Subject:
|
Re: Language slipping?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:47:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
424 times
|
| |
|
|
>
> It seems you and I agree. Like I said- IF the young person does not know the
> word, (though most do) then he will not infer the word from a partial
> spelling. The only people to infer a dirty word will be those who are familiar
> with it and already "spoiled"
I want to make my point clear on this issue. For me it is not allways
something to protect kids. For me I am as you say "spoiled" so I know what is
meant when a * or whatever is used to mask a letter (usually a vowel) in a
word. To me this is rude and the same as using the word. I will admit that in
the heat of anger I occasionally slip an use inappropriate words.
I think this medium being writen is different. Even if something does upset
you here you still have to write something in reply. This usually means that
you have to think and reflect more on what you are saying before you write it.
I understand that using an * or whatever masks words for some but that is not
the issue for me. The issue for me is seeing the words knowing someone thought
about what they were saying and used and "expletive" anyway. This offends me
and I am sure it offends others. I know that this does not offend everyone but
I think it is our responsibility to err on the side of being conservative in
the words we use. Esspecially in a family oriented news group like LUGNET.
<snip>
>
> Guys, I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here. Practically speaking, I
> know what is going to commonly be considered obscene, and I will abide by the
> T&Es.
> However- can any one give me a definition of what is "obscene" ?
> Is it only something where you can point at it and say- "that is obscene" but
> you can't define ahead of time what qualities make it obscene?
>
> Here's my own definition-
> Obscenity- a word used by the speaker to describe something that he finds
> objectionable.
I guess my definition would be - using objectionable wording to describe
something that someone finds objectionable.
I think using your definition if taken litteraly would mean just replying to
something you found objectionable would be by definition considered an
Obscenity. I know that is not what you meant but taken litteraly that is what
I read.
This is tough too because what is objectionable to me may not be objectionable
to you and vice versa. To some using God or Hell in a certain context is
objectionable and to some it is not. I think there are some obvious 3 and 4
letter words we can all agree on however and with a little common sense and
patience I think we can avoid them.
>
> Pornography- a word used by the speaker to describe media which portrays
> people having more fun than he is, and doing something he could probably use
> some of himself!
>
>
> Here's some more random thoughts- Strong violence is "ok" for this group, the
> recently posted pictures of the battle of Yellow Castle showed 'figs getting
> decapitated. Srtong sexual content is not ok- what if someone posted an
> illustrated Kama Sutra with 'figs as the models? (Hmmmm.... idea)
>
> If two people are making out heavily in a park people make disgusted sounds
> and say things like "get a room." If two people start fighting in a park a
> crowd gathers.
Very good point! I guess it goes back to society at one level and your
perspective at another. I do find violance somewhat objectionable but no where
near as objectionable as Pornography. I can tolerate violance to an extent but
I cannot tolerate pornography at all. What exactly that means I don't know
although I do know it is a bit sad that violance is tolerated to such an extent
in todays society.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) familiar (...) Circular logic is logic that is circular ;) Obscenity is something that is obscene. (...) You're right! That's exactly what I meant. It's "eye of the beholder" mixed in with some "community standards" generally agreed upon (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) It seems you and I agree. Like I said- IF the young person does not know the word, (though most do) then he will not infer the word from a partial spelling. The only people to infer a dirty word will be those who are familiar with it and (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
