Subject:
|
Re: Language slipping?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:05:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Lannan writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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).
Ok- got me there.
> > > 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?(!)
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 term. We do seem to
agree, however that it is all subjective.
>
> > 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?
Well, it seems that when we are reminded to "keep it clean" that there is a
group effort at work defining what is "clean" and what isn't. If a word is
only obscene to one person, and not to others, then one can hardly be
reprimanded for posting the obscene-to-one-person word. There would simply be
no way of knowing ahead of time. Now, if I said (insert random word) and you
replied that you find it to be obscene, I probably would, just to be polite,
refrain from using that word in your presence in the future.
I think for the purposes of LUGNET- it's obscene if Todd says it is.
Or maybe- don't post anything you wouldn't want your child to repeat in
school. (Like CRAPP?)
>
> >
> > > Dave!
> >
> > Then Chris!!
>
> Ouch! I have no rebuttal for that!
LOL- I am having SO MUCH FUN with this debate.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
