Subject:
|
Re: Language slipping?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:51:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1159 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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."
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 as surely as language or any other social convention, but
you're right that it's hard to "prove" one way or the other.
> > 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)
I'm not entirely comfortable with a lukewarm term like objectionable. I
find ProWrestling objectionable, but I wouldn't call it obscene. Brussel
Sprouts are objectionable, but not typically obscene. I fear that such an
open-ended word is itself part of the problem, since it allows any zealot to
define any word/image/sound/object/thought/farm animal as obscene according to
the zealot's own whimsy.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) 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, (...) (27 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (27 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
|
|
|
|
