 | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | (...) Then tell me what "obscenity" is, since it exists. (...) That's my point about how subjective it is. One zealot who says any word/image/sound/obj...ought/farm animal is obscene is a crazy man- if we get enough of those zealots together, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Obscene is one of a number of slippery words that are contextually defined. In most english speaking countries, for example, bodily waste is refered to by multiple terms, some "obscene", some not. It generally depends on the context for most (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, how about another AFOL acronym- CRAPP- obviously NOT "polite usage." I think that it is a convention thing- defined by the community- in this case, however, since LUGNET is worldwide, I guess the standards are Todd's. So I would tender a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) state; (...) Let me start by saying I think we agree on the meat of the issue. However, I think some people are succumbing to the falacy that in order to exist, something must be identifiable in words, which is surely not the case. I can't (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | (...) Ok- got me there. (...) Yes! Both, I think. I just chose objectionable because I was trying to make a definition that wasn't circular. (Obsenity is obscene, fearful things make you feel afraid) Perhaps "extremely objectionable" is a better (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Good points, and bravo to you for bringing this debate out of the realm of the pointlessly theorical and putting it back into Lugnet! (...) Agreed. Some people might not like this seeming Monarchy of Lugnet, but it *is* Todd's sandbox (as (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
