Wow. I don't care what the law says, that's insane.
It isn't insane and you better care what the law says.
Let's ignore parts of the constitution that we don't like and make exceptions to certain parts of it! Good idea!
It isn't ignoring any part of the constitution. It is enforcing the bit which says people have a right to freedom and liberty without persecution. Like I said, 'Freedom of speech' doesn't allow you to harass people. 'Freedom of speech' don't let you say anything you like to anyone at any time you like. There are still things which are not allowed under 'Freedom of speech' such as lying about people and harassing people.
Not in my eyes. I don't support such idiotic laws.
And this is where you are missing something. You think it is idiotic to allow people freedom to pursue their own liberty and happiness without being persecuted by others.
A butter knife, pencil, and pencil can be used to stab someone. That's not what they're for, but they can be used that way.
Yes, but swear words were created to offend. That is what they're there for.
I merely claimed that words can't do any physical (real) damage to someone.
But they can do physical harm too. Upsetting people has a physical reaction. Harass someone with enough taunting and they get physically ill.
Someone could take them as a normal word, and it's simply illogical to treat them as anything other than such.
How can people take them as a normal word? They were not made to be normal words. They were made to offend people and get a reaction from them. If people react to them by taking offence, then that is actually a correct reaction to them. A person will not react to being called an 'F*ck*ng *rs*H*l*' the same way as someone saying 'How do you do?'
The words are specifically made to offend and people will react accordingly regardless.
Words that offend that aren't considered swear words do exist.
That doesn't make swear words any less offensive.
I find the fact that you might be implying that people should be subjected to a law suit if they call someone some mean words highly offensive! I'm going to kill myself and hope that you're charged with harassment!
I'm not implying that at all. The fact is that laws do exist and that lawsuits have come about because of harassment. You can be offended all you like by it, but it is the law. What is offensive is your belittling people who have been harassed to the point that they did kill themselves. You call them weaklings, but you obviously have no idea what they have been through.
This is no straw man. I wasn't assuming that you said anything related to that, but I was merely talking about people who do think that way.
Then you're mentioning it, why? If it wasn't part of the debate then it is irrelevant. Why mention it at all? I was very specific from the first post that I'm talking about swearing within context and culture. You think swearing are words with meanings. That's not being debated either. The problem is within certain contexts etc they are used to hurt people, and remember, not just emotionally, but they hurt people mentally and physically. They have meanings just like any other words, this is the problem, they have specific meanings which are different to any other words. They are grouped together and called 'offensive' words because that is what they are. To treat them like any other word is to place them in their context and culture. That includes contexts which are used to belittle people, harass them and other things. Within these contexts they are used to hurt people, having emotional, mental and physical responses to them. Do words hurt? Yes.
Insulting everyone for no reason? I don't like such people, but I also believe that it's freedom of speech.
Insulting people for no reason is not covered by freedom of speech, it's actually a form of harassment and people can be sued for it.
If they want to say such things, they shouldn't be censored or anything like that. If people kill themselves over it, well, too bad.
No, it isn't "too bad". If it is harassment, then a crime has been committed. If someone kills themselves over it then the family of the victim is entitled to sue whoever did the harassing.
If I said "fuck" because I stubbed my toe, how exactly would that be disrespectful?
As I said in my very first post, there is context and culture to consider. I gave an example of swear words being used whilst not being disrespectful and this is the second time I've had to repeat that. The fact that they can be used without being disrespectful is not in contention here, the fact that they can be is. My entire point from the beginning (to repeat myself again) is that you claimed words couldn't hurt and I have provided adequate examples of when they can.
If I said "you're a fucking retard" to someone, how exactly would that hold anymore "weight" than just "you're a retard"?
Because the swear word is being used as an adverb, and adds weight. That's what adverbs do to sentences. The fact that the word is offensive adds even more weight.
This is the illogical perception that many people have. If they truly believe that swear words hold some magical, evil meaning that gives everything more weight and are different than the average word simply because society indoctrinated them to believe this, then that is their own fault. It's simply illogical.
It isn't illogical. As previously stated, swear words were made to be offensive. It isn't a perceived 'magical' or 'evil meaning that offends people but specifically the meaning that they have and the fact that they are supposed to be offensive.
As I keep saying, if the offensive words didn't exist then someone will invent them specifically so they can offend someone.
Well, too bad. If someone swears at someone and they kill themselves, I'll look at it exactly like this: they killed themselves. Swear words are words with meanings, just as any other word, and if people can't handle it, they'll just have to deal with it. I hold no sympathy for people who kill themselves over hearing words.
It isn't a matter of 'too bad', it is a matter of harassment. Like I keep saying, my point has always been that you are incorrect in your assumption that words can't hurt. The fact is they can be used to do that. If someone kills themselves over words aimed at them and their character then whoever was directing the words at them will face a law suit.
Same as above. If I want to swear, other people should either deal with it or get out, not expect everyone else to conform to their little standards because they're offended by a context-less swear word that I said when I was angry.
Straw man argument. I've never said the swear words were contextless. My first post showed that I was not talking about 'contextless' when I showed an example of swear words which were used in an inoffensive way. Like I keep coming back to, my point was that words can hurt.
As per my first comment. People deliberately use swear words as a form of one up man ship. Someone who does this, in particular the potty mouthed youths of today, are hardly showing any respect. I already gave an example of someone having respect for someone and using swear words (ie when your friends use them when you do something stupid). This doesn't change the fact that most kids these days need to tone down their language and stop pretending they are tougher than they are.
If these words were considered normal, I can almost guarantee that people would stop saying them merely to be 'cool'.
And other words would be invented to replace them that are considered offensive.
Respect has nothing to do with swear words. You can be disrespectful with almost any combination of words, and swear words can be used appropriately.
Respect has a lot to do with swear words. Words which were deliberately invented to be offensive are used to show a lack of respect either directly or indirectly. Yes, a person can use other words to do this, but swear words are used because they are offensive and have a greater affect in a quicker amount of time.
You don't need to ban them in order to teach respect.
Like I said in my last comment, you missed my point. 'Words can hurt' is the point I am making. At no time have I said anything about banning them.
That is not only illogical, but idiotic.
Thank you for that ad hominem attack. I will ignore it.
So should they be banned? No. These people are weak and likely would have killed themselves eventually, anyway.
I've never stated they should be banned. As per my last comment, my point is that words can hurt, something contrary to your argument that words can't hurt. As for people killing themselves over words, there is no evidence that suggests that all people who do such a thing are weak and would have killed themselves anyway. People have killed themselves when accused of crimes they didn't commit (or even those who did commit crimes) when public out cry against them (which is just words) becomes too great they kill themselves. In ordinary circumstances they wouldn't have if not accused of those crimes. Then there are many recorded cases of bullying at school where the kids have eventually killed themselves.
If people kill themselves over words, I suspect that they wouldn't last long, anyway.
See my last comment.
This is nothing to do with swear words, anyway, as you can insult someone without using them. Adding a few swear words into the sentence without any context isn't the last straw that will make them suicide (suicide, as in kill themselves).
Swear words carry more weight to them. Most people who drive someone to suicide through bullying with words use plenty of swear words at them. Yes, you can insult someone without swear words. My point has always been that words can hurt. I never mentioned anything about adding swear words without context. It is adding them within context that is the driving factor here, they are deliberately being used to hurt someone.
You missed my point. They are not 'merely words' they are specific words created to cause a reaction from people. Within certain contexts they shouldn't get used.
TFA is about children using them. One thing children need to learn today is a bit of respect for others. Letting them swear like troopers at each other (and causing fights & spreading disharmony) or even at other people is definitely wrong, especially under certain circumstances.
For instance, you can lose your job (in my country) if you swear at work and it is directed at someone. You can get a letter for just swearing at work if someone takes offence to it. Three letters and you lose your job. If you swear at a judge you can get into a lot of trouble for contempt of court. Technically these could be considered 'censoring' or 'banning' and the reason for the ban is because they do hurt peoples feelings.
Do words hurt? Yes. People have been known to kill themselves over words.
So your original statement that you 'fail to see how swearing is harmful' is the point. It can be very harmful and I gave examples of where it 'bruised egos'. The kids of today are hiding behind the very same argument that it is 'only words' and they 'can't hurt', yet when you use the same words towards them they do get hurt emotionally and react, sometimes quite violently.
Calling people "idiots" is offensive. Swear words are also offensive because that's what they are supposed to be.
If there were no offensive words, you'd never be able to offend someone who cut you off on the road or wanted to punch you in the face to prove they're tougher than you etc. In fact, if there were no offensive words, people would invent them.
There is also context and culture and other things to consider.
For example, when I went to school there was a "special" school across the road called Barkuma. At our school you could offend someone by calling them a Barkie (which was the term used to describe the pupils are Barkuma). It was basically the equivalent of calling them a "Retard".
Calling someone an insult/offensive word directly is a form of one up man ship. It is a direct form of offending people.
Using offensive words not directed at a person is an indirect form of one up man ship. It is a way to say, 'I can use these offensive words because I'm tough enough not to care whether I offend you or not.' The only course of action open to counteract that one up man ship is to either 1. Start using them yourself as a way of saying, 'I'm just as tough as you.' or 2. tell the person to stop using them, which is like telling them they're not as tough as they think they are. Any other course of action places you in a subordinate position.
When I used to look after juvenile delinquents (when I was with the police as a civilian) they often used the same argument that they were just 'words' and as such couldn't offend. One kid insisted that the 'n' word was not offensive to black people (no Afro-Americans where I live) because it was just a word, and as such he insisted he was allowed to use it. He loved to use racist words to peoples faces (calling Chinese people "Chinkies" etc) and insisted that the problem lay with the people he offended. He also used to get beaten up a bit for constantly offending people (not just with racist slurs, but swearing at them and calling them anything he could think of). The fact that he was always in trouble for actually starting fights at schools whenever anyone called him a name was proof enough that he understood that offensive language is designed to offend and hurt peoples feelings.
As for context, if you were to do something stupid and one of your friends called you a "F***ing D*ckh**d!" in a jovial way with a big smile on their face, they aren't trying to offend you (at least I hope not). If they saw someone they didn't like do the same thing they'd probably use the exact same words in a derogatory way in order to deliberately put that person down.
But, in general, using offensive words are part of ordinary conversation will offend someone somewhere because it is an indirect way of putting them down. If you bruise egos, expect the person to react.
Worst example you could have gave.
MacDonalds (The Golden Arches) was kept out of Tasmania (in Australia) for a number of years as someone was already using 'MacDonald' as a name for their own hamburger joint.
Not sure if the Tasmanian MacDonalds ended up shutting down, being bought out or what, but both the Golden Arches MacDonalds and the Tasmanian MacDonalds used the surnames of the people who started the business.
Trade Marks are there to stop confusion, therefore a Trade Marked name can stop someone with the same name from entering the market in a similar/same field.
You can however operate in unrelated fields, such as MacDonald Helicopters or MacDonald Sports Wear without having trouble from the Restaurant Chain bothering you.
David Tennant also changed his last name for Acting work because in Scotland whoever uses a name in acting first gets to keep that name and any other actor has to legally get another name. (Not sure on the law in other countries).
'and eventually to 'wife 1.0'. If this happens the only way to get rid of 'woman' is via very expensive software... 'divorce 1.0' which will leave you with even less money than when you had 'wife 1.0' problems.'
Been there and done that. That's why I've decided if I ever get the urge to get married again, I'm just going to find a woman I hate and buy her a house!
In Australia the law regarding 'cyber bullying' bascially treats it the same as if the event occurred off-line.
That basically means that if the bully is making death threats or threats of a violent physical nature it will be treated by police as such. If the bully is continually harrassing the bullied, then it is considerd harassment. If someone makes slanderous comments, then it is treated as slander.
If the person in question is just making comments of a personal opinion type nature, then it is treated as such.
The buck stops at the police and not the school. [Not that the schools are not involved in educating the kids on cyber bullying and cyber safety etc.
So it comes down to a 'if you can't say/do it' in real life, then you're not allowed to 'say/do it' in cyber space either type of thing. [The law doesn't differentiate on on-line/off-line behaviour, the crime is basically the same].
I know of a case where a friend of mine in Singapore was receiving threatening e-mails from a guy she'd refused to date in Melbourne, and she contacted the police. The police sorted it out and other than an apology that he sent her over the incident she's never heard from him again.
Australia does actually have a cyber bullying/cyber safety site set up:
www.thinkuknow.com.au
I'm surprised that the US isn't treating it in a similar fashion, as it will preserve 'free speech' as well as protect people from slander/abuse/death threats etc.
'You forget that this is all in the absence of any copyright law (from my point of thinking for this excercise) except where explicitly talking of copyright law.'
Yes, I was commenting on your suggestion of just using trademark law which I beleive won't offer the artist enough protection for their works. Copyright is there for a reason. Trademark can't cover the protection an artist would need due to the fact they're totally different things. Even if they did manage to place copyright under trade mark somehow it would be too complex, and as such would be seperated again. If copyright was removed completely, then I'd fear for the songwriters of today who can't play musical instruments. Anyone would be able to play their songs and they'd be forced to get day jobs [and possibly spend less time writing/releasing their songs, thus removing some possible musical geniuses from the mix].
'Could you copyright a landscaped garden? Why is a cars coachwork not art?'
Yes, landscaped gardens can be copyrighted. Cars bodies [the shape] etc are also copyrighted, which is why when Toyota created the MR2 and based it on the shape of the Ferrari they had to make significant changes so that it was different. [For instance, it is one foot shorter than a Ferrari, and there are other differences in the models shape]. But if Toyota had of just used the Ferrari's body shape as is, then Ferrari could have sued them. BUT, the body itself isn't considered 'art' under copyright the same way that 'High Art' is considered art. But, after saying that, if I went to an art gallery and painted my own replica of a painting I could also do that, as long as I didn't pass the work off as an original. [Which would be fraud]. Most painters who do this usually don't sign the work either, but write on the back that it is by themselves and a copy of which ever painter did the original.
'the licenses are out there in the wild and people are using them and experimenting with them.'
Yes, but most of those licenses are Copyright licenses of some form or another. Which is what I believe is important. Copyright isn't stopping people from making their own licenses. That's all part of the artist having control over how they release their works. Without copyright, anything produced automatically becomes public domain. [Don't get me wrong, I am all for things going into public domain eventually or even immediately if the artist so chooses. I just beleive the choice should lie originally with the artist for a specified time].
For most artists there has to be an amount of time that they can be compenstated for the time, sweat, tears etc they put into their works. If there wasn't copyright, I could release a song today and Madonna mighty decide she likes it, releases it and due to her high profile she'd be compensated for the sales world wide while I receive little to nothing. At least with the copyright laws we have now I would get compensated as the songwriter [though not as the original artist]. [Madonna could still release it, but I'd be receiving the royalties for havin written the song].
Similar things have happened to artists as copyright already stands. For instance , Bette Middler released that song 'Wind beneath my wings', but that was originally released by Colleen Hewitt. So Bette's international status was able to be used to outshine Colleen's [Aussie national status] version, but at least the songwriter was compensated due to their copyright on the song. Colleen was still able to go and perform the song at her concerts and get compensated that way. She just didn't earn too much from the record sales as she couldn't compete with Bette.
So, I beleive the issue isn't the removal of copyright. The issue is the re-engineering of copyright into something which still benefits the original songwriter. [Which is what a lot of the 'self designed' licenses are]. The musicians might have a harder go of it, as International Stars can always have rele
Well Galileo was repeating the 'Copernicus' model of the Solar system, so he wasn't 'one guy', and he was arrested because his writings basically said anyone who thought the earth was flat was an imbecile, and he'd used the words straight out of the Popes mouth and stuck them into the mouth of the 'imbecile' in his writing... thus insulting the Pope [committing blasphemy in the eyes of the Church of the day]. Otherwise, he would probably could have still held his view without persecution.
After saying that, I do agree what you say about the 'one person' being right versus 'the establishment'. [The myth of what happened to Galileo fits, but the reality of it doesn't].
Sort of correct. It was against the Turks, who don't consider themselves Arab by any means. But, yes, the Byzantium Empire asked Rome for a Favour. The Byzantines were using Muslim Mercenaries as part of their defence against the Turks as well. In the first Crusade however, the Catholic armies couldn't tell the difference between the Byzantines [most of them in Asia Minor were of Greek origin] and the Turks... as such they actually slaughtered a lot of Orthodox Christians and didn't do much damage to the Turks at all... thus weakening the Byzantine defense and making it easier for the Turks 'Holy War'.
NOTE: The Turks at that time weren't the Turks of today. They started as a rather small but zealot bunch of goat herders who decided to wipe out any non-muslims, and the momentum gathered from there as more muslims joined their 'holy war'. Thus creating what eventually became the huge 'Ottoman Turkish Empire'.
The did order a huge super computer to be built at Magrathea to replace the one that's about to be detroyed to make way for a hyper-space bi-pass... maybe there is something in this cure.
Slashdot Mirror
There was no Video Home System when the moon landings happened. There was reel to reel tape, and cinescope, but no VHS until 1976.
The VHS tapes were made at a latter time. The article states:
'After some digging, they found that in the 1980s someone made a VHS tape of the Honeysuckle Creek magnetic tape,
You missed the interesting link to photos further down on that same page!!! http://www.mk.ru/photo/social/1013-singapur-razyigrali-v-butyilochku.html
Don't go! 'To Serve Man', it's a cook book!!!!!
Personally, I think they want to stop with the Monoprix and start chasing the Grand prix
Country music makes it feel sad! :-)
Wow. I don't care what the law says, that's insane.
It isn't insane and you better care what the law says.
Let's ignore parts of the constitution that we don't like and make exceptions to certain parts of it! Good idea!
It isn't ignoring any part of the constitution. It is enforcing the bit which says people have a right to freedom and liberty without persecution. Like I said, 'Freedom of speech' doesn't allow you to harass people. 'Freedom of speech' don't let you say anything you like to anyone at any time you like. There are still things which are not allowed under 'Freedom of speech' such as lying about people and harassing people.
Not in my eyes. I don't support such idiotic laws.
And this is where you are missing something. You think it is idiotic to allow people freedom to pursue their own liberty and happiness without being persecuted by others.
A butter knife, pencil, and pencil can be used to stab someone. That's not what they're for, but they can be used that way.
Yes, but swear words were created to offend. That is what they're there for.
I merely claimed that words can't do any physical (real) damage to someone.
But they can do physical harm too. Upsetting people has a physical reaction. Harass someone with enough taunting and they get physically ill.
Someone could take them as a normal word, and it's simply illogical to treat them as anything other than such.
How can people take them as a normal word? They were not made to be normal words. They were made to offend people and get a reaction from them. If people react to them by taking offence, then that is actually a correct reaction to them. A person will not react to being called an 'F*ck*ng *rs*H*l*' the same way as someone saying 'How do you do?'
The words are specifically made to offend and people will react accordingly regardless.
Words that offend that aren't considered swear words do exist.
That doesn't make swear words any less offensive.
I find the fact that you might be implying that people should be subjected to a law suit if they call someone some mean words highly offensive! I'm going to kill myself and hope that you're charged with harassment!
I'm not implying that at all. The fact is that laws do exist and that lawsuits have come about because of harassment. You can be offended all you like by it, but it is the law. What is offensive is your belittling people who have been harassed to the point that they did kill themselves. You call them weaklings, but you obviously have no idea what they have been through.
This is no straw man. I wasn't assuming that you said anything related to that, but I was merely talking about people who do think that way.
Then you're mentioning it, why? If it wasn't part of the debate then it is irrelevant. Why mention it at all? I was very specific from the first post that I'm talking about swearing within context and culture. You think swearing are words with meanings. That's not being debated either. The problem is within certain contexts etc they are used to hurt people, and remember, not just emotionally, but they hurt people mentally and physically. They have meanings just like any other words, this is the problem, they have specific meanings which are different to any other words. They are grouped together and called 'offensive' words because that is what they are. To treat them like any other word is to place them in their context and culture. That includes contexts which are used to belittle people, harass them and other things. Within these contexts they are used to hurt people, having emotional, mental and physical responses to them. Do words hurt? Yes.
Insulting everyone for no reason? I don't like such people, but I also believe that it's freedom of speech.
Insulting people for no reason is not covered by freedom of speech, it's actually a form of harassment and people can be sued for it.
If they want to say such things, they shouldn't be censored or anything like that. If people kill themselves over it, well, too bad.
No, it isn't "too bad". If it is harassment, then a crime has been committed. If someone kills themselves over it then the family of the victim is entitled to sue whoever did the harassing.
If I said "fuck" because I stubbed my toe, how exactly would that be disrespectful?
As I said in my very first post, there is context and culture to consider. I gave an example of swear words being used whilst not being disrespectful and this is the second time I've had to repeat that. The fact that they can be used without being disrespectful is not in contention here, the fact that they can be is. My entire point from the beginning (to repeat myself again) is that you claimed words couldn't hurt and I have provided adequate examples of when they can.
If I said "you're a fucking retard" to someone, how exactly would that hold anymore "weight" than just "you're a retard"?
Because the swear word is being used as an adverb, and adds weight. That's what adverbs do to sentences. The fact that the word is offensive adds even more weight.
This is the illogical perception that many people have. If they truly believe that swear words hold some magical, evil meaning that gives everything more weight and are different than the average word simply because society indoctrinated them to believe this, then that is their own fault. It's simply illogical.
It isn't illogical. As previously stated, swear words were made to be offensive. It isn't a perceived 'magical' or 'evil meaning that offends people but specifically the meaning that they have and the fact that they are supposed to be offensive.
As I keep saying, if the offensive words didn't exist then someone will invent them specifically so they can offend someone.
Well, too bad. If someone swears at someone and they kill themselves, I'll look at it exactly like this: they killed themselves. Swear words are words with meanings, just as any other word, and if people can't handle it, they'll just have to deal with it. I hold no sympathy for people who kill themselves over hearing words.
It isn't a matter of 'too bad', it is a matter of harassment. Like I keep saying, my point has always been that you are incorrect in your assumption that words can't hurt. The fact is they can be used to do that. If someone kills themselves over words aimed at them and their character then whoever was directing the words at them will face a law suit.
Same as above. If I want to swear, other people should either deal with it or get out, not expect everyone else to conform to their little standards because they're offended by a context-less swear word that I said when I was angry.
Straw man argument. I've never said the swear words were contextless. My first post showed that I was not talking about 'contextless' when I showed an example of swear words which were used in an inoffensive way. Like I keep coming back to, my point was that words can hurt.
Why can't you have respect for others and swear?
As per my first comment. People deliberately use swear words as a form of one up man ship. Someone who does this, in particular the potty mouthed youths of today, are hardly showing any respect. I already gave an example of someone having respect for someone and using swear words (ie when your friends use them when you do something stupid). This doesn't change the fact that most kids these days need to tone down their language and stop pretending they are tougher than they are.
If these words were considered normal, I can almost guarantee that people would stop saying them merely to be 'cool'.
And other words would be invented to replace them that are considered offensive.
Respect has nothing to do with swear words. You can be disrespectful with almost any combination of words, and swear words can be used appropriately.
Respect has a lot to do with swear words. Words which were deliberately invented to be offensive are used to show a lack of respect either directly or indirectly. Yes, a person can use other words to do this, but swear words are used because they are offensive and have a greater affect in a quicker amount of time.
You don't need to ban them in order to teach respect.
Like I said in my last comment, you missed my point. 'Words can hurt' is the point I am making. At no time have I said anything about banning them.
That is not only illogical, but idiotic.
Thank you for that ad hominem attack. I will ignore it.
So should they be banned? No. These people are weak and likely would have killed themselves eventually, anyway.
I've never stated they should be banned. As per my last comment, my point is that words can hurt, something contrary to your argument that words can't hurt. As for people killing themselves over words, there is no evidence that suggests that all people who do such a thing are weak and would have killed themselves anyway. People have killed themselves when accused of crimes they didn't commit (or even those who did commit crimes) when public out cry against them (which is just words) becomes too great they kill themselves. In ordinary circumstances they wouldn't have if not accused of those crimes. Then there are many recorded cases of bullying at school where the kids have eventually killed themselves.
If people kill themselves over words, I suspect that they wouldn't last long, anyway.
See my last comment.
This is nothing to do with swear words, anyway, as you can insult someone without using them. Adding a few swear words into the sentence without any context isn't the last straw that will make them suicide (suicide, as in kill themselves).
Swear words carry more weight to them. Most people who drive someone to suicide through bullying with words use plenty of swear words at them. Yes, you can insult someone without swear words. My point has always been that words can hurt. I never mentioned anything about adding swear words without context. It is adding them within context that is the driving factor here, they are deliberately being used to hurt someone.
TFA is about children using them. One thing children need to learn today is a bit of respect for others. Letting them swear like troopers at each other (and causing fights & spreading disharmony) or even at other people is definitely wrong, especially under certain circumstances.
For instance, you can lose your job (in my country) if you swear at work and it is directed at someone. You can get a letter for just swearing at work if someone takes offence to it. Three letters and you lose your job. If you swear at a judge you can get into a lot of trouble for contempt of court. Technically these could be considered 'censoring' or 'banning' and the reason for the ban is because they do hurt peoples feelings.
Do words hurt? Yes. People have been known to kill themselves over words.
So your original statement that you 'fail to see how swearing is harmful' is the point. It can be very harmful and I gave examples of where it 'bruised egos'. The kids of today are hiding behind the very same argument that it is 'only words' and they 'can't hurt', yet when you use the same words towards them they do get hurt emotionally and react, sometimes quite violently.
Calling people "idiots" is offensive. Swear words are also offensive because that's what they are supposed to be.
If there were no offensive words, you'd never be able to offend someone who cut you off on the road or wanted to punch you in the face to prove they're tougher than you etc. In fact, if there were no offensive words, people would invent them.
There is also context and culture and other things to consider.
For example, when I went to school there was a "special" school across the road called Barkuma. At our school you could offend someone by calling them a Barkie (which was the term used to describe the pupils are Barkuma). It was basically the equivalent of calling them a "Retard".
Calling someone an insult/offensive word directly is a form of one up man ship. It is a direct form of offending people.
Using offensive words not directed at a person is an indirect form of one up man ship. It is a way to say, 'I can use these offensive words because I'm tough enough not to care whether I offend you or not.' The only course of action open to counteract that one up man ship is to either 1. Start using them yourself as a way of saying, 'I'm just as tough as you.' or 2. tell the person to stop using them, which is like telling them they're not as tough as they think they are. Any other course of action places you in a subordinate position.
When I used to look after juvenile delinquents (when I was with the police as a civilian) they often used the same argument that they were just 'words' and as such couldn't offend. One kid insisted that the 'n' word was not offensive to black people (no Afro-Americans where I live) because it was just a word, and as such he insisted he was allowed to use it. He loved to use racist words to peoples faces (calling Chinese people "Chinkies" etc) and insisted that the problem lay with the people he offended. He also used to get beaten up a bit for constantly offending people (not just with racist slurs, but swearing at them and calling them anything he could think of). The fact that he was always in trouble for actually starting fights at schools whenever anyone called him a name was proof enough that he understood that offensive language is designed to offend and hurt peoples feelings.
As for context, if you were to do something stupid and one of your friends called you a "F***ing D*ckh**d!" in a jovial way with a big smile on their face, they aren't trying to offend you (at least I hope not). If they saw someone they didn't like do the same thing they'd probably use the exact same words in a derogatory way in order to deliberately put that person down.
But, in general, using offensive words are part of ordinary conversation will offend someone somewhere because it is an indirect way of putting them down. If you bruise egos, expect the person to react.
Mister Blue Sky told me. What a Discovery.
Worst example you could have gave. MacDonalds (The Golden Arches) was kept out of Tasmania (in Australia) for a number of years as someone was already using 'MacDonald' as a name for their own hamburger joint. Not sure if the Tasmanian MacDonalds ended up shutting down, being bought out or what, but both the Golden Arches MacDonalds and the Tasmanian MacDonalds used the surnames of the people who started the business. Trade Marks are there to stop confusion, therefore a Trade Marked name can stop someone with the same name from entering the market in a similar/same field. You can however operate in unrelated fields, such as MacDonald Helicopters or MacDonald Sports Wear without having trouble from the Restaurant Chain bothering you. David Tennant also changed his last name for Acting work because in Scotland whoever uses a name in acting first gets to keep that name and any other actor has to legally get another name. (Not sure on the law in other countries).
If I put myself in the pilot seat of that helicopter at 14000 feet, the crash would be inevitable. :-)
'and eventually to 'wife 1.0'. If this happens the only way to get rid of 'woman' is via very expensive software... 'divorce 1.0' which will leave you with even less money than when you had 'wife 1.0' problems.'
Been there and done that. That's why I've decided if I ever get the urge to get married again, I'm just going to find a woman I hate and buy her a house!
In Australia the law regarding 'cyber bullying' bascially treats it the same as if the event occurred off-line.
That basically means that if the bully is making death threats or threats of a violent physical nature it will be treated by police as such. If the bully is continually harrassing the bullied, then it is considerd harassment. If someone makes slanderous comments, then it is treated as slander.
If the person in question is just making comments of a personal opinion type nature, then it is treated as such.
The buck stops at the police and not the school. [Not that the schools are not involved in educating the kids on cyber bullying and cyber safety etc.
So it comes down to a 'if you can't say/do it' in real life, then you're not allowed to 'say/do it' in cyber space either type of thing. [The law doesn't differentiate on on-line/off-line behaviour, the crime is basically the same].
I know of a case where a friend of mine in Singapore was receiving threatening e-mails from a guy she'd refused to date in Melbourne, and she contacted the police. The police sorted it out and other than an apology that he sent her over the incident she's never heard from him again.
Australia does actually have a cyber bullying/cyber safety site set up:
www.thinkuknow.com.au
I'm surprised that the US isn't treating it in a similar fashion, as it will preserve 'free speech' as well as protect people from slander/abuse/death threats etc.
Astronaut One: Okay, the chisel is in place. Now, when I nod my head, you hit it with the hammer!
Astronaut Two: Okay!
*Astronaut One Nods Head*
*Astronaut Two hits Astronaut One on head with hammer*
'You forget that this is all in the absence of any copyright law (from my point of thinking for this excercise) except where explicitly talking of copyright law.'
Yes, I was commenting on your suggestion of just using trademark law which I beleive won't offer the artist enough protection for their works. Copyright is there for a reason. Trademark can't cover the protection an artist would need due to the fact they're totally different things. Even if they did manage to place copyright under trade mark somehow it would be too complex, and as such would be seperated again. If copyright was removed completely, then I'd fear for the songwriters of today who can't play musical instruments. Anyone would be able to play their songs and they'd be forced to get day jobs [and possibly spend less time writing/releasing their songs, thus removing some possible musical geniuses from the mix].
'Could you copyright a landscaped garden? Why is a cars coachwork not art?'
Yes, landscaped gardens can be copyrighted. Cars bodies [the shape] etc are also copyrighted, which is why when Toyota created the MR2 and based it on the shape of the Ferrari they had to make significant changes so that it was different. [For instance, it is one foot shorter than a Ferrari, and there are other differences in the models shape]. But if Toyota had of just used the Ferrari's body shape as is, then Ferrari could have sued them. BUT, the body itself isn't considered 'art' under copyright the same way that 'High Art' is considered art. But, after saying that, if I went to an art gallery and painted my own replica of a painting I could also do that, as long as I didn't pass the work off as an original. [Which would be fraud]. Most painters who do this usually don't sign the work either, but write on the back that it is by themselves and a copy of which ever painter did the original.
'the licenses are out there in the wild and people are using them and experimenting with them.'
Yes, but most of those licenses are Copyright licenses of some form or another. Which is what I believe is important. Copyright isn't stopping people from making their own licenses. That's all part of the artist having control over how they release their works. Without copyright, anything produced automatically becomes public domain. [Don't get me wrong, I am all for things going into public domain eventually or even immediately if the artist so chooses. I just beleive the choice should lie originally with the artist for a specified time].
For most artists there has to be an amount of time that they can be compenstated for the time, sweat, tears etc they put into their works. If there wasn't copyright, I could release a song today and Madonna mighty decide she likes it, releases it and due to her high profile she'd be compensated for the sales world wide while I receive little to nothing. At least with the copyright laws we have now I would get compensated as the songwriter [though not as the original artist]. [Madonna could still release it, but I'd be receiving the royalties for havin written the song].
Similar things have happened to artists as copyright already stands. For instance , Bette Middler released that song 'Wind beneath my wings', but that was originally released by Colleen Hewitt. So Bette's international status was able to be used to outshine Colleen's [Aussie national status] version, but at least the songwriter was compensated due to their copyright on the song. Colleen was still able to go and perform the song at her concerts and get compensated that way. She just didn't earn too much from the record sales as she couldn't compete with Bette.
So, I beleive the issue isn't the removal of copyright. The issue is the re-engineering of copyright into something which still benefits the original songwriter. [Which is what a lot of the 'self designed' licenses are]. The musicians might have a harder go of it, as International Stars can always have rele
If it gets me a window seat on a plane I'll be happy. :-)
Well Galileo was repeating the 'Copernicus' model of the Solar system, so he wasn't 'one guy', and he was arrested because his writings basically said anyone who thought the earth was flat was an imbecile, and he'd used the words straight out of the Popes mouth and stuck them into the mouth of the 'imbecile' in his writing ... thus insulting the Pope [committing blasphemy in the eyes of the Church of the day]. Otherwise, he would probably could have still held his view without persecution.
After saying that, I do agree what you say about the 'one person' being right versus 'the establishment'. [The myth of what happened to Galileo fits, but the reality of it doesn't].
Nature Grows the seed ... ... ...
We send the seed into space
Then, we eat the seed
'I still don't know what to make of it.'
:-)
A silk purse maybe!
Everyone would get head jobs off Government Interns? ;-)
Sort of correct. It was against the Turks, who don't consider themselves Arab by any means. But, yes, the Byzantium Empire asked Rome for a Favour. The Byzantines were using Muslim Mercenaries as part of their defence against the Turks as well. In the first Crusade however, the Catholic armies couldn't tell the difference between the Byzantines [most of them in Asia Minor were of Greek origin] and the Turks ... as such they actually slaughtered a lot of Orthodox Christians and didn't do much damage to the Turks at all ... thus weakening the Byzantine defense and making it easier for the Turks 'Holy War'.
NOTE: The Turks at that time weren't the Turks of today. They started as a rather small but zealot bunch of goat herders who decided to wipe out any non-muslims, and the momentum gathered from there as more muslims joined their 'holy war'. Thus creating what eventually became the huge 'Ottoman Turkish Empire'.
The did order a huge super computer to be built at Magrathea to replace the one that's about to be detroyed to make way for a hyper-space bi-pass ... maybe there is something in this cure.
Why put them in jail? Have we run out of cliffs? :-)