most despicable language that anyone could ever think of, but in a perfectly polite tone and in a language you had never heard of, how would it affect you?
"Contrary to popular belief, the most dangerous animal is not the lion or tiger or even the elephant. The most dangerous animal is a shark riding on an elephant, just trampling and eating everything they see." oh Jack Handey
"Stop reverse engineering the plutoniums and uraniums, you knobs! Thats copy protected methodology you're trying to gather so that you get at least as much clout as north korea in world affairs as well as efficient long term power generation! Stop that.".
And the captain-obvious-esk sentiment you and the rest of us all feel is EXACTLY the problem.
Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean a time won't come where its necessary to put re-election odds by the wayside and do whats right. The caveat we all despise being that such people do not seem to win elections beyond the small to mid-sized municipal level from what I've seen.
I do not know of a better system overall myself, but this is definitely one of the biggest issues with democracy. Not only can doing whats right get you on your ends without any means (like say, doing nothing) but it can also be entirely undone shortly thereafter. Of course, I do not expect this to change unless we survive the next worldwide readjustment when we either can no longer maintain the food supply thats maintaining worldwide overpopulation, blow our selves the hell up, or simply forget that water isn't just for toilets.
If the current level of strife in the world isn't enough to make people want to think for themselves to be able to navigate the sea of bullshit on all sides, i doubt anything will until we see massive imminent worldwide peril with projected massive die-offs within a generation. Then the question will be, will we survive it.
Just think of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as the Laser Discs of the 21st century rather than VHS or Betamax. They're nice, but most people don't need them or will buy them except hardcore hi-def enthusiasts. Exactly!
This is the part that most people seem to be missing about all this. High Def video is currently a pretty high end luxury item to most people when one considers the cost of the TV itself, sound, players, and then media. Unless high def becomes standard amongst the wider audience, this does not mean a whole heck of a lot to those that arent videophiles/audiophiles in a big way AND have the funds (or perhaps stupid with lots of funds or obsessive with lots of funds, either way needs a good chunk of income to expend on non-essentials).
The one upside....BD-Rs will have some pretty big data capacity.....but just like you're saying so do USB keychains and slim external drives NOW, let alone solid state 5 years from now. Improvements to broadband penetration, wireless, and NEW storage techs will more likely be a coffin nail wayy more than 5 years in the future imo however (and now that I've said that, i hope the universe shows me to be incredibly wrong....realism is getting really depressing in this day and age).
Word, I can see how you would have read my original post that way though, i should have made the distinction to begin with =).
Theres enough factual boring data out there that we shouldn't have to use advocacy and shock to try to sway the masses. I really hate when people say things like "well this is the only way to get through to the majority!". If the majority won't bother to check the boring results, the answer certainly isn't to present different results, but to remain persistent with the boring facts while admitting to the uncertainties. It's hard to sling mud at someone who ALWAYS provides sources and the reasoning that led them to their conclusions. FUD works for a while, but it wouldn't persist so easily if the various opinions involved didn't hype so hard that each debate dissolves into a list of each sides errors in methodology.
What really kills me is why it isn't intuitive that once a data sets original methodology becomes suspect, to then ignore that data set in ones conclusions or to at least treat it as a tainted sample or a possible outlier.
Maybe someone can answer me this one. Why is it that when an outlet is stating someones methodology is wrong, they rarely point out where one can retrieve results that are considered closer to incontrovertible?
Personally, i think its because most people know that the side that wins is usually the side thats loudest not the side that is most convincing (see any TV 'debate' based show in the US currently). Note that by 'wins' i mean had the most evidence, i simply mean the side that manages to plant their message into enough skulls for people to consider it common wisdom.
well, the reason thats in CALEA that a legal wiretap must be reporting the details in real time to avoid the possibility of modifying the results of a wiretap from any side (IE: no '3 second broadcast delay' or situations like that).
Still horsepucky, but it IS part of CALEA as the above posters are mentioning.
I said nothing of my opinions on either of those debates, nor does MY opinion in them have anything to do with what i'm saying. I am merely saying that all sides involved seem to be more focused on the end result they want than the means they used to get there.
THAT is what i take exception to. By anyone. ever.
I don't see that poking a hole in the fellows plan, you would just have to stipulate that the fees are based on the instituting years value of 0.01$ and must be adjusted every 2 to 5 years based on inflation figures.
We can track inflation well enough that it should remain an equivalent system no matter what inflation or even deflation occurs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you determine that someones form of expression is offensive to you, ignore them the way they patiently (or perhaps less patiently for some) ignore an evangelical advocate of a religion they do not identify with. Its an unnecessary data set for you then, but that does not mean forbid the speech. For yourselves, change the channel; ignore the dude on the subway. For your children, control their exposure and instill in them your values while they're young.
Whether the squeamish wish to admit it or not vulgarity has been, is, and will be a human universal. To revel in it is to revel in what is considered debase and one will be treated/acknowledged accordingly. To deny it's existence and try to hide it is simply delusional. For ourselves we can change the channel, leave the area or possibly ignore the offending broadcast. For our children we can monitor and control their content exposure while they are young, and instill in them the same disdain for such content that we hold for it.
It is entirely possible to elevate thought without "Elevating" language. Giving class to language merely denies that ALL these words have their specific meanings and contexts in very specific situations. The concept of a certain vocabulary denoting a certain level of thought is a throwback of the days of aristocracy, as I have heard rather profound statements orated in the most horrific non-broadcastable language ever from old men at the bars in PEI. I have also heard some of the most arrogant and willfully ignorant statements delivered with silver tongues, as well as some of the more infuriating experiences in my life.
One thing i will agree with you is that the current glorification of vulgarity in society today is despicable. The problem i see though is that by forbidding vulgarity it has given its use added impact and power. The proper response is to treat it with contempt (and I see you're a valiant fighter on that front already) when used without real context or purpose beyond that of offending.
As you said, the problem is not in the language itself but in the BOORISHNESS pervasive in society at the moment. Not only the boorishness itself, but the glorification of these mindsets in popular culture.
Civility isn't measured by vocabulary, it is measured by intent.
Nope.
I was thinking Tartarus more like.
Then why focus on the obscenity instead of the boorishness? If what you are fighting against can exist without obscenity, why are you against obscenity instead of the mental archetype in question?
As you prefer to speak eloquently enough to give emily carr a conniption fit over using unnecessarily complex words in the place of the common vernacular, I will use a more common form.
Plato says you're screwin up first and final causes here.
If you take issue with boorishness and lack of dignity then you should focus on the causes of these issues not the result. If you honestly think that such behaviour is CAUSED by profanity as opposed to public profanity and obscenity being CAUSED by said behaviour then i'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree.
If you find yourself striding through courtrooms with the judge on your side, do not be triumphant; for you aren't in Ellysium. Your market's already dead.
What I do not understand is why people believe these words to have any sort of impact to begin with. Why is it that "fucking" is terrible but "coupling" is not if the context is still there? Can you honestly say people would get the same message from a bumper sticker that says "Feces Happens" as opposed to "Shit Happens"? It is the MEANING that is the important point of any communication, not the language, protocol or delivery method.
Obscenity and profanity are relative measures, and no two people measure them exactly the same. I believe most people can agree with this. What I want to know is why are ANY words considered profane or obscene to begin with, as if no one was unconfortable with these words they would simply not be used for shock effect nor expression the way they are now. Course, then people would simply start using the words that do still make people unconfortable like "Audit".
Let's put it this way, if someone was cursing you up one side and down the other with the most despicable language that anyone could ever think of, but in a perfectly polite tone and in a language you had never heard of, how would it affect you?
And yet Birth is the #1 cause of death.
Solution: End all births.
tiger or even the elephant. The most dangerous animal is a shark riding
on an elephant, just trampling and eating everything they see." oh Jack Handey
The jokes from couples alone would cause hours (more) of delay at security.
If so, it backfired into a massive near telethon style donation campaign.
Whoops.
The shortest list of all is the list of phone support services that do not currently suck big time.
Average Handling Time plus Average Value Added Service per call == even when getting assistance for a faulty service you're a commodity..
if i was american =(
Ack, the saying is entirely wrong.
I only made an ass of me =( with that assumption.
I stand entirely corrected.
Dude.
Bees.
"Stop reverse engineering the plutoniums and uraniums, you knobs! Thats copy protected methodology you're trying to gather so that you get at least as much clout as north korea in world affairs as well as efficient long term power generation! Stop that.".
And the captain-obvious-esk sentiment you and the rest of us all feel is EXACTLY the problem.
Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean a time won't come where its necessary to put re-election odds by the wayside and do whats right. The caveat we all despise being that such people do not seem to win elections beyond the small to mid-sized municipal level from what I've seen.
I do not know of a better system overall myself, but this is definitely one of the biggest issues with democracy. Not only can doing whats right get you on your ends without any means (like say, doing nothing) but it can also be entirely undone shortly thereafter. Of course, I do not expect this to change unless we survive the next worldwide readjustment when we either can no longer maintain the food supply thats maintaining worldwide overpopulation, blow our selves the hell up, or simply forget that water isn't just for toilets.
If the current level of strife in the world isn't enough to make people want to think for themselves to be able to navigate the sea of bullshit on all sides, i doubt anything will until we see massive imminent worldwide peril with projected massive die-offs within a generation. Then the question will be, will we survive it.
This is the part that most people seem to be missing about all this. High Def video is currently a pretty high end luxury item to most people when one considers the cost of the TV itself, sound, players, and then media. Unless high def becomes standard amongst the wider audience, this does not mean a whole heck of a lot to those that arent videophiles/audiophiles in a big way AND have the funds (or perhaps stupid with lots of funds or obsessive with lots of funds, either way needs a good chunk of income to expend on non-essentials).
The one upside....BD-Rs will have some pretty big data capacity.....but just like you're saying so do USB keychains and slim external drives NOW, let alone solid state 5 years from now. Improvements to broadband penetration, wireless, and NEW storage techs will more likely be a coffin nail wayy more than 5 years in the future imo however (and now that I've said that, i hope the universe shows me to be incredibly wrong....realism is getting really depressing in this day and age).
Splitters!
While i agree with your overall point, those are relatively poor metrics to base it on.
The vietnam war cost 600B$USD considering 1968 USD.
If you consider inflation based on the first inflation calculator google link that I clicked, plugging in 600B$ from 1968 yields:
What cost $600000000000 in 1968 would cost $3688102617038.20 in 2007.
thats 3.68 trillion in north american terms no?
Word,
I can see how you would have read my original post that way though, i should have made the distinction to begin with =).
Theres enough factual boring data out there that we shouldn't have to use advocacy and shock to try to sway the masses. I really hate when people say things like "well this is the only way to get through to the majority!". If the majority won't bother to check the boring results, the answer certainly isn't to present different results, but to remain persistent with the boring facts while admitting to the uncertainties. It's hard to sling mud at someone who ALWAYS provides sources and the reasoning that led them to their conclusions. FUD works for a while, but it wouldn't persist so easily if the various opinions involved didn't hype so hard that each debate dissolves into a list of each sides errors in methodology.
What really kills me is why it isn't intuitive that once a data sets original methodology becomes suspect, to then ignore that data set in ones conclusions or to at least treat it as a tainted sample or a possible outlier.
Maybe someone can answer me this one. Why is it that when an outlet is stating someones methodology is wrong, they rarely point out where one can retrieve results that are considered closer to incontrovertible?
Personally, i think its because most people know that the side that wins is usually the side thats loudest not the side that is most convincing (see any TV 'debate' based show in the US currently). Note that by 'wins' i mean had the most evidence, i simply mean the side that manages to plant their message into enough skulls for people to consider it common wisdom.
well, the reason thats in CALEA that a legal wiretap must be reporting the details in real time to avoid the possibility of modifying the results of a wiretap from any side (IE: no '3 second broadcast delay' or situations like that).
Still horsepucky, but it IS part of CALEA as the above posters are mentioning.
I said nothing of my opinions on either of those debates, nor does MY opinion in them have anything to do with what i'm saying. I am merely saying that all sides involved seem to be more focused on the end result they want than the means they used to get there.
THAT is what i take exception to. By anyone. ever.
I don't see that poking a hole in the fellows plan, you would just have to stipulate that the fees are based on the instituting years value of 0.01$ and must be adjusted every 2 to 5 years based on inflation figures.
We can track inflation well enough that it should remain an equivalent system no matter what inflation or even deflation occurs.