Subject:
|
Re: Language slipping?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:38:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1305 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Lannan writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Then tell me what "obscenity" is, since it exists.
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 tell you what "pain" is, but I think we'd agree that it exists.
Likewise I can't tell you what "thought" is, or "art," or "beauty," though I
can identify qualities and characteristics of each. The same can be said of
obscenity--I can't give you a monolithic, irrefutable definition of it, but I
(or Person X) could provide characteristics of what is obscene to me (or to
Person X).
> > 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.
>
> That's my point about how subjective it is.
Hmm... Did we refute each other, or are we agreeing?(!)
> One zealot who says any word/image/sound/object/thought/farm animal is obscene
> is a crazy man- if we get enough of those zealots together, however, then the
> word/image/sound/object/thought/farm animal becomes obscene, because it has
> become an convention.
Does obscenity have to be a group effort? It seems to me that something can
be obscene to an individual without involving a larger number of people. I,
for instance, maintain conventions of behavior which are mine and no one
else's; why can't I (or Person X) maintain individual conventions of what is
and what is not obscene? I'm not referring to weighty legal definitions,
which I think we'd both agree are pretty tenuous--rather, I mean that which
strikes *me* as obscene.
To put it another way, is there some critical mass number of people required
to turn "crazy" ideas into conventions? Do I simply need to get a dozen or so
people to share my views in order to give those views convention status?
>
> > Dave!
>
> Then Chris!!
Ouch! I have no rebuttal for that!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (27 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
