| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> >
> > 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"
> > 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.
Circular logic is logic that is circular ;) Obscenity is something that is
obscene.
>
> 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.
You're right! That's exactly what I meant. It's "eye of the beholder" mixed in
with some "community standards" generally agreed upon stuff. I just meant that
there is no OBJECTIVE way to define obscenity. You can't tell someone what it
is, you can just point to it after the fact and say "there it is."
> 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.
I totally agree. Like I said "devil's advocate" I very much enjoy debates of
this nature. (And I think I'll move this over to off-topic debate)
>
> >
> > 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.
My point exactly- pornography is to you something that is objectionable to
you- there is no other workable definition.
> 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. • Yup- guns is G or PG, boobs is R.
>
> Eric K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) I don't think anyone would argue that obscenity is anything other than a social and/or personal convention, rather than some inherent quality or state; it's largely a matter of consensus. That's not to say obscenity doesn't "exist"--it exists (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
