Let's see: Paula Jones worked for him, and he was known to have 'flings' with women that worked for him. Yeah, I can see how it's not relevant. I mean, why would we want to know whether monica was with him and whether she was coerced? Couldn't possibly be relevant. Whatever you may personally think of the man, NO ONE who is vetted for the job of POTUS is a good guy. No one. Sorry. Plus, anyone who asks for the definition of 'is'(and really means it) is also a bad, bad person and should be jailed for life. And I heard him do that with my own ears, so don't bother trying to say that was republican spin.
not. at. all. I supposed that with a handle like 'geekoid' you'd be able to read. apparently not. When USERS of virtual worlds can get USERS of virtual worlds banned from games, something's wrong. if PUBLISHERS of games want ot ban USERS of games for whatever reason, fine, as long as they refund any unused money. I put the important words in all caps so that you would have less trouble understanding what should be a pretty easy-to-understand point.
I was making an overly broad generalization in the forlorn hope, vain as it has proved, that people would understand that it wasn't intended as an exact mathematical proof. It was SUPPOSED to be somthing to get people THINKING in a general fashion. Obviously, I failed in that. I should have realized that even in a thread about the vagaries of language, slashdotters wouldn't give any ground at all. Let me try to explain this: they are synonymous. Synonymous means 'about the same' just like 1.1 is about the same as 1.2 without actually being 1.2. Are you with me so far? I understand that there are situations where you wouldn't use a word even though it is a synonym of another word because of connotation. HOWEVER, generally speaking, synonyms are roughly equivalent because that is what synonym means.
well, i seriously doubt that a child under 10 could properly use and understand any of the proscribed words, so I don't see that it's any different from them saying things like 'war' or 'amputee' or 'there's no god' or 'jesus christ' or anything else that could be socially awkward. We just spend so much damn money and fine people so much money over this that I don't think it's too much to ask that we at least examine the why.
I want to know because we fine people over language. I believe laws should be based in reason. I feel the same way about other 'societal convention' laws like the War Against Some Drugs and the illegality of prostitution. Now, I don't use a lot of 'profanity', I don't use drugs (except legal ones like caffeine, nicotine, perscription and OTC meds, refined sugar, and the big bad grandaddy of them all, alcohol) and I have never and will never go to a prostitute. However, I also don't want to see laws based on societal conventions that don't have reasoned explanations behind them. You know, that whole cliche about "I wasn't an X so when they came for X I said nothing" kind of thing.
There's a difference between 'discouraging' it and banning people from games. what about when the 14 year old is 18 and has grown up? etc. etc. blah. over 30 posts on this topic today and it hasn't gotten any more interesting. (please note that that isn't intended as a shot at you)
I don't think laws based off "my father said it was bad because his father said it was bad because his father said it was bad" are good for society. Neither laws nor 'regulations' which carry the force of law. Perhaps, since it's a societal taboo, we let society and not government thugs take care of it.
Wow. You sure get overly affected by ridiculous things. My 'obsession' is idle curiosity. I have spare cycles and I think and type really fast. I am not ignorant of societal rules. Have I been cussing you out? Yet people are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars per year because of these things. Don't we have a responsibility to at least consider what we're doing before we go around taking people's money? Oh, I'm sorry. You win. You said "Good Day Sir" first. I should have thought of that.
Virtual worlds are private, sure. But everyone is paying the same amount to access them. They're meant to be virtual WORLDS, with places that are 'public' and places that are 'private'. Also, what you were talking about was USERS 'flagging' other USERS and getting them banned from every game a publisher published based on that USER flagging. So don't turn around and claim now that you're SIMPLY for the right of game publishers to decide what to allow in their games.
When you go to a casino, you voluntarily suspend some of your rights. For example, the right to property(hint: that was a joke). The right to be naked. The right to wear an adult diaper, well, if they end up making that rule. But the pit boss, and every one else there, is also voluntarily giving up some rights too. Now, your argument is that people give up their right to certain speech upon entering an online game. I argue that that shouldn't be the case. Should a game publisher disagree with that, of course they have the right to do things differently. But why is it so hard for people to simply ignore that which 'offends' them? then we'd all have to give up fewer rights in more situations. Especially if you're claiming that a majority of the users of those games are profane. If they're the majority, why should the minority opinion rule? Because it's your opinion?
We're not talking about logic here. We're talking about emotional responses to language. It's not logical, and don't expect it to be.
But people are fined and incarcerated for emotional responses! That is disgusting. Laws SHOULD be based on reason. And don't give me that 'the FCC is a regulatory body, not a law enforcement body' because that's just semantics. FCC regulations carry the force of law.
Besides, context is everything. Looking at the word on it's own just isn't looking at the whole picture.
I have to give you serious credit. This is a very good response. The only thing I might say to you is that for any societal convention the violation of which causes individuals to be fined or incarcerated there should be a rational explanation. I don't think that's too much to ask. Can we agree on this?
As an aside, this thread is the first time I've ever actually hit the posting cap. Too bad 90% of it was responding to people without an iota of your insight.
Assuming you're correct (although I have read MANY variations on where 'fuck' came from and what it supposedly originally meant), that's one down. 6 to go.
Not if we're rounding to the nearest whole number. Then 1.4 = 1 and 1.5 = 2.
Societal norms in the 'associative baggage'.
That isn't rational. I have no problem with certain phrases being considered crass. However, crassness does not equal unsuitability for T.V. What makes one crass synonym for a thing acceptable for T.V. while another is unacceptable? Don't cop out with 'societal norms'. I obviously know that they are societal norms, otherwise I wouldn't be able to question WHY they are societal norms.
Of course, its more complex than that; 'society' isn't a homogeneous blob
That's why I get so pissed off over the concept of 'bad words'.
"Fuck off" is offensive precisely because its normal use in society at large is precisely to incite offense.
This is (as I have been getting all day) a tautology. Bad because it's bad is NOT RATIONAL. If there's no rational reason, just come right out and admit it. But you won't, because then you'd feel silly for following the convention.
A lack of sensitivity to this itself speaks volumes.
If I had no sensitivity to it, how could I question the rationality of it?
To spew profanity...
Why is profanity profane? Still waiting for an answer on this one. Never going to get one that isn't a tautology.
Some words are offensive because large groups within society attach offensive semantics to them.
No shit, Sherlock. Why were the particular words chosen? Why does there seem to be only one 'swear' word for each group of offensive words? Why is only one synonym bad, and why that particular one? These are the questions that you didn't even try to address.
It's kind of silly, since adults who don't want to hear "f*ck" have to do some mental gymnastics NOT to insert it over the bleep. But the purpose where kids are concerned is clear: to avoid teaching them the word.
Well, then it is completely and utterly useless. If that is really the purpose for it, then we're spending every minute and dollar needed to 'bleep' things in vain. Is there anyone over the age of 5 who's never heard a 'bad' word?
if poo = shit then we wouldn't have two different words for it. Language is far more complex than that, and there is a great deal of context, implication, and meaning tied to words beyond their dictionary definitions.
What I'm asking is why is it that the word shit, containing one syllable and four letters and meaning 'feces', is bad, while the word crap, containing one syllable and four letters and meaning 'feces', isn't. I'm not arguing that there should be no connotations. What I'm asking is: why the certain words which are 'bad' and not others which are roughly equivalent? Why isn't there a 'bad word' for snot? It's a bodily product. What about saliva? Why only two of the body's many excretions? Why is there a 'bad word' for sex but not fighting? Isn't fighting worse than sex? Where's the sense in it? That's what I'm asking.
You still have yet to explain why only a few particular words are considered foul. That has absolutely nothing to do with culture nor sophistication. How is it cultured and sophisticated to parrot learned, irrational behaviour? You keep telling me that I should limit profanities without ever explaining why they're profane. You give me the same tautology that everyone else so far has: They're bad words because they're obscenities because they're crass because they're bad words. Are you truly that unintelligent? I have no problem with artificial limits on behaviour. I just expect them to MAKE SENSE. For example, eating with utensils can reduce the amount of cleanup necessary after a meal. Keeping elbows off the table can prevent spills. Asking for something to be passed rather than reaching for it also prevents spills and things like sleeves in the gravy, etc. These are RATIONAL REASONS for artificial behaviours. Now, please explain to me the RATIONAL reason behind making a few words 'bad' while euphamisms for those very same words, used only because of the societal stigma attached to the 'bad' words, are perfectly acceptable. Go on, you're cultured and sophisticated. Should be easy for you.
How can we expect kids to ever understand why those words are bad when it is quite apparent that no ADULTS understand it either? Why does it MATTER if kids use them? All I keep getting, over and over, is that they're bad because they're obscene because they're foul because they're swear words. Argh.
Shit is more offensive than crap is more offensive than poo because that's how the social norms go.
I have been asking for a rational reason for why some words are 'obscenities'. This is not one. This is a tautology. It's bad because it is bad. This is not a good reason.
'make love' is an obscenity? 'have intercourse' is an obscenity? 'make whoopie' is an obscenity? well, since you're obviously such an authority on obscenity, what makes something obscene?
True. However, that's a function of the repetition and not the repeated word. Same thing goes for someone who uses 'um' or 'like' every other word....yet those aren't 'bad' words.
I've heard a lot of people say similar things before, but I remain unconvinced of it. There is no conflict between those things. If there is an all powerful all knowing being who created the universe, then he created it *exactly* how it is. If he's one of the "damn you to hell for whatever" types of gods people seem so fond of, then he with full knowledge at the time he created the universe determined exactly who he was going to damn and who he was going to save. That's an unavoidable consequence of omnipotence and omniscience. (throw in "good" "kind" "just" "loving" or any of the other things people try to attribute to him and you're just left with an impossibility, hence no such god can possibly exist in any relation to this universe).
I have heard of a concept that might interest you. Omniderigence, which is defined as 'omniscience consciously restrained'. The basic idea is that if there is a creator, He could limit His ability however He wished. I mean, sure, that's like answering the old 'Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it' with the copout answer, "yes, but we aren't capable of understanding how". Still, though, it addresses that concern. It's like making a computer game: the programmer certainly has the ability to program it so that he always wins, and he certainly should know everything about that game....but he programs it in such a way as to provide uncertainty.
Now none of that has anything to do with free will. You are perfectly free to make whatever choices you want ( within certain "reasonable limits" which I'll wave my hands about ) in such a universe. All of the arguments I've ever seen asserting otherwise have been merely failed attempts at apologetics for religions which set up that conflict by the way they chose to invent their gods. The conflict was created by their definitions and only exists in the context of those definitions.
Well, I'd concede that the illusion of free will is available in a 'clockwork universe', but not the actuality. It's like riding a train whose tracks you cannot see, and thus thinking that you control the direction.
Well, we disagree there. I have yet to see any evidence for any rational morality coming out of any religion. It's easy to develop at least a basic good system of morals and laws purely from a rational basis.
Well, I didn't say rational morality comes from religion.:) I said universal morality can only come from some 'higher power'. I don't see how morals flow from rationality, though. Rationally, I should do whatever is best for me. That is often in conflict with morality. Why should I work to earn money to buy something when I can just take the thing or the money from someone else who's done the work? That's reason for you.:)
Murder, theft, rape, and things like that that almost everybody would agree should be banned easily fit into a rational worldview.
I don't think 'almost everyone' agrees with you. Look at the crime rate for a rebuttal of your assertion.
All of them have been either banned or commanded by religions. Often a given religion will simultaneously ban and command them at the same time. Obviously, that's a recipe for chaos and horror.
Well, without religion, what's the rational basis for banning murder, theft, or rape? From my perspective, "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" is what comes from attempting to rationally create universal morals.
Apart from basic things like those which any stable society absolutely requires to survive, it truly is a question of personal morality and that's great as long as people recognize that for what it is.
Personal morality systems fall apart in the face of conflicting personal morality systems. Who decides which aspects of morality are basic things that society requires? Some societies survive without condemning theft. Some survive with murder incorporated into them. How is the determination made as
I am not disputing that connotations may be different. I am asking (and I will be bold and predict that I will never get a logical answer to this question) "Why are a few words considered unacceptable when they all have many, many socially-acceptable synonyms, most of which were designed to get around the societal stigma of saying the 'bad' word in the first place? " For example: does anyone over the age of 5 have any trouble figuring out what words are 'bleeped' on T.V.? No. Yet 'bleeping' is completely socially acceptable. The EXACT same message is conveyed, as people simply 'plug in' the missing word mentally as they're hearing the 'bleep'. What is the difference? Is it to protect the ears of the young, who would not understand what they were hearing anyway?
When did I say they were 'exact' synonyms? Are you saying they are NOT synonyms?
I do not dispute that different words are appropriate for different situations. I do not dispute that some words have nuances that synonyms may not have. I DO dispute that some synonyms are 'bad' and shouldn't be used while some are just fine and may be used at any time.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see: Paula Jones worked for him, and he was known to have 'flings' with women that worked for him. Yeah, I can see how it's not relevant. I mean, why would we want to know whether monica was with him and whether she was coerced? Couldn't possibly be relevant. Whatever you may personally think of the man, NO ONE who is vetted for the job of POTUS is a good guy. No one. Sorry. Plus, anyone who asks for the definition of 'is'(and really means it) is also a bad, bad person and should be jailed for life. And I heard him do that with my own ears, so don't bother trying to say that was republican spin.
I wish we could seperate cultural factors from laws :) Have a good one.
not. at. all. I supposed that with a handle like 'geekoid' you'd be able to read. apparently not. When USERS of virtual worlds can get USERS of virtual worlds banned from games, something's wrong. if PUBLISHERS of games want ot ban USERS of games for whatever reason, fine, as long as they refund any unused money. I put the important words in all caps so that you would have less trouble understanding what should be a pretty easy-to-understand point.
I was making an overly broad generalization in the forlorn hope, vain as it has proved, that people would understand that it wasn't intended as an exact mathematical proof. It was SUPPOSED to be somthing to get people THINKING in a general fashion. Obviously, I failed in that. I should have realized that even in a thread about the vagaries of language, slashdotters wouldn't give any ground at all. Let me try to explain this: they are synonymous. Synonymous means 'about the same' just like 1.1 is about the same as 1.2 without actually being 1.2. Are you with me so far? I understand that there are situations where you wouldn't use a word even though it is a synonym of another word because of connotation. HOWEVER, generally speaking, synonyms are roughly equivalent because that is what synonym means.
well, i seriously doubt that a child under 10 could properly use and understand any of the proscribed words, so I don't see that it's any different from them saying things like 'war' or 'amputee' or 'there's no god' or 'jesus christ' or anything else that could be socially awkward. We just spend so much damn money and fine people so much money over this that I don't think it's too much to ask that we at least examine the why.
I want to know because we fine people over language. I believe laws should be based in reason. I feel the same way about other 'societal convention' laws like the War Against Some Drugs and the illegality of prostitution. Now, I don't use a lot of 'profanity', I don't use drugs (except legal ones like caffeine, nicotine, perscription and OTC meds, refined sugar, and the big bad grandaddy of them all, alcohol) and I have never and will never go to a prostitute. However, I also don't want to see laws based on societal conventions that don't have reasoned explanations behind them. You know, that whole cliche about "I wasn't an X so when they came for X I said nothing" kind of thing.
There's a difference between 'discouraging' it and banning people from games. what about when the 14 year old is 18 and has grown up? etc. etc. blah. over 30 posts on this topic today and it hasn't gotten any more interesting. (please note that that isn't intended as a shot at you)
I don't think laws based off "my father said it was bad because his father said it was bad because his father said it was bad" are good for society. Neither laws nor 'regulations' which carry the force of law. Perhaps, since it's a societal taboo, we let society and not government thugs take care of it.
Wow. You sure get overly affected by ridiculous things. My 'obsession' is idle curiosity. I have spare cycles and I think and type really fast. I am not ignorant of societal rules. Have I been cussing you out? Yet people are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars per year because of these things. Don't we have a responsibility to at least consider what we're doing before we go around taking people's money? Oh, I'm sorry. You win. You said "Good Day Sir" first. I should have thought of that.
Virtual worlds are private, sure. But everyone is paying the same amount to access them. They're meant to be virtual WORLDS, with places that are 'public' and places that are 'private'. Also, what you were talking about was USERS 'flagging' other USERS and getting them banned from every game a publisher published based on that USER flagging. So don't turn around and claim now that you're SIMPLY for the right of game publishers to decide what to allow in their games.
When you go to a casino, you voluntarily suspend some of your rights. For example, the right to property(hint: that was a joke). The right to be naked. The right to wear an adult diaper, well, if they end up making that rule. But the pit boss, and every one else there, is also voluntarily giving up some rights too. Now, your argument is that people give up their right to certain speech upon entering an online game. I argue that that shouldn't be the case. Should a game publisher disagree with that, of course they have the right to do things differently. But why is it so hard for people to simply ignore that which 'offends' them? then we'd all have to give up fewer rights in more situations. Especially if you're claiming that a majority of the users of those games are profane. If they're the majority, why should the minority opinion rule? Because it's your opinion?
We're not talking about logic here. We're talking about emotional responses to language. It's not logical, and don't expect it to be.
But people are fined and incarcerated for emotional responses! That is disgusting. Laws SHOULD be based on reason. And don't give me that 'the FCC is a regulatory body, not a law enforcement body' because that's just semantics. FCC regulations carry the force of law.
Besides, context is everything. Looking at the word on it's own just isn't looking at the whole picture.
See above.
I have to give you serious credit. This is a very good response. The only thing I might say to you is that for any societal convention the violation of which causes individuals to be fined or incarcerated there should be a rational explanation. I don't think that's too much to ask. Can we agree on this?
As an aside, this thread is the first time I've ever actually hit the posting cap. Too bad 90% of it was responding to people without an iota of your insight.
Assuming you're correct (although I have read MANY variations on where 'fuck' came from and what it supposedly originally meant), that's one down. 6 to go.
If "1.1 = 1.0 for our purposes" then:
1.0 = 1.1 = 1.2 = 1.3 = 1.4 = 1.5 = 1.6 = 1.7 = 1.8 = 1.9 = 2.0
Not if we're rounding to the nearest whole number. Then 1.4 = 1 and 1.5 = 2.
Societal norms in the 'associative baggage'.
That isn't rational. I have no problem with certain phrases being considered crass. However, crassness does not equal unsuitability for T.V. What makes one crass synonym for a thing acceptable for T.V. while another is unacceptable? Don't cop out with 'societal norms'. I obviously know that they are societal norms, otherwise I wouldn't be able to question WHY they are societal norms.
Of course, its more complex than that; 'society' isn't a homogeneous blob
That's why I get so pissed off over the concept of 'bad words'.
"Fuck off" is offensive precisely because its normal use in society at large is precisely to incite offense.
This is (as I have been getting all day) a tautology. Bad because it's bad is NOT RATIONAL. If there's no rational reason, just come right out and admit it. But you won't, because then you'd feel silly for following the convention.
A lack of sensitivity to this itself speaks volumes.
If I had no sensitivity to it, how could I question the rationality of it?
To spew profanity...
Why is profanity profane? Still waiting for an answer on this one. Never going to get one that isn't a tautology.
Some words are offensive because large groups within society attach offensive semantics to them.
No shit, Sherlock. Why were the particular words chosen? Why does there seem to be only one 'swear' word for each group of offensive words? Why is only one synonym bad, and why that particular one? These are the questions that you didn't even try to address.
It's kind of silly, since adults who don't want to hear "f*ck" have to do some mental gymnastics NOT to insert it over the bleep. But the purpose where kids are concerned is clear: to avoid teaching them the word.
Well, then it is completely and utterly useless. If that is really the purpose for it, then we're spending every minute and dollar needed to 'bleep' things in vain. Is there anyone over the age of 5 who's never heard a 'bad' word?
if poo = shit then we wouldn't have two different words for it. Language is far more complex than that, and there is a great deal of context, implication, and meaning tied to words beyond their dictionary definitions.
What I'm asking is why is it that the word shit, containing one syllable and four letters and meaning 'feces', is bad, while the word crap, containing one syllable and four letters and meaning 'feces', isn't. I'm not arguing that there should be no connotations. What I'm asking is: why the certain words which are 'bad' and not others which are roughly equivalent? Why isn't there a 'bad word' for snot? It's a bodily product. What about saliva? Why only two of the body's many excretions? Why is there a 'bad word' for sex but not fighting? Isn't fighting worse than sex? Where's the sense in it? That's what I'm asking.
You still have yet to explain why only a few particular words are considered foul. That has absolutely nothing to do with culture nor sophistication. How is it cultured and sophisticated to parrot learned, irrational behaviour? You keep telling me that I should limit profanities without ever explaining why they're profane. You give me the same tautology that everyone else so far has: They're bad words because they're obscenities because they're crass because they're bad words. Are you truly that unintelligent? I have no problem with artificial limits on behaviour. I just expect them to MAKE SENSE. For example, eating with utensils can reduce the amount of cleanup necessary after a meal. Keeping elbows off the table can prevent spills. Asking for something to be passed rather than reaching for it also prevents spills and things like sleeves in the gravy, etc. These are RATIONAL REASONS for artificial behaviours. Now, please explain to me the RATIONAL reason behind making a few words 'bad' while euphamisms for those very same words, used only because of the societal stigma attached to the 'bad' words, are perfectly acceptable. Go on, you're cultured and sophisticated. Should be easy for you.
How can we expect kids to ever understand why those words are bad when it is quite apparent that no ADULTS understand it either? Why does it MATTER if kids use them? All I keep getting, over and over, is that they're bad because they're obscene because they're foul because they're swear words. Argh.
Shit is more offensive than crap is more offensive than poo because that's how the social norms go.
I have been asking for a rational reason for why some words are 'obscenities'. This is not one. This is a tautology. It's bad because it is bad. This is not a good reason.
'make love' is an obscenity? 'have intercourse' is an obscenity? 'make whoopie' is an obscenity? well, since you're obviously such an authority on obscenity, what makes something obscene?
True. However, that's a function of the repetition and not the repeated word. Same thing goes for someone who uses 'um' or 'like' every other word....yet those aren't 'bad' words.
I've heard a lot of people say similar things before, but I remain unconvinced of it.
:) I said universal morality can only come from some 'higher power'. I don't see how morals flow from rationality, though. Rationally, I should do whatever is best for me. That is often in conflict with morality. Why should I work to earn money to buy something when I can just take the thing or the money from someone else who's done the work? That's reason for you. :)
There is no conflict between those things.
If there is an all powerful all knowing being who created the universe, then he created it *exactly* how it is. If he's one of the "damn you to hell for whatever" types of gods people seem so fond of, then he with full knowledge at the time he created the universe determined exactly who he was going to damn and who he was going to save.
That's an unavoidable consequence of omnipotence and omniscience. (throw in "good" "kind" "just" "loving" or any of the other things people try to attribute to him and you're just left with an impossibility, hence no such god can possibly exist in any relation to this universe).
I have heard of a concept that might interest you. Omniderigence, which is defined as 'omniscience consciously restrained'. The basic idea is that if there is a creator, He could limit His ability however He wished. I mean, sure, that's like answering the old 'Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it' with the copout answer, "yes, but we aren't capable of understanding how". Still, though, it addresses that concern. It's like making a computer game: the programmer certainly has the ability to program it so that he always wins, and he certainly should know everything about that game....but he programs it in such a way as to provide uncertainty.
Now none of that has anything to do with free will. You are perfectly free to make whatever choices you want ( within certain "reasonable limits" which I'll wave my hands about ) in such a universe. All of the arguments I've ever seen asserting otherwise have been merely failed attempts at apologetics for religions which set up that conflict by the way they chose to invent their gods. The conflict was created by their definitions and only exists in the context of those definitions.
Well, I'd concede that the illusion of free will is available in a 'clockwork universe', but not the actuality. It's like riding a train whose tracks you cannot see, and thus thinking that you control the direction.
Well, we disagree there.
I have yet to see any evidence for any rational morality coming out of any religion. It's easy to develop at least a basic good system of morals and laws purely from a rational basis.
Well, I didn't say rational morality comes from religion.
Murder, theft, rape, and things like that that almost everybody would agree should be banned easily fit into a rational worldview.
I don't think 'almost everyone' agrees with you. Look at the crime rate for a rebuttal of your assertion.
All of them have been either banned or commanded by religions. Often a given religion will simultaneously ban and command them at the same time. Obviously, that's a recipe for chaos and horror.
Well, without religion, what's the rational basis for banning murder, theft, or rape? From my perspective, "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" is what comes from attempting to rationally create universal morals.
Apart from basic things like those which any stable society absolutely requires to survive, it truly is a question of personal morality and that's great as long as people recognize that for what it is.
Personal morality systems fall apart in the face of conflicting personal morality systems. Who decides which aspects of morality are basic things that society requires? Some societies survive without condemning theft. Some survive with murder incorporated into them. How is the determination made as
I am not disputing that connotations may be different. I am asking (and I will be bold and predict that I will never get a logical answer to this question) "Why are a few words considered unacceptable when they all have many, many socially-acceptable synonyms, most of which were designed to get around the societal stigma of saying the 'bad' word in the first place? "
For example: does anyone over the age of 5 have any trouble figuring out what words are 'bleeped' on T.V.? No. Yet 'bleeping' is completely socially acceptable. The EXACT same message is conveyed, as people simply 'plug in' the missing word mentally as they're hearing the 'bleep'. What is the difference? Is it to protect the ears of the young, who would not understand what they were hearing anyway?
When did I say they were 'exact' synonyms? Are you saying they are NOT synonyms?
I do not dispute that different words are appropriate for different situations. I do not dispute that some words have nuances that synonyms may not have. I DO dispute that some synonyms are 'bad' and shouldn't be used while some are just fine and may be used at any time.
Good point.