I don't know if I have the bad luck lately of reading the posts with it, or if it actually has been increasing. Either way, it bothers me and yes, it even offends me.
Yes, I know, some of you - potentially a lot of you - don't care. It would seem obvious that at least some of you think that the f word is worse than using deity as profanity.
Guess what? To some of us, it's the other way around.
I would much rather see 5000 f words than one using my deity or my Savior. (And I don't really want to see the f words either.)
I can't stand seeing my deity's name (title - whatever - I'm not getting caught up in semantics, here) used with the disrespect that I've seen here lately. Granted, it hasn't been every thread, or even many threads, only some threads and only some posts. But I really don't want to see it at all.
So I'm asking - begging, actually - to please leave deity out as a form of emphasis or profanity or disrespect.
Please.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Worse, in my eyes, are slurs. I'd rather see a million lurid swear words than see or hear one slur. Nothing makes me angrier than that n word, that f word, any of those words. I hate them all. Even if it's someone outside of my group, I hate it.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
This is why I prefer creative, nontraditional profanity.
Some of my favorites: "Mother of toast!" "Mother pus bucket!" (From Ghostbusters) "Piss-cutter!" (From James Clavell's Shogun) "You illegitimate son of a toaster!" (Me, yelling at the Xerox machine at work.)
I draw the line at "tanj", though. That one's just ridiculous.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: "You illegitimate son of a toaster!"
I am so using that one!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Mother of toast!! heheheheh
Hey, I remember reading about tanj from OSC's book about writing books. I kind of like using pox or poxy as a swear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I can't stand seeing my deity's name (title - whatever - I'm not getting caught up in semantics, here) used with the disrespect that I've seen here lately.
I'm assuming that you're not referring to my habit of yelling, "Oh, Zeus!" when I whack myself with a hammer...?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Yeah, "tanj" is from Larry Niven. I'm reading the Ringworld books right now, and I'm thoroughly sick of the word. Also "futz". Also "Finagle". Also "stet", which popped up out of nowhere and caught on immediately as though people had been saying it all along, and never mind the fact that no one is using it in the correct context.
Edit: I should also point out that I can't take credit for "mother of toast". It's something an old college friend of mine said. I liked it enough to add it to my own working vocabulary.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Zeus doesn't bother me, although it would probably bother someone who worships him.
I'm talking about the G word.
But I'm also bothered even when it's misspelled, possibly in an effort of humour.
It just seems to be happening so much more frequently lately, and I'm at the point where I'm going to stop reading threads because these words are just popping up everywhere.
Problem is, I don't know - until I read them - where the offending words are going to show up. So, what? Stop reading Hatcrack altogether? Well, I suppose this is one way of curing the addiction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What is 'stet' supposed to mean, anyway? I never got it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Question, isn't there a bylaw in our sign in agreement about swearing? I seem to remember such. OK, I could always look.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
What "stet" actually means is "no change; ignore the correction". It's used in proofreading. In the Ringworld books, it's used to mean nothing more than "okay", "right", or "understood". So it's pointless, since plenty of words already exist that actually mean those things.
Edit: As for the etymology of "stet", it's from a Latin verb meaning "to stand". So the meaning is something like "it stands [as it is]", hence "do not change this".
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs.
Problem is that people's definitions of profane differ. Hence this thread.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Care to link to a few examples. I haven't run across it.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
My mum always gets made at me when I say the G word. I try to explain that, to me, it is much less offensive than many other words. That doesn't seem to make a difference to her. I usually 'win' the argument simply because I don't actually say the G word very often. I'm of the mind that there certainly is a place for naughty words.
At any case, when I'm around people who I know it *really* bothers (except my mother, oddly enough!) I try to swear more agreeably with them.
Jebus (I'm not trying to be offensive by typing it, but lets not take being offended to extremes) kind of makes me smile just because of a memory I have laughing at a joke with my friends.
I don't post much (as I was without the internet for 3 months) - but I have read a lot of threads and I haven't noticed too many bad words. That could be because, since they don't offend me, I just gloss over them.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Problem is that people's definitions of profane differ. Hence this thread.
True. But the advantage here is this: Remember whose message board we're on. For most boards, religious-based profanity would fly all over and if anyone got offended, it would just be too bad for them. But here we're on a message board run by someone who also finds that offensive. So when trying to judge whether your profanity is appropriate or not, consider whether our Gracious Host would think so.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Papa (or other Watcher), I'm having trouble finding the Hatracker forum user agreement. I understand that quid believes that Phanto's post on Book's thread is profanity. From a mod's view, is it?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If I ever do a comedy routine it will have a nice long bit about profanity. For example, abuse of the F-word, if taken literally, is quite comic. If you tell someone to close the f-in mouths, wouldn't that be extremely painful? I once heard someone ask "where are the F-in grapes." My reply, "Look a few inches below the navel oranges."
Christopher Stasseff once had a character chased by a burning stick because in a very literal world the character got upset when it broke and da..ed the stick with an accidental "Dang it". Now this heck stick was looking for revenge.
However, I recently had a conversation with my nephew I found very disturbing. He goes to Catholic school and was taught that the worst curse of all was Mother F... because it called into question the saintly hood of all mothers including Mary.
Huh?
That is what his teacher taught them, and on him at least, it worked to keep him from using the vulgarity. Still, it is wrong.
The best thing I do when someone uses a diety's name in vain is to respond, "Yes, you called." in my best James Earl Jones voice. Its a non-confrontational way to make them realize what they are actually saying.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Aspectre, you want me to link to deity used as profanity? To me, it's bad enough that it appears at all.
Is that enough?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's a real stretch to call "for God's sake" a profanity, Quid. I don't know how many people you'll convince of that opinion who aren't already inclined to share it.
How do you feel about "zounds?"
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sigh.
If you don't agree, that is your choice. I'm not saying that everyone has to agree.
But to me, it is offensive, and I don't like seeing it.
If everyone else wants to keep using it, there's nothing I can do about it except ask that it not be. Which is what I'm doing.
To me, God is my deity. He is someone I worship. He is someone I respect above all others. To see his name (title, whatever you want to call it) used in this way bothers me.
Go ahead. Say whatever you want. I still don't like it and to me, it's still profanity.
Zounds, however, doesn't bother me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:I think it's a real stretch to call "for God's sake" a profanity, Quid.
Actually, its not a real stretch at all. In fact, especially considering again who hosts this place, using Deities name at all outside of religious contexts is deamed profanity.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Thank you, Occasional.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
That would include "zounds", of course. That being a contraction of "God's wounds", and all.
Not being nasty. I agree with quid here. Religious-based profanity doesn't offend me, but I think we need to keep in mind where we are, and temper our language accordingly.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Ah, I wasn't aware that that was where the word originated from. I don't use it myself, but that's beside the point.
Thank you for clarifying that, Verily.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Personally, I find it much easier to NOT be offended by someone using a 'deities name outside of religious contexts' than by getting worked up about it.
I guess, what I mean is, you might find it easier in the long run if you didn't take what other people write (or say) very seriously if it has the potential to upsets you not because of the message they're getting across, but because of the words they're using to do it (I hope that sentence made sense - I have a terrible headache right now). Of course, this is easier said than done.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think that's one of the biggest problems people have with me. I don't edit my thoughts and words down to the threshhold of the most sensitive person present, and often not even to the average person's tolerance.
Course it's just as unfair to the person talking to have to cater to those more sensitive.
The flaw in the Golden Rule.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
God is subjective. Why do you assume when someone uses the name of God in a curse it has anything to do with the christian God?
The only instance would be the JC curse, which is aimed squarely at JC himself.
Which brings up the question: If you’re a Scientologist, then what's your version of the JC curse?
*stubs toe* "Son of a Rondamned Hubbard on a popsicle stick!"
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yes, but the problem that is set up HERE is who set this site up and why it exists. In other places I am less offended; as I expect such "ignorance of protocal" when I am listening. Here, however, ANY swear words are questionable. This is especially the case with using Deity's name in vain. If it is allowed, than I question OSC's intentions (or would like him to clarify his feelings on the subject).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Yes, but the problem that is set up HERE is who set this site up and why it exists."
Intriguingly, "God" is not one of the swear words automatically edited out by our host's software. I suspect that if it were really as problematic for him as you're assuming it must be for all good Mormons (and I say this with a bit of dripping sarcasm), Phanto's posts would have even more computer-inserted asterisks in them.
We have had discussions on this site about our favorite coffees, without even a moment's thought spent worrying about whether Orson Scott Card would approve of our having a favorite coffee. Automatically assuming that your particular brand of Mormon cultural taboo is shared by our host simply because he happens to belong to the same religion -- and that he would want us to observe that particular cultural taboo, despite no instructions in that vein -- seems a bit precocious.
I see nothing wrong with Quid's original post. It bothers her, so she's asked us to stop even though we might not be troubled by it ourselves. That's a perfectly reasonable request, and I for one am inclined to do her that favor. But acting as if observing Mormon cultural doctrines were the bare minimum standard for decency on this site is something that I'm not exactly gung-ho about conceding.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yet, TomD. God can be used in discussions where it is not used as anything near profanity. Good try, but doesn't work.
And yes, "Good Mormons" would use other swear words quicker than they would profanity of Deity. The others might be bad form, but the other is breaking a Commandment.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
You're forgetting that god as a word can also be used in discussions involved religion and beliefs, so why would it automatically be edited out?
Edited: Occasional beat me to the punch.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I submit that the mere fact that the word "God" can be used in polite conversation on multiple topics, unlike certain four-letter words that, while possessed of multiple meanings, are not considered appropriate for mixed company, suggests that the word "God" is not as inherently vulgar as those other words.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
No one's saying it's inherently vulgar. They're saying that using it as a frivolous swear word is offensive to God. That's an entirely different concept.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:using Deities name at all outside of religious contexts is deamed profanity.
quote:Yet, TomD. God can be used in discussions where it is not used as anything near profanity
Blasphemer!
Should we also not talk about drinking coffee or beer, or about premarital sex? I understand that Mormons have different standards, but from what I remember from my years attending the church, non-members aren't necessarily held to them. I was always told it was impolite and disrespectful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They're saying that using it as a frivolous swear word is offensive to God.
More appropriately, I think they're saying it's offensive to them.
Because I do lots of things that must offend their God on a regular basis, and I don't hear Occasional complaining about it. (I don't hear God, either, but I may be suffering from stable-dwarfishness.)
But, again, I don't see anything wrong with saying, "Hey, I find this personally offensive. Could you cut it out?" What bothers me is the assertion that the alternative is inherently indecent and/or improper.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:What bothers me is the assertion that the alternative is inherently indecent and/or improper.
I don't know if I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand what you're saying with this. Would you please clarify?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, for one thing, you seem to be taking it as a given that "God," when used in this fashion, is being used disrespectfully. I submit that even the most devoutedly atheist of us -- even KoM -- does not say something like "by God" for that purpose. I recognize why you feel that this usage is ultimately disrespectful, but it's worth noting that I am absolutely and completely sure that it is never intentionally disrespectful, even among the unbelievers here. Moreover, there seems to be a latent assumption that such usage of the term would be interpreted by our host as a horrible slight, based solely upon your shared religion -- despite the fact that he, his wife, and other official representatives have never once, in a decade, publicly criticized such usage. While they may indeed consider it offensive to the extent that they would not use such terms themselves, they also clearly do not consider it so offensive as to require their intervention (unlike many other words and assorted vulgarities which HAVE provoked official reaction.)
And I'm not even going to get into Occasional's attitude. He's way too holy for me to judge.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I understand it, and agree.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The problem, as I have already said, is that using "God" as a profanity is more than considered by Mormons a cultural yes or no. I have conceded that other swear words could easily be considered such. However, avoiding using the Deity's name in vain is considered a COMMANDMENT as in one of the TEN.
And, contrary to what you think, I am actually assuming that Card is a "Good Mormon" on this subject, until he says otherwise. In other words, until farther notice it might be best to be careful at THIS SITE. I am, however, willing to change my expectations as soon as OSC or a representative does respond. That won't, however, change my feelings on the subject in general.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm sorry you choose to take offense where none is intended, Quid, and I hope you stick around, but I, personally, will not support you in this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I personally filter my speech here on hatrack becausesome things that I would say, for example, to my wife, would be considered offensive here.
I don't think it's too much to ask for to not use language that is offensive to others.
I also would appreciate it if people would refrain from using the name of deity as an explitive, pejorative, etc..
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, avoiding using the Deity's name in vain is considered a COMMANDMENT as in one of the TEN."
Man. Remind me never to mention that I don't particularly respect my parents, or that I'm all about coveting my neighbor's ass. I only hope the fact that He is not in actuality the Lord my God never becomes common knowledge.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
ROFL!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Seriously, is that how the "take my name in vain" thing is interpreted by Mormons? Because I've always heard that such an interpretation is in fact based on a very flawed understanding of the text.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD. that depends on if those subjects are against the policy of this site. And, using profanity IS considered against the policy of this site. You are trying to argue from a position I am not stating.
Edit: you, again, have heard wrong. Mormons take using Deity's name in vain VERY seriously.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I love these forums, but too many people in here are way too anal about this or that.
Can't we just agree not to curse and leave the dogma out of it?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man. Remind me never to mention that I don't particularly respect my parents, or that I'm all about coveting my neighbor's ass. I only hope the fact that He is not in fact the Lord my God never becomes common knowledge.
Thank you TomDavidson, I'll now go to bed smiling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, my point is that despite a decade of opportunity, our hosts have never indicated that they consider casual use of the word "God" to be inherently profane.
That Quid is offended is a perfectly good reason for those of us who like and respect her to cut back on it. But I'm not buying the pro forma.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Oh, I agree Tom. The second an admin tells me I cannot say God (or [g]od if you prefer), I'm outta here. I'm all for being courteous to my fellow hatracker, but I'm not going to bend to any religion's will for the sake of anyone. Sorry, no can do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I can understand your last point TomD. However, I do think this thread (notice I haven't spread it to those who have used it in other threads) is the perfect opportunity to get better imput from the author and host.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Seems to me that if you put it to him that way -- "Hey, OSC, all good Mormons think using the word 'God' casually is the worst sort of profanity. Don't you think you should ban it on your site" -- you'll make a whole lot of friends.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I can't see OSC imposing his religious values on anyone. I can see him asking that ALL curses be kept out of his forums, but there are limits.
Why don't ya'll just tanj off?! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Frell you!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
E.M. I am guessing that many parts of the rules that OSC set up were out of consideration of his religious feelings and beliefs. Of course, there are other considerations as well i am sure.
TomD. I may not make a lot of friends, but it is still a question that OSC should recognize as legitimate. By the way, if OSC does say that using God outside of religious discussion is appropriate, than so be it. I may question why he allows it (as I already question why he allows a lot of things), but as long as HE doesn't use it that way than it won't be a personal question.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: E.M. I am guessing that many parts of the rules that OSC set up were out of consideration of his religious feelings and beliefs. Of course, there are other considerations as well i am sure.
Yes, I agree. But if he wants his site to be pro Mormon, then he's going to lose a lot of people in here, and I cannot see him trying to purge divergent opinion or thought based on how he seemingly values such concepts.
And if he did, I would leave.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
This isn't about "purging divergent opinion or thought," but about what OSC meant by profanity. It is a procedural question based on assumptions of OSC's person.
By the way he WILL NOT allow it to become anti-Mormon; so does that automatically make it pro-Mormon?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Exploding Monkey, is that how you see not using deity-based profanity? Are you saying that if it came down to a request to not use deity-based profanity, you would leave?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: (as I already question why he allows a lot of things)
Not to derail this thread, but what sort of things are you talking about here?
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Exploding Monkey, is that how you see not using deity-based profanity? Are you saying that if it came down to a request to not use deity-based profanity, you would leave?
No, I am saying the word 'God' is not profanity in the same sense as 'cancer' and 'erection' are not. Yet there was a time in this country (the US) where both of the former words were taboo.
If I cannot say God here, then I will leave. In my opinion, using the word God is just as acceptable as using the words, erection and cancer. If the Mormon faith is against it, I am fine with that. But the Church of Latter Day Saints does not set the prescient for my choice to discuss the divine using that word.
You want GD, JC, and all the others kept out? That's cool. But I draw the line at being able to use a noun that has no offensive content to it at all. It is how you use a word that makes it offencive, not the word itself.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Monkey, you might as well just save your breath. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Or your fingers, as the case might be.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:It is how you use a word that makes it offencive, not the word itself.
It is the HOW that we are discussing. To be fair, many Jews are more uptight about using the word at all than Mormons are about the usage. Perhaps, I am hoping, it is under that pretense that you are making your assumptions.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
EM, in this entire thread, I have never said that using the word god in religious contexts is offensive. It is offensive to me only when it is used as profanity or as emphasis. But if we're having a discussion about religion, then using the word god in that context makes complete sense.
I'm all for context-appropriate. And I completely agree that it's context that makes it offensive. I don't see how we disagree on this.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Um, for instance, notice how many times me and quidscribis actually used God (like just now) in our disussions of the profanity issue. If I was a Jew, I might have used G-d in this case as a comparision.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
He is, considering he's typing and not talking.
Incidentally, I agree entirely with quid; the word 'God' is quite offensive, being associated with hundreds of years of oppression, evil, corruption, and thought control. I wish people would stop using it. You might as well go around shouting "Gas that!" or "Mein Fuhrer!" whenever something affronts you.
Edit : Gah, the first line is in response to Storm's "save your breath" comment, and she beat me to it herself. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
KoM, you're like a freaking force of nature or something. Lol.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I'm not assuming anything. It is generally accepted that GD for example is a curse against the divine no matter what your religious calling is. But it is not a universally accepted rule that G all by itself is.
Given that, I reserve the right to use it any way I see fit as long as it is not attached to the accepted curses. To be frank, I really don't care what X and Y religion thinks of me when I use the word God. It is a common word that is used millions of times a day by millions of people of all religions in all kinds of different ways; most of which are not offensive.
If I want to say: "God, I had a rough day." I will. Or, "No one knows for sure what God is," I'll do that as well.
Neither is offensive, and to be honest, I think those that believe it is are splitting hairs. Don't worry about my soul. I have made my piece with God and have a good relationship with the divine. I will keep the curses out. I will not stop using the word God. Period.
Time to put the kids to bed. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:By the way, if OSC does say that using God outside of religious discussion is appropriate, than so be it.
Does the fact that, in a decade, he has not made a ruling against it mean anything?
quote:Um, for instance, notice how many times me and quidscribis actually used God (like just now) in our disussions of the profanity issue. If I was a Jew, I might have used G-d in this case as a comparision.
So you recognize that you're offending Jews, but since our host isn't Jewish, it doesn't matter?
I think I'll just stay the way I am. I offend everyone equally.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Well, then we don't agree. Your first example, to me, is offensive. It is a form of profanity in that use.
You can say I'm splitting hairs - that's your choice. But that doesn't negate it being offensive to me and to some others.
And since you don't care about whether or not what you post is offensive to others, well, what does it matter? You don't care. I get it.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: And since you don't care about whether or not what you post is offensive to others, well, what does it matter? You don't care. I get it.
I never said I didn't care. I said I do not care what I am thought of. So it's not okay to use God as an emphasis, but it's okay to judge others even though your religion says it's a sin to do so?
Get your priorities in order my friend. Your foot is in your mouth.
[ July 09, 2005, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Exploding Monkey ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why, thank you, Storm. (Takes a bow; on his way out, accidentally destroys several cities in Florida.) Oops, sorry about that.
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
I find it interesting that people choose to use that which their society finds holy or sacred as a profanity.
When I lived in Austria (a country that is 95% Roman Catholic), it was very common to hear people use the name of Mary "in vain." If someone hit the proverbial thumb with a hammer, they would cry out "MaREEEEYah!"
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs.
I'll give you three guesses whom I'm thinking of here, and the first two don't count. Seriously, I can't be the only one who's had enough of his hatemongering.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
No one can post here, including OSC, becasue we are all "inaccurate" to one degree or another.
We all know who you're thinking of. Can I convert my unused guesses to wishes? Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Verily, I hate the hatemongering as well, so no, you're not the only one who's had enough of it. My question is why it's allowed to continue ad nauseum.
Exploding Monkey -
quote:I never said I didn't care. I said I do not care what I am thought of. So it's not okay to use God as an emphasis, but it's okay to judge others even though your religion says it's a sin to do so?
Get you're priorities in order my friend. Your foot is in your mouth.
Fine, you care, you just don't care what you're thought of. Fine. No problem.
But the rest of that? I have not yelled, screamed, sworn at, called names, or otherwise disparaged anyone in this thread. I have, however, tried to express myself in a respectful manner.
Where, exactly, is my foot in my mouth?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm thinking of pie.
Mmmmm...pie.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
You don't like the word God used as an emphasis because it is a sin in your religion, but you judged me, which is also a sin if I remember the commandments correctly.
But even though you were projecting yourself in a hypocritical manner, I was being over harsh in my response. For that I apologize.
Honestly, I just think you need to show some tolerance for others in this situation. We all have to tolerate things we do not like; it's part of life. We all are tolerating KoM's attitude aren't we? (even though we shouldn't have too) I say if you can avoid the GDs and JCs then you're doing pretty well.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
This is one bizarre discussion.
Reminds me of being back in high school when a friend's parent was driving us back from a musical and pulled the car off the road to give me a lecture because I said "oh my god" in a response to a funny story.
My daily speech also includes "jesus christ" and "holy mother mary." But since I don't consider myself a by-the-book Christian, I don't pay much attention. Too me they're just words in my vocabulary that have been beaten into my head like "wow" or "neato" or "cool beans."
Since to Christians, saying such things is a sin under the Ten Commandments, I just have to laugh because its like the famous wood and splinter line in the bible. People sin, even Christians screw up. This is my sin which means its my problem to deal with. Be offended by it if you want, but recognize your own sin too. You can request a person to stop saying such things, but you can't control their life.
Posted by socal_chic (Member # 7803) on :
Obviously it will have to be tolerated because some people are not considerate enough to do a simple thing like stop using a word in their posts that is not even necessary (when it's used in 'vain'). I cannot believe how immature some of these posts sound. When I know that something is sacred (such as the use of God's name) to someone I absolutely do my best not to make lightly of that, especially when it takes such little effort to be considerate. Come on and grow up....
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
*neugh*
Get off your high horse chic. You yourself are not considerate in the fact that you require me to conform to your opinions on what is a curse and what is not. I am highly offended at such a notion, but you don't see me starting a thread about it do you?
But since I'm agnostic I don't deserve the same considerations you do, so please, continue to preach to me.
As was suggested earlier, I'm done wasting my breath.
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
Well said, socal_chic.
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
The title of this thread is an example of a good move in the wrong direction QS.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
This reminds me of a comment someone made in HS to a friend of mine during history class. She said something about gods and then turned to my friend (who's a pretty devout Christian) and said, as if to explain, little g, not capital g so she wouldn't offend my friend. Little g, big G, difference? just maybe.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote: You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs.
By my understandings of this, when someone is using God in a term to express emphasis or some other form other than religious meanings, it is not against any of these.
To the person who uses it, it is probably not profane, nor is it meant to be hateful or abusive. Of course there are other times when they are using it for something hateful, and for those times, a moderator should work with it.
I understand that you dislike the usage of the word, or person to you, God in these ways. That is why I try not to use any of the generally accepted forms of profanity. I'd much rather not offend someone, if I can help it.
But, here is my question. You want us to be accepting of your opinions on the usage of your diety's name, right? But, are you, in asking for this, being unaccepting to the opinions of others?
The people who are using the word God, think of it probably as just that in the sense they're saying it. Just as a word. But to ask them not to is a fine thing... but to use the reasoning that it goes against your beliefs and opinions probably isn't the best. It could go against someone else's feelings on the matter. And if you're asking that, in my mind, it's no different from them using God in that way.
I'm open for you to prove me wrong, heck, I'm pretty much ready to scrap this post because I don't feel it conveys my true meaning quite right.
So then, off that note.
What amazes me though, is how people can assign so many meanings to the same word. I have seen people put the F Word in the form of a noun, verb, and adjective all in the same sentence. Their grammar is so horrible with it, that that is what makes me more peeved off. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Since to Christians, saying such things is a sin under the Ten Commandments...
You know, this has been accepted on this thread as a given; Occasional has argued that it is in fact the position of all good Mormons, who take the whole "taking the Lord's name in vain" thing "seriously."
But, again, I'm pretty sure that most of the textual analysis I've done on the Bible has argued that this is not what "taking the Lord's name in vain" means at all. Are we all universally in agreement here that taking someone's name in vain means using it in a casual exclamation?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No. I know I'm not and that wasn't what I was taught in theology classes in college. I was also taught that swearing isn't a sin.
It may offend little ol' ladies and other people, so try not to DO it in front of them, but that it isn't a sin.
So I wouldn't go along in agreeing with
quote:aking someone's name in vain means using it in a casual exclamation?
as a sin.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Would you please explain (or send me a link to an explanation) about how using 'the Lord's name in vain' isn't a sin? Not being a Christian, I have a fair amount of ignorance with this issue.
I've done a little searching on google - but I haven't found any discussion about it (I've found a lot of other weird stuff though!)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This started out as "people use these words like so and it bothers me" to "is this person right to be offended and should I be offended by her offendedness."
Get a grip, people. All QS did was express a desire for people around her to not use words she found offensive. She didn't call for mods to enforce it. She has no way of stopping you if you choose to continue. She just let us know it bothers her. You may now continue with your lives, already in progress, and know that if youi do choose to use such terms she probably won't read your posts any more. Simple as that.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:We have had discussions on this site about our favorite coffees, without even a moment's thought spent worrying about whether Orson Scott Card would approve of our having a favorite coffee. Automatically assuming that your particular brand of Mormon cultural taboo is shared by our host simply because he happens to belong to the same religion -- and that he would want us to observe that particular cultural taboo, despite no instructions in that vein -- seems a bit precocious.
Tom said what I feel right there. You're my hero.
There was a man named J. Golden Kimball that was a member of the first Quorum of the Seventies. Now, Golden was most famous for his mouth. One of his most memorable quotes was this: "Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church." Notice, he said DAMN! He must be in Hell as we speak! I would highly recommend reading some stories on this man.
Some of my childhood was spent in a rural area. It was absolutely hillarious to hear some of the old farmers get up and bear their testimonies. You see, on a farm there isn't really anyone to talk to while you go about your chores. So the farmers would start picking up swears to fill in some of the blanks when talking to the animals or when talking to themselves (don't tell me you don't do this). It would become so much a part of their vocabulary that they wouldn't notice that they were cursing in church during Fast and Testimony Meeting. This doesn't make them bad people. It makes them human. And frankly, if swearing is the only problem they have to worry about, let them swear.
The attitude that "you swore, I don't like it, so don't do it" is kind of infuriating. This mentality focuses on one problem (as you see it) and shuts you out from hearing what they have to say.
Chocolate is bitter, bitter is not a pleasant taste. But when combined with all the other flavors in a chocolate bar. It's delicious.
[ July 09, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Although I say "Oh my G--" a lot in real life, I always catch myself and write "Oh my goodness" on Hatrack. I always have, I always will.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Almost as simple as that, Chris.
Profanity is not appropriate at Hatrack -- most would agree that's fairly clear -- and just because it happens sometimes doesn't mean it's ok. Using the name of deity in the manner described in the first post of this thread does indeed fall into the category of profanity. I would appreciate it if people here would refrain from using it in such a context.
It has never been my desire to be heavy-handed here (nor, do I believe, has it been the Cards' desire that their moderator would need to be heavy-handed). I would simply ask that people here try to be considerate of others in this regard. I'm not arguing whether or not it's a sin, or it's anyone's right to say anything, or anyone's right not to be offended, because those arguments (the latter two, anyway) rather quickly become people talking past each other.
Not asking for perfection, but consideration. To reference Dead Poets Society -- try exercising the right not to walk.
--PJ
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The best thing I do when someone uses a diety's name in vain is to respond, "Yes, you called." in my best James Earl Jones voice. Its a non-confrontational way to make them realize what they are actually saying.
One of the (I thought) clever things in the original Matrix (I don't know about the sequels) is that nearly every time Neo says "God" or "Jesus", Trinity answers him, "What?"
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Some here have equated being offended at using deity casually as being similar to being offended at someone breaking other sorts of commandments. For Mormons, drinking coffee, premarital sex, and whatnot have been given as examples.
But it seems pretty clear to me that most Mormons are *not* offended by those things, that most do not require other people to live according to their commandments.
The difference is that when they hear someone else profane, it causes them pain. Just as when someone says something rude or unkind it quite often causes pain.
The effect is different. And to the person to whom the name is sacred, who is sensitive to it, it will always hurt unless they give up their beleifs. So, you see, this isn't a matter of judging another's sinfulness. It is a matter of being hurt by words. (Something Jebus, for example, denies the reality of.)
So, for a Mormon, it would be the difference between talking about pre-marital sex and showing a Mormon pictures of nude people engaging in various sex-acts.
So you can be sensitive to that, or you can decide that isn't important to you. How important it is to you may depend on how difficult it is for you to alter your speech.
It was brought to my attention this year that using the word "Oriental" to describe people is offensive, and that "Asian" is not offensive to those people. Well, since it isn't such a big deal to use "Asian" (hey, it's even shorter!) I haven't used the word "Oriental" in that context since. I don't understand why on earth it would be offensive, but I do it out of respect for their feelings.
Now, if they were to tell me that both "Asian" and "Oriental" were offensive, and there was not a good replacement word to refer to people from that area (since I can't tell by looking at someone if they are Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc." that might be too much to ask. I might simply choose the less offensive and continue using it where practical.
So for some of you, like Teshi (thank you, Teshi) it isn't so big a deal to alter your speech. For others (Exploding Monkey) maybe it is just too much to ask. But I certainly do appreciate the effort of those who try.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, I'm really interested in what others think this commandment means. If it needs to be another thread, then that's fine, but I'd love for mack to expound on what she learned.
Myself, I believe there is much, much more to it than just not saying swear words that include God's name or variations of it. And for the record, "for G-d's sake" doesn't really bother me. I appreciate and respect that it does bother others, like quid, and so I'll try to refrain from using such phrases myself.
But I'm curious as to how other believers interpret that commandment.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Using the name of deity in the manner described in the first post of this thread does indeed fall into the category of profanity.
So lets be clear here, its only using "God" as your word to show emphasis that is profane?
Here's a list of some possible "profanity". Please forgive these examples, as they are for discussion use only. I guess I am wondering if any or all of them are okay to say...
Praise the lord! Praise be to Allah! Praise Zeus! Praise be to the Seven! Praise the Yankees!
Good God! Good lord! Good grief! Good pickle! Goodness Gracious!
I can't quite articulate what's bothering me about this thread, but the "official" asking not to do this rubs me the wrong way. I was completely fine with quid asking us to stop, but now that it is an official hatrack policy not to do it, I don't like it one bit.
If an orthodox jew (of which we have at least a couple) asked that people use G-d instead, would we get an official decree to try not to use the full written out version?
What about if I asked people not to use "geek" on here, because I find it offensive? Would people need to stop using it?
Are we going to have a list of words/expressions we can't use?
Yuck, yuck, and more yuck.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'll try to explain my own view of the ten commandments.
I think that though many are phrased in the negative, we should look beyond that and not only refrain from sin, but look to fulfill the positive side of the commandment as well. In other words - "Thou shalt not murder" is a negative commandment. But it's not enough to just refrain from killing people who make us mad. That doesn't, in my mind, go far enough to fulfilling the commandment. To me, it's also a requirement to revere life and respect life, and honor those that God created.
So, just refraining from swearing with God's name is not, to me, the sum of that commandment.
It's also a command to honor and revere his name, and that means to honor and revere HIM. I think the negative aspect of the commandment is not just talking against frivolous use of the word "God" but against ascribing the name of God to beliefs and works that have nothing to do with the teaching of God. It's a warning against heretical teachings and spreading of false doctrine. Remember it's preceded by commandments that specifically warn against idolatry and worshipping false gods.
That doesn't mean that I think I have free license to swear with the name of God. It just means that I think the commandment goes much, much deeper than what it appears to be on the surface.
I guess I see this differently than I quid does. I don't get upset necessarily when other people misuse the name of God. Sure,I don't like hearing it because it makes me uncomfortable, but I don't take what they're saying as personal offense. Yes, it would be cool if they refrained from it out of respect for other people's feelings, but if what they are doing is a sin, it's not a sin against me, it's a sin against God. And honestly, why should I expect a non-believer to uphold standards they don't think applies to them?
The commandments are there for me to follow, and for me to interpret and for me to take to heart as I consider my relationship with God. There are much more serious to me, than something used as a yardstick to judge other's behavior when deciding if theyre offending me or not. They are there for me to use as a yardstick to judge my OWN behavior.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
When one calls themself a Christian, or a child of God, they are taking upon themselves God's name as their own. If then you act in a way that disprespects that name, or would cause disrespect to come upon that name, you have taken the name in vain.
If you say, "I am a Christian," and then live a life, or commit actions to others or in the view of others that are decidedly un-Christlike, you have taken the name in vain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I can't stand seeing my deity's name (title - whatever - I'm not getting caught up in semantics, here) used with the disrespect that I've seen here lately. Granted, it hasn't been every thread, or even many threads, only some threads and only some posts. But I really don't want to see it at all.
Seems to me this is pretty open-ended. QS's threshold for disrespect with regards to using the name of the deity is obviously different from many. Does disrespect lie in intent, or perception?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am unsettled by the official turn the thread has taken as well, Xavier.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You can add me to that list. Pops should not have gotten involved.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, I don't think Papa Janitor has really done much more than say that we should try not to use it too often.
I think that's a little silly. But there are a lot of things that I think are silly that most people take very seriously.
I don't think it's too much to ask. Granted, I think people who get offended by (excuse me) "Oh my god!" will be a lot happier, and experience a lot of more, within a discussion, if they try to let that phrase brush over them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think it should be so much an enforced policy than a personal choice by the poster.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What about hell and damnation? That's one of my favourite swears. I got it from Hunch Back of Notre Dame.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
EM, You've been trying to tone it down and take other people's perspectives into account, and, from what I've seen, you've done a pretty good job of that. I don't think you lived up to that in this thread. Just my opinion though.
---
You can put me on the list of people who think that quid was perfectly all right in expressing this concern the way she did. (Occ, as he almost always is, is another matter.)
I already edit out the use of god in a non-religious centric way in my posts. I do find the perception of it as terribly upsetting a little silly, but I'm aware that this perception exists and I'm willingto deal with the slight cost to myself involved in changing it to something else out of respect for people's feelings. That's my personal choice.
---
I am also on the side of the people who are uncomfortable with the official turn this thread has taken. I don't see any difference between defining any irreverent use of the word God as profanity and people actually spelling out God instead of G-d or something similar as profanity, except, you know, the Jews' religious views don't count as much as certain Christians.
Hatrack is already pretty whitewashed and (in my opion) overly concerned with whatever anyone says they take offense to. I don't know that adding enforcement of certain religions' standards is a particularly good idea. But it's not my board, to run or to moderate, so all I can do is offer my opinion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I would like to hear from our Hatrack Jews. Do they find it offensive when someone spells out deity?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bear in mind that what Pop actually said was quite open-ended and vulnerable to massive interpretation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, but he did put his moderator hat to say that these uses of God were considered profanity. I don't think that he wanted to go much further than making a suggestion, but technically he did. The implication is that using God in this way is in violation of the user's agreement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Mr. Squicky, but...
quote: Profanity is not appropriate at Hatrack -- most would agree that's fairly clear -- and just because it happens sometimes doesn't mean it's ok. Using the name of deity in the manner described in the first post of this thread does indeed fall into the category of profanity. I would appreciate it if people here would refrain from using it in such a context.
Italicization mine.
This is the way it was described.
quote:I can't stand seeing my deity's name (title - whatever - I'm not getting caught up in semantics, here) used with the disrespect that I've seen here lately. Granted, it hasn't been every thread, or even many threads, only some threads and only some posts. But I really don't want to see it at all.
[/i]So I'm asking - begging, actually - to please leave deity out as a form of emphasis or profanity or disrespect.[/i]
Profanity and disrespect are entirely subjective. Is Pop requesting we not use the name of the deity in a way that QS views as disrespectful or profane? Or in a manner that is intended to be disrespectful or profane? There's a world of diffrence, after all, between King of Men and more 'casual' use of the word.
My problem is that I'm certain that many more common uses of the word are in fact offensive to some people on this board, or at the very least, disrespectful. G-d has been one such example. But apparently that was not offensive enough to warrant moderator mention, up until now.
I use that word too often just from force of habit, something I'm curbing more and more as time passes. Before QS called me on that, in fact, but since then as well.
But what unnerves me isn't that the request by a moderator is being made so much as that it's being made after a long, long time of uncalled-on behavior on the forum, but now one poster's plea and offended sensibility has led to such a request.
I expect it's possible other people could make arguments that other behavior commonly engaged-in is offensive or profane. I could make an argument that many things are profane or insulting, based on various religious reasons. G-d was mentioned, and that is a valid point. Among other people, Jews of some 'denominations' (I put that in quotes because I'm not sure if denomination is a Christian-specific word or not) might be offended and consider it profane to spell out the entire word, even in a friendly, otherwise respectful discussion of religion.
A Muslim might be offended if Mohammed is mentioned without saying Peace be unto Him. The list goes on and on.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Papa Janitor would love not to have gotten involved, for Papa Janitor believes that the request should have been enough. However, Papa Janitor got several requests, some informal and some more formal, to identify what the official stance is.
Whether one knew previously that it was considered profane or not, or whether it was previously "enforced" or not, does not matter. If offense is not your intent, then realize that the action in question is offensive to some, and try to find a different way to express yourself. If offense is your intent, then just knock it off. If this is unclear or if you have a problem with it, please feel free to contact me. Just realize that I won't be able to respond to all 500 e-mails immediately.
--PJ
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Another post in this thread that made me smile.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So the moderator stance is that saying the word God, even as emphasis, is considered profane and a violation of the ToS?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
"PJ" Ha! I love it, Pops.
The truth is, this thread deals directly with the policies involved with the board. What's wrong with the authority stepping in and clarifying? I thought PJ's ( ) comments were on par.
Pops is my newest hero.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I'll send you a NICE email if you want Pops.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pops, I have faith that you're definitely trying to do the right thing here and I appreciate that it can be a difficult job. However, I would prefer to have the clarification public, if that's okay. That way the community can be clear about the standards that are being set.
I'm unsure on what the offense is here. Is it that the use of the word God in this manner is by definition profane or is it that people are offended by people using it this way?
If the first, what makes this different from the things that other religions or belief systems consider profane?
If it's the second, do you really want to set the precedent that people claiming offense is a valid reason for considering that something is not acceptable here?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think that Pop is right to leave this up to common sense for most of us, and to clarify privately for those of us who are confused. The more detailed he makes the official public rules, the more uncomfortable this place could become.
Unless that's what you WANT (for him to spell out a lot of detailed rules for you to argue and clarify into absurdity, and then complain that HE's being too strict) ... I think he's handling this perfectly.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Taalcon wrote:
quote:When one calls themself a Christian, or a child of God, they are taking upon themselves God's name as their own. If then you act in a way that disrespects that name, or would cause disrespect to come upon that name, you have taken the name in vain.
If you say, "I am a Christian," and then live a life, or commit actions to others or in the view of others that are decidedly un-Christlike, you have taken the name in vain.
I agree with Taalcon's interpretation. I also think unrighteous dominion may come into it somewhere: using your position of religious authority to do un-Godly things.
Taalcon and I are (I think) both LDS. I'm not really upset by people using the name of deity as an intensifier, because that's about the tiniest possible infraction on the second commandment (the things I mentioned above are so much worse). However, I don't see any point in using such expressions while conversing with someone whom I know it will bother.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think that those who do evil in the name of God are the ones taking God's name in vain. Additionally, I don't reallly consider "God" to be the actual name of the being it refers to. It's a generic English term, and it can refer to many deities. Therefore, I'm not personally offended by swearing, including the use of the word "God," but I think it's good not to do it unecessarily. Swear words lose their punch when used as filler. I think they ought to be reserved for situations where emphasis and strong emotion are needed.
I think I'm going to take the name of the current U.S. President (whoever he or she is) in vain. Let's see, we'll need another verb since damning things is not listed in the Constitution as a power granted to the President. Ah, yes, I have it. Bush veto you all!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I guess the whiny oversensitive people win again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Late to the party, but wants to weigh in with views...
I hate hearing the Lord's name taken in vain. I do swear occasionally, always to mark moments of extreme provocation or (more often) hurt. However, I don't use the f-word, as its too obscene even for extreme provocation, and actually don't use most of the swear words.
But I'd never take the Lord's name in vain, or whatever phrase you want to use to describe the practice under discussion. It wouldn't even occur to me to. Swearing in general is something a lady doesn't do, which is why I sometimes fall into doing it when in circumstances a lady shouldn't be required to deal with, but to me, there's no excuse for profaning the name of God.
It's like swearing is between me and society, and to be good, I should treat society in general as the Lord would want me to. I don't always do it well, and when society is horrible, I feel even less inclined.
However, taking the Lord's name in vain is between me and the Lord, and I think doing it would be horribly, horribly personally offensive to him, since it would mean a rejection of him. Part of the swearing thing is that I never, ever swear at people that I still want to be close to - it's a signal that I'm about to break off because the relationship between me and them has too much unhappiness for me to continue it. For me to swear at/to/about the Lord, it would mean that I'm about to sever that particular relationship as well. As frustrated as I've gotten with my life, I've even wanted to do that.
I realize that it's not the same way to everyone who says it, but hearing other people do it does bother me. I have to admit that it is so ubiquitous that the f-word stands out to me and bothers me more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I continue to be dismayed by the attitude among the majority of the people on this site that "taking the Lord's name in vain" means just using the word "God" in a frivolous exclamation.
That's contrary to pretty much everything I've learned in years of theology study, both formal and informal. And so far only Anna Jo and Belle have indicated that they've got a different take on the term.
Is this just a Mormon cultural thing, or do most Christians really think that taking the Lord's name in vain is a commandment about profanity? Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
From what I've seen, Tom, yeah.
What Taalcon said sounded very familiar. I've been trying of remember the exact wording of what I learned in theology and from talks with some of the monks and nuns I know. I'm trying to do some research and find any of my notes, but I think they're all at my father's house.
But really. Unless it's with total disrepect and TRYING to piss someone off by willfully using the name of a deity in which that person would be offended, I don't think use of "god" what-have-you is taking god's name in vain. I think part of it, as a person with some sort of belief in god, utterances of shock and disbelief at something a friend said can also be some odd expression of prayer.
Work with me here.
I'm not making up excuses or anything. But if something truly shocking happens, and you say out loud, "JESUS CHRIST!" it could be addressing Christ and thinking on some level "Do you believe this EITHER?! Holy crap!" or somesuch.
Anyway. Snagged the definition of vain from dictionary.com (left out the idiom part because it obviously flows from the definition):
quote: 1. Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt. 2. Lacking substance or worth: vain talk. 3. Excessively proud of one's appearance or accomplishments; conceited. 4. Archaic. Foolish.
All four meanings can be encompassed in what Taal and Tom have said, particularly Taal's explanation.
The taking a name is disrespect is under the idiom section. Why?
Using the god's name in vain, in the form that most people find offensive, can be considered "foolish" by them, not taking the deity's name seriously enough.
But with disrespect, serious disrespect for both person AND deity, I think there's got to be more gravity than just a verbal use of an English word for a god's name translated from an early language.
I think Taal's example is much more serious. Someone taking the name of Christian, Jewish, whatever, and then acting not according to the precepts that they claim as their own by using those names.
Perhaps it's a matter of perspective and a knowledge of self and what your true intent is.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Is this just a Mormon cultural thing, or do most Christians really think that taking the Lord's name in vain is a commandment about profanity?
--Tom
My understanding was that it had to do with breaking oaths or contracts taken under the name of the Lord.
Edit: mack exponded nicely. I'd consider the contract of a believer and that believer's deity to be one that could be broken as such (as Belle and Taalcon have said): i.e., to lay claim to the weight of Christianity without taking it seriously enough to make a good faith effort in abiding by its principles.
Edited again to add for clarity:
quote:I think the negative aspect of the commandment is not just talking against frivolous use of the word "God" but against ascribing the name of God to beliefs and works that have nothing to do with the teaching of God. It's a warning against heretical teachings and spreading of false doctrine. Remember it's preceded by commandments that specifically warn against idolatry and worshipping false gods.
That doesn't mean that I think I have free license to swear with the name of God. It just means that I think the commandment goes much, much deeper than what it appears to be on the surface.
-Belle
quote:When one calls themself a Christian, or a child of God, they are taking upon themselves God's name as their own. If then you act in a way that disprespects that name, or would cause disrespect to come upon that name, you have taken the name in vain.
If you say, "I am a Christian," and then live a life, or commit actions to others or in the view of others that are decidedly un-Christlike, you have taken the name in vain.
--Taalcon
[ July 09, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If we're going to refrain from offending some people with the word, I vote that we go all the way and automatically have the forum convert to g*d so as not to offend our Jewish population, for whom even having the word spelled out is profane.
Everyone's happy.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Specific to the LDS faith, the concept of taking the Lord's name in vain covers vulgar and profane speech, including using the Lord's name as profanity (and profanity in general). That's about it. As for other faiths, I don't know.
I seriously doubt most people cry out the Lord's name in anger expecting a resounding "What?" from heaven, so when it happens I imagine it's probably profane in nature. So when used in a vulgar, disrespectful, or flippant manner, it is unbecoming someone who holds to those particular ideals.
The idea that someone uses the word "God" such as "Thank God" is, I suppose, up to the person. Better writers than myself have already expressed the idea that if it bothers someone else on this board, it's a kind deed to respect that––especially if we don't agree with it ourselves. It just seems a nice way to play.
My two cents.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:if it bothers someone else on this board, it's a kind deed to respect that––especially if we don't agree with it ourselves. It just seems a nice way to play.
That's easy to say when you're in one of the more sensitive groups on the board and don't offend anyone as a lifestyle. Then again, two posts above I mentioned that seeing g-d spelled out is offensive to Jews, yet you did it twice in your posts. See how different people are? It's hard to think about what offends people when you post, since many of us post just as we speak in real life. It's hard enough for me to censor myself enough just to not get banned again.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't know if Frisco is serious or not, but I don't see anything wrong with that suggestion.
I think as a kid growing up Mormon that commandment is taught as "don't swear" but I certainly understand the concept of not taking the name of the Lord in vain in our manner of living. The trouble with that is that the different flavors of Christianity seem most prone to accusing each other of doing so. In particular, some Lutherans I have known feel the Mormon emphasis on "works" (meaning ordinances) makes their taking the Lord's name on them vain. And in return, a Mormon may feel that the person who professes to be saved but keeps sinning has a similar danger. So for this reason, it seems less rancorous to me at least to avoid obsessing on whose religious observances could be interpretted as taking the Lord's name in vain.
And in reality, I don't think someone who professes to be saved and keeps sinning is such a problem. The practice of saving up sins and then repenting all at once is cautioned against enough in Mormon literature that it must be a problem for some.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Constantine did a pretty good job of it. Augustine had some REALLY good sins in his sinbook. Man. What a life.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:It's hard enough for me to censor myself enough just to not get banned again.
<---Has seen Frisco's bare butt way more than he ever wanted.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*sings Moon River*
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
<--didn't need to know that.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Hey, I hid those pictures because I was giving kat impure thoughts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I seriously doubt most people cry out the Lord's name in anger expecting a resounding "What?" from heaven....
It hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean I won't keep trying.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote:Hey, I hid those pictures because I was giving kat impure thoughts.
I seriously doubt it would require pictures of Frisco's naked butt to give kat impure thoughts.
But then again, it couldn't hurt.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: And so far only Anna Jo and Belle have indicated that they've got a different take on the term.
I believe you were confusing me with Mack since this is my first post to this thread. For what it's worth though I do agree with, you, mack and Belle on this as far as "different take".
I know a devout atheist who consistently says "For f**k's sake" rather than using the word "God" because the word god is meaningless to him, so why should he bother using it, in any context?
Theologically to my understanding, the terms "swearing" and "taking the Lord thy God's name in vain" in the original context, had everything to do with oathbreaking on contractual deals, and less to do with frivolous speech. However, it is clear that the Name of God, was treated with utmost respect, and I believe that you can find prohibitions on using it as frivolous speech much more strongly in other places.
Personally, I find bodily functions much less offensive as swear words, than those with heavier theological implications. When I reasoned it out for myself I chose to use biological words over theological words. (I've had a long discussion with Katie about this actually, and she's still my friend, despite my speech patterns.)
However, I think a lot of it is regional too. The F word is far more offensive in the Midwest than it is on the West Coast. And as a result the theological words have crept in to my own speech, since they are more acceptable, in my current environment.
It's a matter of conveying the emotion in a manner in which your audience will be most receptive to it. If they are going to be more offended by f--k then damn, then use the "lesser" unless offense is intended. If no one's around, and I spill sulfuric acid then I'll swear in the way I most prefer. If someone is, I'll unconsiously alter my speech pattern as appropriate.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I would like to hear from our Hatrack Jews. Do they find it offensive when someone spells out deity?
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: If we're going to refrain from offending some people with the word, I vote that we go all the way and automatically have the forum convert to g*d so as not to offend our Jewish population, for whom even having the word spelled out is profane.
Everyone's happy.
Point number one: There is actually a fair bit of debate among Orthodox Jews as to whether the word "God" (and the equivalent in any non-Hebrew language) actually constitutes a Name of God. I weigh in on the "no" side -- as I think should be obvious from this post and others. (It should also be clear that Tante Shvester weighs in on the other side. Or at least, so I assume from her posts. She should feel free to correct me if I have made an incorrect assumption.)
Point number two: Regardless, it is NOT a question of "profanity." Taking God's name in vain refers (at least in my understanding of Jewish tradition) to swearing falsely about a past event. Traditional Jews are very careful about this, and will generally refuse to swear at all -- even in court. We prefer to say "I affirm."
What it is (whether only with His Hebrew names or other languages as well) a question of, is respect for the sanctity of His name. We believe no name of God should be erased, burned, or otherwise treated with disrespect. Therefore, we take care to write it only when necessary, and dispose of any documents containing His name by burial. (Such docents are referred to as shaimos -- literally, "names.")
(There is an entire separate discussion regarding whether electronic forms of words, which are not actually written on paper (parchment, etc.), are a problem at all.)
I am not especially bothered, in the way quid (and others) is, by casual usage of the word "god." I am aware that others (including my mother, who gets mad at me when I do it accidentally (it is something I try to avoid)) are offended by it, and would therefore not do so on almost all of the boards I frequent. Including this one.
However, I have been known to use the acronym OMG, with the intent that anyone who would object to the final word referring to a deity might read it as "oh my goodness." I trust that is ok?
Oh, I do have one objection. Why are these sorts of discussions always on Saturdays? You think I have nothing better to do after Shabbos but read multi-page threads and compose long replies to them? Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Sadly, there already has been an official ruling on the subject. The thread that was posted after the infamous Gay Marriage essay by OSC was called "Good GOD OSC" but was edited by kacard to become "Good . . . OSC"
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog I'm sorry, it's just that the title of the main gay marriage thread drives me nuts. I don't know if Lalo meant it specifically to be hurtful to Mormons like myself and Card, who see the use of God's name as an epithet as one of the ultimate forms of blasphemy, but it works that way, and I wouldn't put it past him [Smile] When he uses it here and there in a post, I can read once and ignore. But reading it every single time the list of threads comes up is really freaking annoying. I'm wondering if he'd be willing to change it?
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Well, Dog knows me pretty well. And probably knows how tempted I was to delete the entire thread in the first place. (Why I continue to be patient with such people sitting in my own virtual living room I don't know.) But I try very hard to be hands off and let hatrack govern itself where possible. But, the name of the thread is really getting to me too. So, Lalo -- I haven't given you warnings on other things I would like to -- but on this one -- change the title today or I will.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: For others (Exploding Monkey) maybe it is just too much to ask. But I certainly do appreciate the effort of those who try.
Yeah, I'm just a cursing wreck on these forums aren't I?
What a bunch of babies. Boo hoo hoo, I don't want to hear this or that. Why don't the whiners in here donate their time to complain about topics with more substance; like real forms of verbal abuse? How about sexist or racist remarks for example? Being a white male, neither has too much personal impact on me as neither gets directed at me very often, but they still offend me anyway. How about we focus on real issues like that?
I said before I have no problem at all restricting myself from unnecessary cursing that is both rude and a violation of forum policy, and I'll continue to do so. In fact, I don't think I've ever used the word God in these forums for any reason before now, and possibly never will again. However, I'm not going to bow down to a minority (or even majority) that says I can't use a certain word in certain context because they are over sensitive about it.
Grow up people! You live on the planet Earth! Despite trying for the last decade or so to make everything and everyone around us "politically correct" (such a dumb and overused term), the world around you is far from it. You're offended when I say "God, I had a rough day."? GET OVER IT. That is my right. I can speak with, at, and about my creator in any way I please.
You know what offends me? Topics like this. But do you see me starting threads like: "EM's over sensitive ears; please conform to them."? No, you don't, because the entire notion is silly.
What really offends me are Muslim extremists trying to represent all of Islam with hate and fear as they blow stuff up and saw off heads.
What offends me are corrupt politicians who claim they fight for freedom when they are really fighting to line the pockets of their rich buddies.
What offends me are thousands of Africans dropping dead every day from poverty and disease while we complain about stuff like THIS!
Jeeze! Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: *sings Moon River*
Exactly. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Had someone said that to you in the park, I'd agree. Or in a store, or a library, or very definitely in your own home.
But common courtesy demands you respect the wishes of your host whether you agree with them or not, and our host's wishes have been fairly clearly stated. If you don't, and cannot comply, don't post here.
This discussion is moot to me as I don't subscribe to any of the religious beliefs mentioned, but it costs me nothing to be polite to other forum members. And if I do, they might be more inclined to listen respectfully to me when I talk about Muslim extremists, politicians, disease in Africa, etc.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
You're missing the point. I do extend common courtesy. I restrict my swearing to about zero. I find the requirements of this thread to be silly. What's next? I can't express anger? Or how about any opinion other than the status quo?
I find this thread offensive. I find that the need for this forum to have us tip toe around so no one's feelings are hurt to be ridiculous.
But since I don't deserve the same courtesy as the others do, that's okay. It's alright for those that need to structure the world around them into a non-offensive manner so they can pull their heads out of the sand.
Let's not deal with the real world kiddies; lets change what little of it we experience so we don't have to face how ugly it really is. Let's make people conform to our sensibilities so we don't have to deal with bad feelings.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Surely "Thank God" can hardly be taking the name in vain; isn't it more in the nature of a prayer? It's giving praise, just a bit more succinctly than "Our Father, thou who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name." Perhaps the offended types could be a bit more specific on what kinds of use they find offensive? Not that I'll take any notice, in fact I can't remember the last time I used 'God' for emphasis in writing, but clarification is always good.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're more than welcome to discuss, criticize, or condemn the subject, and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. I was responding to this: "You're offended when I say "God, I had a rough day."? GET OVER IT. That is my right. I can speak with, at, and about my creator in any way I please."
And it's the right of the people here to ask you to please stop, at least in their presence. Entirely up to you how you respond, but I submit that respecting the preferences of those around you now that you know what they are, silly though you may find them, is polite in this place.
Ordinarily I wouldn't bother jumping in. I don't share the reaction, and in any other forum it would be absurd to expect that kind of restriction. But Hatrack has managed over the last decade or so to be remarkably free of rough language, trolls, flamewars, and all the other things that plague Internet discussion boards. Hatrack remains the only place I will discuss religion or politics for that very reason, because somehow a pocket of civility has been maintained. I think it's worth the extra effort.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: EM, You've been trying to tone it down and take other people's perspectives into account, and, from what I've seen, you've done a pretty good job of that. I don't think you lived up to that in this thread. Just my opinion though.
Yes, I think you're right my friend. This thread bothers me. I have stated my opinion, and battering others over the head with it is not in true spirit of empathy or diplomacy. I'm going to retire from it. Everyone knows where I stand; I can't add anything more productive to it. Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...Hatrack has managed over the last decade or so to be remarkably free of rough language, trolls, flamewars, and all the other things that plague Internet discussion boards. Hatrack remains the only place I will discuss religion or politics for that very reason, because somehow a pocket of civility has been maintained. I think it's worth the extra effort.
I concede to your point. The control displayed in here is why I enjoy these forums as well. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Granted, now I feel the urge to run out and take the Lord's name in vain twenty or thirty times...
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pie is good. Real good.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
I like catfood.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This does bring up a tangential point - the difficulty of weaning yourself off of profanity. I've tried, for some years now, to stop using religious-based oaths on the simple principle that it's silly for an apatheist to keep using them. I've tried the science fictional replacements and various soundalikes, but when I'm really, abruptly upset I revert back to the old standards. It's annoying.
Lately I've decided to try the Firefly technique and use "gorram" and Chinese. A bit trickier, but what the heck.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I'd just like to point out that viewing cursing as breaking that commandment is not unique to Mormons. Nathan Bedford Forrest once wrote that they were able to transport their mules across a river only with considerable breakage of the 3rd commandment. And it was one of the throwbacks to the 50's in "Blast from the Past".
Good Cod, people. Get a grip. Uhg, the very thought of gripping cod makes me want to wash my hands.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote: I seriously doubt most people cry out the Lord's name in anger expecting a resounding "What?" from heaven....
It hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean I won't keep trying.
I do know that if that ever happens, the words coming out of my mouth at that moment "Holy..." well, I can't type here what I'd say. If that happened, I think I'd gain a true understanding of what "awesome" really is.
But the thing is...if someone is praying, do they pray each time so they hear a voice from the heavens? Some people might, some people might not.
I dunno. If I have a friend pull off an incredible stunt and I say "JESUS CHRIST!" in astonishment and have Jesus say, "Yeah, I couldn't believe that EITHER!" thatd be pretty cool.
I've noticed that swearing on the East Coast is much more prevalent than say, the west (not the west COAST) and the midwest. That my watching Napoleon Dynamite and thinking the language wasn't realistic was a matter of where I grew up. Garden State held more realism for me, and part of that realism was contained in the language. In some ways, swearing here doesn't carry the same gravity. Or does. I don't know. A swear can be some twisted form of a term of endearment for a friend OR something that's meant to hurt. Versatility of language, I suppose.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: Look, I'd had a lovely supper and all I said to my wife was, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah."
Edit: quote added to emphasize Life of Brian reference....
[ July 10, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Well, he made it, it should be.
Swearing is a lot more prevalent in the east. I grew up there and I used to argue with my friends a lot about whether not swearing was a matter of simply being well-mannered. Some of them thought it was a way to assert their feminine power, to not act ladylike. I thought it was a matter of being articulate and not speaking from the limbic node.
I pray out of respect and gratitude the majority of the time. I haven't had much in the way of voices from heaven, but I do look for a general feeling of peacefulness. I may not pray expecting those things, but it's nice to get them anyway. In real life, straight lines between two points seldom apply.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. Actually, writing out "God" does make me a little uncomfortable, probably for the same reasons it is supposed to bother Jews. That's why I usually refer to the Lord. The OT does it - that's the best I can do. Unless I start calling him Snuffles.
2.
quote:Hey, I hid those pictures because I was giving kat impure thoughts.
Dagnabbit Frisco, where is this coming from? I don't think I was there for any of these conversations. As far as I know, my official, consistently-expressed stance is that I have no idea what pictures you are referring to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Katie, you could always start referring to Him as The Name -- that's a literal translation of Hashem, which is how most Orthodox Jews would refer to him most of the time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...nah. I'm almost afraid to say it because it could be taken badly, but in my head, that sounds like He Who Must Not Be Named, which means Voldemort.
I do sort of like Snuffles, though. Probably won't use it - not terribly respectful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There's also the most common appellation among Yiddish speakers: the Aibishter. Literally, the Boss. As elaborated upon in this book.
And thanks, Katie. You know every time I mention Hashem for the next couple days I will have to suppress a silly little grin? Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Good Cod, people
I *knew* that dobie would live on.... [/muses]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I like "Sky Captain."
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
^^ That's random. ^^
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think he's talking about the movie.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Tom, that's the best idea I've ever heard. It should spice up my prayers too.
"Dear Sky Captain, please bless this food so my body is nourished, and please destroy those giant robots attacking my neighbor's house."
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I get it now. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: . Actually, writing out "God" does make me a little uncomfortable, probably for the same reasons it is supposed to bother Jews. That's why I usually refer to the Lord. The OT does it - that's the best I can do. Unless I start calling him Snuffles.
Kat made a funny. Go, Kat, go! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you doing that thing where you single out and pull the hair of the girl you like again, Stormy?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*pat pat*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't touch me there.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I gotta put butter on you, cause you're on a roll, baby!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Seriously, Stormy - in a board full of half-serious amateur jesters, is there any reason you are running around after me?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
What, you don't like that?
Well, I guess there goes my reason for posting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh*
----- See, that was funny! Stormy, you can stalk LawGuy. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't tell if you're serious, Kat, so I don't know if I should be snarky in a kind of, jeez, what is this girl smoking way, which is what my reply to your post would be if you are serious, or flippant, which is what my reply would be if it's not. So, please create the kind of reply in your mind which is most likely to result in a harmonious conclusion to the thread.
And people say I can't be diplomatic. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
p.s. I am posting on very little sleep, so underhanded, subtle humour pretty much not going to register with me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's all okay. Go sleep.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't sleep or the penguins will get me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did someone let them out again? Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I had this toy, playful penguins. I could watch it for hours on end. the sound effects were a detriment to my mother's sanity. The pengins were plastic mounted on ball bearings and the mechanism hopped them up this series of steps and when they got to the top there was this windy slide down, and then they'd do it all over again.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I doubt we'll get "God" banned here, with or without quotes! But it's a fair question.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
man... its absurd how PC we are all getting.
oh, i wanted to tell you all, I'm part of a little known religion called "anti-the-ism". in my religion, it is considered a sin, and a great offense to use the word "the". i would appreciate it if you would all stop using the word in question. it pains me to even have to write this, as i have had to use the "T" word several times. i'll be back shortly, after i finish the ritual cleaning proceedure that must be followed after uttering the unholy "the".
so according to the user agreement, you guys can't say "the" anymore
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Hey, I have an idea! Let's make up nonsensical crap that's completely out of proportion to the original request and pretend we've made a substantive argument!
Look, she asked that we stop using certain swear words because a lot of people are offended by them. That's it. That's all. How this got to be such a thing is completely beyond me. There are already numerous swear words we're not allowed to say here, such as a certain monosyllable having to do with the sex act. Does the fact that we can't say it here reflect anyone's attitude toward sex? No; it's just that the word is offensive, so out of respect for the people who are offended by it, we're not supposed to use it.
It was a very simple request, and until an official rule is made about it, you are free to comply with or ignore the request at your discretion. Reductio ad absurdum never got anyone anywhere, so give it up. All that ends up actually looking absurd is yourself. The difference between watching your language because it offends a lot of people and banning everything because someone wants to be pissy is a vast and unbridgable chasm.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You may also notice that quidscribis has not posted since the 8th/9th (it was just after midnight Hatrack time), in this thread.
Thanks ever so much to those who felt the need to make this an issue. You've driven off one my favorite posters -- and I don't think just mine.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
She'd be one of mine as well. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: Hey, I have an idea! Let's make up nonsensical crap that's completely out of proportion to the original request and pretend we've made a substantive argument!
Look, she asked that we stop using certain swear words because a lot of people are offended by them. That's it. That's all. How this got to be such a thing is completely beyond me. There are already numerous swear words we're not allowed to say here, such as a certain monosyllable having to do with the sex act. Does the fact that we can't say it here reflect anyone's attitude toward sex? No; it's just that the word is offensive, so out of respect for the people who are offended by it, we're not supposed to use it.
It was a very simple request, and until an official rule is made about it, you are free to comply with or ignore the request at your discretion. Reductio ad absurdum never got anyone anywhere, so give it up. All that ends up actually looking absurd is yourself. The difference between watching your language because it offends a lot of people and banning everything because someone wants to be pissy is a vast and unbridgable chasm.
i dont think you understood the point of the example. for people like me, using the word God, in the context of "oh my god", or "god, i forgot to do this!", etc. carries just as much value as the word "the". it had nothing to do with any specific diety, it is merely a term that we have picked up due to its prevalent use in our culture.
i agree that even thought i might not find something like God Dammit, or Jesus Christ! offensive, some people do, because in that case, it is used in a context that lends it self to be offensive, where as the others do not AT ALL. so for things like JC and GD, i have no problem not using them if some people are offended, but when people start to complain about the mear presence of the word God in any non-religious context, and claim that that is swearing and offensive, it becomes ridiculous.
people just need to relax a little, that is all im saying. i know my post stank of slippery slope, but thats how i see it (somewhat).
EDIT: the reason this post got heated is because people felt that for someone to ask another person to not use a common and innofensive figure of speach, just beacuse they are super sentitive to such things, was ludicrous. and then when that got even further to an actual moderator commenting on the use of "oh my gawd", it got stupid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:for people like me, using the word God, in the context of "oh my god", or "god, i forgot to do this!", etc. carries just as much value as the word "the".
You mean you have absolutely no other way to express surprise, in the same way that there is no substitute for the definite article of the English language?
I think you don't understand either the point of the objection or the inadequacy of your example.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:for people like me, using the word God, in the context of "oh my god", or "god, i forgot to do this!", etc. carries just as much value as the word "the".
You mean you have absolutely no other way to express surprise, in the same way that there is no substitute for the definite article of the English language?
I think you don't understand either the point of the objection or the inadequacy of your example.
no, i mean that the word "god" is no more value loaded than the word "the", as in i do not find the word god more or less offensive or controversial then the word the. with that in mind, it is just as weird for someone to ask us to stop using the word "god" in non-religious innofensive contexts than for the word "the". its just an example, i could have used any word, but i thought it made the post more humorous to use "the". cool?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag, I think that some people honestly don't know how else to express surprise. And perhaps for them, this request seriously cramps their style.
Angio, then your point would be better made by chosing a word that can easily be substituted. "The" doesn't fit the bill.
As I said in my post several pages ago, the request was made, and if it is a change that you can easily make in the way you talk, it is a courteous thing to do. If it is too much effort to be worth the bother, then for you it is an unreasonable request. That's all there is to it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:as in i do not find the word god more or less offensive or controversial then the word the
Good. But controversy is not about how you view something. It inherently involves the fact that you view things differently than someone else.
A person asked, as a favor, that you modify your language. She didn't ask that you be tarred and feathered. She didn't ask that you be banned. She simply asked that a certain word not be used in a certain way. Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
Good. That tells me a lot more about you than it does about Quid.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
This line of thinking is probably not productive, since accusations can be made in either direction about whether feelings are being cared for. For instance, while I care about Quid's feelings, I also have an ideal of an open, heterogenous society that I feel strongly about. Is anyone who doesn't feel as I do disregarding my feelings? Maybe. Or maybe they just have different principles than I do. If I ask that people tolerate how I speak, and they don't, aren't they disregarding my feelings? Maybe. Or maybe they just believe differently than I do and disagree with me in that one instance, but otherwise care about my feelings.
I only mention this because your particular belief, that people who don't do as Quid asks don't care about her or her feelings, has been stated several times in this thread. I've tried to reply several times to it, but just didn't want to get involved in the whole argument of which feeling is more important or whether feeling one way or another was really warranted. As PJ said several pages back, we'd just be talking past each other.
I think a good compromise solution for her and I would have been that I just not use the word 'God' when I was speaking directly to Quid, but otherwise would have used that word when speaking in general or to someone else.
Unfortunately, if I am reading PJ correctly, I believe that choice is no longer available unless I want to risk official sanction. Since I don't, I guess I'll just have to go along.
As I stated earlier, I do like Quid and I do hope she doesn't leave because of this thread, which I think has been enlightening, thought provoking, and basically free of animus for all concerned.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
This presupposes that there aren't other concerns besides quid's upset feelings active here. It's entirely possible to do something that upsets someone else, that you knew would upset them, and still care about their feelings. A large part of the protest here is about the enshrining of people (and especially just the Christian people) being upset as an overwhelming reason not to do something.
I don't think that this is a healthy social idea to have and I'm worried that it has now in part been made an official part of the rules. If there has been an official endorsement of this idea or of the somewhat pervasive one that Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam) are the only real religions, I don't know that Hatrack is going to remain a place where I feel comfortable.
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:as in i do not find the word god more or less offensive or controversial then the word the
Good. But controversy is not about how you view something. It inherently involves the fact that you view things differently than someone else.
A person asked, as a favor, that you modify your language. She didn't ask that you be tarred and feathered. She didn't ask that you be banned. She simply asked that a certain word not be used in a certain way. Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
Good. That tells me a lot more about you than it does about Quid.
i believe that the point is that it's an unreasonable request, akin to someone asking Ang to stop using the word "the", not because there are substitutes for the figure of speach "oh my god", or "god, im so late", and not for "the", but because both of those terms have absolutely no offensive content whatsoever in the contexts mentioned. some words we can agree are universally offensive, like the ones that are banned in this forum, but others, such as God, used in specifically non offensive contexts, are not offensive in any way. for someone to say that they are personally offended by these uses of the word God, and ask that we all stop using the word is extremely selfish and self-centered. This person believes that just because they find offense in something that isnt intended as offense in the least bit, nor is regarded as offensive, due to its prevalent use in daily discourse between millions of people (believers and non-believers alike), that they have the right to demand others to change their ways. This opinion actually speaks much more about the person defending it, rather than those attacking it, for it shows that said person feels they are above all others, that their beliefs (however ridiculous they are) are worth more, and that we should all adjust our behavior to conform to their beliefs.
that is why people see a "slippery slope" as mentined before, because if people start getting offended by completely mundane words and demanding that we stop saying them, things could get out of hand
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:Considering this is not only typed content but editable, there's really no excuse other than flat out not caring about her feelings to act as you have here.
I only mention this because your particular belief, that people who don't do as Quid asks don't care about her or her feelings, has been stated several times in this thread.
quote:This presupposes that there aren't other concerns besides quid's upset feelings active here. It's entirely possible to do something that upsets someone else, that you knew would upset them, and still care about their feelings.
And anyone who makes the case that this is the equivalent of banning the word "the" is clearly not operating from that perspective, Squick and Storm. He purposefully took a word for which no functional replacement exists and equated it to interjections which are, generally, surprised out of people. That is not caring about their feelings; it's not even understanding their feelings.
Come on, guys, the portion you quoted is actually directed at a specific person and his specific actions in this thread. If you want to attack what I say as an overgeneralization, you need to do a better job of taking what I say out of context.
quote: such as God, used in specifically non offensive contexts
Have you missed the part where a large portion of the board does not consider this non-offensive?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A while ago Lalo started a thread called "Good G**, OSC!" or something along those lines, with the word "god" written out in allcaps. The thread title was edited by KHJ to "Good ..., OSC!" since lots of people were offended by it. I think that's fine, and Pop is being even less hands-on here.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
of course it's in a non-offensive context. if i was saying, "oh my god! look at that large bird!", there is absolutely NOTHING offensive about the *context*. there might be something offensive about the actual word to certain people, but not one person could present a cogent argument supporting that the actual context was offensive.
it boils down to people being extremely oversensitive and self-centered, demanding that other people completely change their behaviors and lives (im making a more general statement here, which im telling you guys for the sake of avoiding retorts on this specific aspect of my post) just to make certain childish people happy. its unecessary, and stupid. if i said that the word God in general, used in ANY context, even when talking about the xian God was offensice to me because im an atheist and i consider any mention whatsoever of god to be offensive and hurtful to my sense of rationlism, you would all laugh at me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:of course it's in a non-offensive context
Well, if you say so, it must be true, right?
quote:it boils down to people being extremely oversensitive and self-centered, demanding that other people completely change their behaviors and lives
Of course, that's not what happened here. Exaggerate much?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:but because both of those terms have absolutely no offensive content whatsoever in the contexts mentioned.
Just because you personally are not offended by it, that makes it universally and absolutely inoffensive? I would say it's entirely a matter of perspective. The salient point here is that it doesn't matter who is not offended by it. I myself am not offended by it; I myself use such constructions all the time in my real life--unless I am within earshot of someone known to be offended by it, at which point I watch my language out of respect for them.
The fact that you and I and a host of other people are not offended by these phrases is more or less irrelevant. The fact is, a lot of people are offended by it. Legitimately offended, not fake pissy-offended like some people are acting. And if you doubt that anyone is offended by it, then I strongly urge you to read this thread. You'll see from the very first post that the inoffensiveness of the phrases is not an absolute.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:it boils down to people being extremely oversensitive and self-centered, demanding that other people completely change their behaviors and lives (im making a more general statement here, which im telling you guys for the sake of avoiding retorts on this specific aspect of my post) just to make certain childish people happy.
You want to know what I consider childish and self-centered? Pretending to be offended by the word "the" just so you can mock a person who has made a simple request that people try to be more careful about which obscenities they choose. As I said before, no official ruling has been made, and you're perfectly free to ignore the request. But attacking quid over and over like this and reducing her argument into absurdity just to make her look like a buffoon because you personally are not offended by a word that does offend her, is childish and self-centered.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Angiomorphism, you're making me annoyed that I am on the same side of the neutral zone of this issue as you are.
I remain uncomfortable and uncertain about this entire issue because of the arbitrary enforcement (moderator action requires either shrieking thread titles or individuals being offended enough to complain), and the exclusion implied by making the word used in exclamation as obscene. If the word G-d when used as an exclamation or emphasis or other non-religious discussion, then by definition I believe atheists and agnostics are being excluded and infringed upon, to some extent.
Not that it's used very often, but suppose I were to call someone a g-dless heathen? Obviously that's an insult and could've come under moderator scrutiny before just for being such a direct personal attack, but would it now come under additional scrutiny because it suggests the lack of belief in G-d is a personality flaw?
As far as profanity is concerned, I get uncomfortable when people tell other people what to say beyond 'secular' obscenities. You know, Carlin's seven words, that sort of thing. Perhaps due to decades of areligiousness, I have an instint of not fitting in when such things happen. It's not major, it's very mild. Disconcerting, sometimes.
The discomfort also comes from the fact that I am no longer supposed to use the deity as profanity, for religious reasons. It's a habit I've cut down drastically, but I still do it on occassion.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I can't imagine that anyone was bothered by the request. I think if this thread was just "FYI - the word "god", when used in a non-religious context, offends me and I would appreciate it if everyone would monitor how they use it in deference to the religious people on the board", everyone would be fine with that.
It's someone asking you a favor to moderate your language, and if they ask nicely, most people will probably do it.
It was when we got into whether or not "god" was a swear word, and thus, inappropriate re: user agreement that things took a turn. That's a totally separate discussion.
I will happily make sure I never use the phrase "oh my god!" on hatrack (if I ever have) because I know it makes some people cringe. But when it's said that there is something wrong with using the word "god" in that context, that makes me crazy. Because that's a judgement, and a subjective one. It may be wrong to some people, and not to others.
And I understand that, but I also understand that how you refer to "god" is no one's business but yours. This board is slightly different than a face to face conversation, because everyone in a thread "talks" to everyone else, thus making it harder to avoid people/language that offends you.
But the argument isn't with the request, it's with the judgement applied to whether or not the common usage is "taking the lord's name in vain".
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
you guys dont get it. the reason i used such a ludrcrous example was so that i could portray my feelings at such a request. for ME (i never claimed to be speaking for anyone else), someone asking me to say something that is totally innofensive in CONTEXT (not the actual word, but the CONTEXT!), is just as dumb as me asking you not to use the word "the". its an example (and an extreme one) to express my feelings towards this type of request. you might want to think that i am against this type of thing becasue i dont respect others feelings, or have some issue with religious people, but that simply isnt the case. its a matter of principle. this request is an example of someone else trying to enforce their beliefs on me, as well as others, becaus the only reason the poster is offended by the use of the word God (and common, do we really need to write G*d) is because he/she holds certain religious beliefs that lend him/her to be offended. saying "oh my god" is in NO context meant to be (or in my opinion, in general) offensive. it is a figure of speach that has evolved over many years to be included in the english language (as well as in french (mon dieu!) and many others), and it is not going away any time soon. it is simply a way to express surprise, and there is no reason for somenoe to demand (or ask) that we stop using it, because to be offended by it (again, i really dnot see why i have to continue to add that this is MY opinion..when i talk, im always talking for myself, so people who respond my saying, well thats what you think, are just wasting their energy) is juvenile, and whats more, to ask people to stop using it beacuse of said childish offense is just frustrating.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The fact that you continue to refer to it as "childish offense" means that you don't respect others' feelings. It's really that simple. Quid is a grownup. She has these feelings. You call them childish. Is that respect?
By the way, here are some capital letters. You seem to have only a sporadic supply.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The fact that you continue to refer to it as "childish offense" means that you don't respect others' feelings. It's really that simple. Quid is a grownup. She has these feelings. You call them childish. Is that respect?
By the way, here are some capital letters. You seem to have only a sporadic supply.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
last time i checked, caps were used to express a hightened tone (or yelling). for all your talk about maturity, you seem to have missed the boat.
and yes, i think quid's opinion on ths issue is childish, and selfish in a sense. i am allowed to disagree with her opinions the last time i checked, i am allowed to think they are immature or self-centered. however, i still respect her right to have them, and that is why i gave you all examples and a (in my opinion) a cogent argument in my refutation of her opinions. if didnt respect them, i would have simply dismissed them alltogether, and not provided an explanatino of my diagreement with her
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Hmm...nah. I'm almost afraid to say it because it could be taken badly, but in my head, that sounds like He Who Must Not Be Named, which means Voldemort.
I do sort of like Snuffles, though. Probably won't use it - not terribly respectful.
Isn't Snuffles the name Harry called Sirius when he was in dog form or when other people were around? Man that would just be weird...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:last time i checked, caps were used to express a hightened tone (or yelling).
They are also used to begin sentences, names, and the first person singular subject pronoun. Given your punctuation style, I was making a suggestion that might improve the readbility of your posts.
quote:and yes, i think quid's opinion on ths issue is childish, and selfish in a sense. i am allowed to disagree with her opinions the last time i checked
Of course you are. But when you then pretend to respect her feelings, you are going to be called on it. Because you don't respect them. You think they're childish. This isn't a sign of respect.
I vehemently disagree with quite a few people here, on many topics. Were I to call their feelings childish, I would not be respecting them.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why exactly is her attitude childish and selfish? She is offended by someone saying something, and politely asked people to stop doing so.
It is your reaction to that polite request, Angiomorphism, which is both childish and selfish.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
i think quid's opinion on ths issue is childish, and selfish in a sense. i am allowed to disagree with her opinions the last time i checked, i am allowed to think they are immature or self-centered. however, i still respect her right to have them
I haven't weighed in on this thread before, but I have been eavesdropping. I kind of feel a little hurt by the virulence that has infected this thread. Let's all please take a deep breath and meditate on "Respect", before we continue.
Of course, we don't all have to agree with quid's beliefs. Or Angio's. This forum would quickly become very boring if every thread included postings no more thought-provoking than "I agree!"
But, we really ought to try to maintain respect. Before you click "Add Reply", read what you've written, and imagine how you would feel if someone wrote that about YOU. And because disrespect tends to foster further disrespect, you may find yourself soon under attack.
I really enjoy being a part of Hatrack, largely because it is a nice, friendly, good-humored community of interesting and intelligent people. It is a nice place to come for fun and escape. But nastiness and disrespect undermines all that.
That said, I must say that I, too, am made very uncomfortable by taking The Name in vain. For my practice, and in my faith, it is reserved only for sacred usage, such as in prayer. Now, I understand that I am in a minority opinion in this -- after all, I DO live in the real world, and I am exposed the the locution all the time. I hope, however, that I never become so hardened to it that it fails to jolt and make me (at least internally) wince.
When I must include a reference, I write "G'd". And as interjections, I freely scatter "Gosh", "Golly", "Garsh", "Gee", and "Sheesh". I have heard that some people find those terms offensive; for me, I find them charming.
Can we all just make nice?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I just figured Angio was new and trying to get attention on a large board. Treating people badly is one way to do that.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why exactly is her attitude childish and selfish? She is offended by someone saying something, and politely asked people to stop doing so.
It is your reaction to that polite request, Angiomorphism, which is both childish and selfish.
first off, let me be clear: it is true that i do not respect the actual opinions held by quid. i think they are over-sensitive and immature. however, like i said, i do respect her right to have them. what that means is that i expect to have a civilized (sometimes with a touch of humour to keep things interesting) discussion about her, and my own, opinions. i have said many times that the reasons i do not agree (and by extension in this case, do not respect) her opinions on the use of the word God is because i find it selfish to ask a large group of people to change their diction when they are saying something that is not meant to be, nor is in my opinion at all, offensive. the use of God in "oh my gawd!" is simply mean as an exclamation of surprise. it has nothing to do with any diety in particular, as it has evolved over the years into a term that i think is value neutral. lots of things that do not offend me, but may offend other people, i refrain from using, because i can understand how these thigns would be offensive to some. the reason im fighting it in this case is because i believe that under no circumstance is oh my god offensive. it simply isnt. quid thinks we are talking about her God in particular when we say this, but that is not true. if i believed in the ancient greek gods, and proclaimed one day: oh my god!, then how wou;d that have anything at all do to with teh xian god? it wouldnt, because my god isnt the xian god. furthermore, for someone like myself, who does not believe in god, or God, or gods at all, and for many people that do believe in some of these, "oh my god" is simply what i stated it was before, an expressino of exclamation, and nothing more.
it is for this reason that i feel as though it is unreasonable for someone to ask me, or anyone else to stop using this term. for me, it would be like someone telling me to stop using the word cross, when i say, for example, "don't cross me!", because it is in reference to X's crucifiction. is that a better example? cross in that context has nothing to do with xtianity, nor is it intented to have anythign to do with it, or be offensive in any way.
therefore, for someone to hold a view like the "cross" one seems selfish and immature to me, for you are asking a wide group of people to conform to your way of thought. and why are you asking this? furthermore, what makes this an appropriate topic here at this forum? most likely when quid posted this, she wasn't expecting to receive too much oposition, but that is the problem. she took for granted that for some of us, the freedom to say things that are completely innoffensive is something we value. this kind of request, as well as the moderator's post, are seen as a sort of slippery slope, that would allow just about anyone to ask others to stop saying certain words in any context that they deem offensive, and be justified in doing so here.
quid has the right to be offended, and the right to hold her opinion, however ludicrous i may think it is, but i do not believe she has the right to tell me to stop saying something that the vast majority of us would consider totally innofensive.
my reaction is well thought out, and a result of careful consideration to avoid anything too offensive. your's is merely one of ignorance Rakeesh
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I just figured Angio was new and trying to get attention on a large board. Treating people badly is one way to do that.
im sorry, but is disagreeing with someone's opinion considered treating someone badly? or is it voicing that disagreement? i dont follow.
i thought the point of this board was to have discussions, and disagree, and discover new perspectives.
and for the record, we are all trying to get attention, its the human condition
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the use of God in "oh my gawd!" is simply mean as an exclamation of surprise. it has nothing to do with any diety in particular, as it has evolved over the years into a term that i think is value neutral.
What you are failing to grasp is that the meaning of "Oh my God!" that you say is value-neutral comes directly from the reference of the word "God" to a particular diety believed in by particular people. If it didn't refer to a diety, it would not have acquired that meaning.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:the use of God in "oh my gawd!" is simply mean as an exclamation of surprise. it has nothing to do with any diety in particular, as it has evolved over the years into a term that i think is value neutral.
What you are failing to grasp is that the meaning of "Oh my God!" that you say is value-neutral comes directly from the reference of the word "God" to a particular diety believed in by particular people. If it didn't refer to a diety, it would not have acquired that meaning.
its not about a particular diety, it could be about any diety whatsoever. notice the "my" in the term, implying it refers to the person's god who is using it. in that case, for me it would be, "oh science", for others "oh zeus! or budda! or vishnu!" not the xian god exclusively
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How many times can we repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over again?
Some of us will respect quid's request, some of us won't. Judging from Angiomorphism's posts, if one decides to skip over his posts for his use of the word God, then they won't be missing much.
Just let it be already.
-Katarain
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
its funny you should say that you skip over posts whenyou see the word god, cuz i skip over posts when i see you posted them
ok sry that was a little harsh, but the 4th grader inside of me couldnt pass it up. cheers
if you choose to ignore my posts, then that is fine, but i assure you that you will be limiting your own perspective, because i always listen carefully to what those who disagree with me say, i have even been known sometimes to completely change my opinion based on discussion
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Angiomorphism,
quote:first off, let me be clear: it is true that i do not respect the actual opinions held by quid.
It's a good thing you let us mouth-breathing whiners know that. I hadn't noticed.
quote:however, like i said, i do respect her right to have them.
Respecting someone's right to have an opinion is a meaningless, worthless virtue.
quote:what that means is that i expect to have a civilized (sometimes with a touch of humour to keep things interesting) discussion about her, and my own, opinions.
Repeatedly calling someone selfish and immatuyre is neither civilized nor humorous.
quote:i have said many times that the reasons i do not agree (and by extension in this case, do not respect) her opinions on the use of the word God is because i find it selfish to ask a large group of people to change their diction when they are saying something that is not meant to be, nor is in my opinion at all, offensive.
Thanks for reiterating your lack of respect. I'd forgotten that after you mentioned it like three sentences ago. It is not selfish of her to request you stop saying something that offends her. She has not in any way compelled you to do so. She asked you, nicely, to refrain from saying something she deems offensive.
The fact that you think it is value-neutral is irrelevant. She didn't ask you to stop because she thought you were offended. She asked you to stop because she was offended. I ask you again, since you haven't answered: why is it selfish to ask politely someone stop saying something? Why?
You are being laughably hypocritical in return. You're asking her not to be offended, and belittling her for being offended.
quote:the use of God in "oh my gawd!" is simply mean as an exclamation of surprise. it has nothing to do with any diety in particular, as it has evolved over the years into a term that i think is value neutral.
On Planet Angiomorphism, perhaps. In the real world, which people aside from you inhabit, this is not always the case. In other words, not everyone thinks the same way you do. Some people think it is not, in fact, value-neutral but rather it has value in and of itself. You don't get to determine what someone is or is not offended by. The presumptuousness of that assumption is frankly hilarious.
quote:lots of things that do not offend me, but may offend other people, i refrain from using, because i can understand how these thigns would be offensive to some.
It is selfish of you not to extend the same courtesy to quid. It is willfully ignorant of you not to broaden your mind the small amount it would take to see how it could be offensive to others.
I'm not even going to touch on your absurd 'other g-d' argument, Angiomorphism, save to say this. For one thing, many of the religions you mentioned had or have proscriptions against blasphemy as well-so someone may well be offended.
quote:therefore, for someone to hold a view like the "cross" one seems selfish and immature to me, for you are asking a wide group of people to conform to your way of thought.
You are doing exactly the same thing-and you're asking a much larger group of people to conform. Hypocrite.
quote:she took for granted that for some of us, the freedom to say things that are completely innoffensive is something we value.
Now you get to mind-read and determine what people find offensive. Actually, that's the first thing you've said that holds up-the one supports the other.
quote:however ludicrous i may think it is, but i do not believe she has the right to tell me to stop saying something that the vast majority of us would consider totally innofensive.
It's good to know you're being very mature, repeatedly insulting her. And on the issue of repetition, it doesn't make things true. She has not commanded you to stop saying g-d. And many people do find it offensive. Read the bloody thread!
quote:my reaction is well thought out, and a result of careful consideration to avoid anything too offensive. your's is merely one of ignorance Rakeesh
Perhaps it is due to my substantial ignorance that I recognize your reaction's obvious lack of careful consideration.
Ugh. You're not going to dissuade me from being unhappy with this change on the forum, no matter how stupid you make your arguments Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
id rather not waste my time going through your whole argument, because it is clear to me that we arent getting anywhere. suffice it to say, i could alsmost repeat everything you said to me right back to you word for word about your reasoning.
i will say this. i have absolutely no problem refraining from swearing, or making ligitimately offensive comments here. that being said, i simply cannot immagine any context or intelligent perspective that would realistically find the use of god in "oh my god" as offensive. so for me, this request is non sensical, and is like asking me to stop using an arbitrary word just because someone finds some way to be offended by it. and i find that offense to be selfish yes, because it is a manisfestation of one person's hyper-sensitivity being forced on everyone else.
you might see the offensive content, but i dont, and for that reason, it is an unreasonable request to make that i change my diction for her.
perhaps this represents a microcosm for my much larger distaste of how many people demand others to conform to their beliefs and values, but i also think that it has merit alone. you need to calm down, and actually adress my arguments with counter arguments, not you're innexperienced and innefective point by point name calling routine.
EDIT: im out and off for the weekend, so later folks, have a great weekend!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:suffice it to say, i could alsmost repeat everything you said to me right back to you word for word about your reasoning.
Wow! "I know you are but what am I?" Very compelling.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee, thanks for your reply to me.
I see what you are saying and agree that trying to say that Quid believes 'God' is equivalent to 'the' is ignoring her feelings and what she has stated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Storm.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Dear Angiomorphism,
As a member of the Hatrack jerk brigade, I am given the unfortunate duty to formally deny your application for membership on the grounds that you are a complete dimwit.
Thank you for applying, we will consider your application in the future when you have developed some sense of irony and humor. We strive for our members to at least be able to spell and use capitalization.
Again, we thank you for your interest and look forward to watching you make a fool of yourself in the future.
Sincerely, - Glynn (Primal Curve)
[ July 15, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Angio, I do wish you wouldn't claim that 'oh my God' would mean 'science' to you. Science is not a god, and by claiming it is, you are just giving ammunition to the relativist cretinist types who claim that their explanation is just as good as any other, and should be given equal time in schools.
And would you please start spellchecking and capitalising? You're making atheists look bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And that's KoM's job, durn it!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
<sigh>... Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Cursed straight, Dagsie.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
PC, Does that leave room for steven in the jerk brigade?
Or is rationality a pre-req?
If anyone's earned it, it's steven.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, you know what? steven actually hasn't been that much of a jerk. He's been defensive and weird, but a lot of that defensiveness comes from the fact that we've been jumping all over him for believing nutty stuff and having the gall to think that his scientific studies prove his nutty stuff.
I don't see why "science has proved that the Ancient Chinese Masters were right about ear position being an important determining factor in one's development" is a valid target for scorn, mockery, and derision, whereas any number of other religious beliefs are sacrosanct to the point that mocking them will provoke moderator response.
None of us buy steven's line, but it's not HIS fault that he's bought into an unpopular superstition.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I would just like to say that Dagonee's supply of capital letters and Primal Curve's Hatrack Jerk Brigade rejection form were hilarious.
That is all.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I don't think that steven is a jerk, I think he's more than a little nutty.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't have a problem with steven's odd beliefs. I more had a problem with the things he said in The Thread That Was Deleted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, maybe you didn't see the thread where he told everyone that didn't agree with him that they were racist and liked genocide?
And Shigosei: Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I offend everyone equally.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I have not yelled, screamed, sworn at, called names, or otherwise disparaged anyone in this thread. I have, however, tried to express myself in a respectful manner. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)