Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on May 18, 2015, 08:54:39 AM
-
If you want to say "Fuck Off" ippy just grow a pair and do it. it's not illegal.
-
If you want to say "Fuck Off" ippy just grow a pair and do it. it's not illegal.
No, but it's hardly an intelligent thing to say, either!
-
But it's clearly the message that he wants to send:
PS How come whenever I see or hear these sorts of sentiments expounded it immediately comes to mind why don't they go join the Foreign Office
he just hasn't got the globes to come out and say it.
-
If you want to say "Fuck Off" ippy just grow a pair and do it. it's not illegal.
No, but it's hardly an intelligent thing to say, either!
I think that depends on the context.
-
If you want to say "Fuck Off" ippy just grow a pair and do it. it's not illegal.
No, but it's hardly an intelligent thing to say, either!
I think that depends on the context.
We shall have to agree to disagree. For me 'Get lost' is a more suitable way of expressing the feeling. :)
-
But it's clearly the message that he wants to send:
PS How come whenever I see or hear these sorts of sentiments expounded it immediately comes to mind why don't they go join the Foreign Office
he just hasn't got the globes to come out and say it.
Spherical objects?
ippy
-
testicles
-
If you want to say "Fuck Off" ippy just grow a pair and do it. it's not illegal.
No, but it's hardly an intelligent thing to say, either!
Sometimes we all see or hear something wet and stupid and there are a variety of options that can be used in response, if I was there and heard someone say something so inane, perhaps a raspberry could be a good initial response, in this case it was the written word to be used as an initial response.
I'm of the old school and although swearing doesn't particularly phase me I chose to not use it myself but having said that it doesn't mean that these words don't come to mind from time to time and I would rather hint at them than use them, if any of you prefer to come out with the whole arsenal of the four letter variety, well that's your choice not mine.
ippy
-
Why hint at them? If that's the sentiment then why not just come out and say it instead of pussy-footing around it?
-
Swearing is unpleasant, especially the use of the 'F' and 'C' words. Surely one can make one's case without demeaning oneself by using them?
-
How is one demeaned by the use of swear words?
{n.b. "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" is not a reasonable response to this request}
-
How is one demeaned by the use of swear words?
{n.b. "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" is not a reasonable response to this request}
Because it gives the impression one is not particular pleasant or articulate if one has to resort to swearing! But then maybe that doesn't bother you?
-
It gives whom the impression Floo? You? How is that personally demeaning though?
-
How is one demeaned by the use of swear words?
{n.b. "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" is not a reasonable response to this request}
I hope you never have to go to court but if you did for some reason do you think unrestrained swearing would help or hinder your case?
If you think as I do swearing would have a negative effect in a law court surroundings, why do you think that might be?
ippy
-
That isn't an explanation of how it's personally "demeaning" to use swear word ippy, merely an explanation of why it's ill-advised in certain circumstances.
-
How is one demeaned by the use of swear words?
{n.b. "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" is not a reasonable response to this request}
I hope you never have to go to court but if you did for some reason do you think unrestrained swearing would help or hinder your case?
I you think as I do swearing would have a negative effect in a law court surroundings, why do you think that might be?
ippy
And when I go to see Shakespeare and they are used in the play, is Shakespeare demeaned?
-
That isn't an explanation of how it's personally "demeaning" to use swear word ippy, merely an explanation of why it's ill-advised in certain circumstances.
Quite right Thrud and why would it be ill advised?
ippy
-
That isn't an explanation of how it's personally "demeaning" to use swear word ippy, merely an explanation of why it's ill-advised in certain circumstances.
Quite right Thrud and why would it be ill advised?
ippy
because others might judge you and you could be done for contempt.
Note if this is a reason why it is personally demeaning then by extension being homosexual in an area controlled by ISIS is personally demeaning, since you might be judged by others and beheaded. Are you arguing that?
-
Quite right Thrud and why would it be ill advised?
because the judge might think that you're not treating the court with respect.
it still doesn't explain why the use of swear words is personally demeaning though
-
I notice that the last few posts here are 4 non theists arguing off topic, and I am perfectly well aware one of them is me, might make sense to either get the mods to split this into one of our quarterly is swearing a bad thing threads, or just to start one ourselves. To be honest I think this was one of those that might be bettered suited to being in the Faith Sharing Area
-
As per my post on Hope's 'Are we asking the right questions?'thread, a number of us, including me, have derailed it onto the old swearing issue. I am starting this to allow the mods to split those comments off and let Hope's thread cover the subject he raised.
-
No.
Next.
-
Does the use of swear words demean the swearer?
-
Does the use of swear words demean the swearer?
Imo, no.
Note if you think it does please explain why?
-
I do get that some are not able to make a point with out swearing. And I get that some were taught to talk gutter by their parents. And I get that some think a dirty mouth makes them tough, makes them cool, makes them attractive. Too funny them!
-
I agree with you NS. I only raised the question here because that was what was claimed in Hope's thread.
-
I find swearing incredibly cathartic.
-
Is swearing bad? Fuck no!
-
I agree with you NS. I only raised the question here because that was what was claimed in Hope's thread.
As noted in the thread, I was more concerned about freeing it up for Hope's actual Op
-
Quite right Thrud and why would it be ill advised?
because the judge might think that you're not treating the court with respect.
it still doesn't explain why the use of swear words is personally demeaning though
Well there you are Thrud, you've answered your own question.
ippy
-
Is swearing 'bad'? No. Is swearing necessary? Usually not. The vast majority of folk who use such words simply do so because they think they are part of everyday language - perhaps using them without even realising that they are. In such cases, it tends to indicate a limited vocabulary.
If, they are used sparingly, though, they can be impactful - but I would still rather use more unusual non-swear words for this purpose.
-
Moderator:
Just to say that a number of posts that were on the subject of swearing that had been posted off-topic in a thread of Hope's in the Christian Topic board have now been moved here, in response to NS having started this thread so as to avoid any further derailing of Hope's post.
As such some of the posts that are now here are earlier that NS's OP, which is now post 20 in this thread.
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
So when Chaucer wrote 'enshryne their coilins in a hogges turde' - It was because of his 'mental train wreck state'?
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
So when Chaucer wrote 'enshryne their coilins in a hogges turde' - It was because of his 'mental train wreck state'?
Maybe it was: who knows! Just because a person is a talented writer doesn't mean they behave with opprobrium: to think so is naive.
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
So when Chaucer wrote 'enshryne their coilins in a hogges turde' - It was because of his 'mental train wreck state'?
Maybe it was: who knows! Just because a person is a talented writer doesn't mean they behave with opprobrium: to think so is naive.
You seem to be misusing opprobrium. Suggest you might mean 'behave deserving of opprobrium''.
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
So when Chaucer wrote 'enshryne their coilins in a hogges turde' - It was because of his 'mental train wreck state'?
Maybe it was: who knows! Just because a person is a talented writer doesn't mean they behave with opprobrium: to think so is naive.
You seem to be misusing opprobrium. Suggest you might mean 'behave deserving of opprobrium''.
Mea culpa!
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
What can I say? My mother wouldn't let me swear so it comes from years of oppressed envy that the little boy next door had a penis.
-
Oh yes, and some have to swear because it make them feel better. Like crack cocaine it doesn't solve their mental train wreck state. It hides it briefly to them but to others it highlights their mental muck.
That's about right. They're a pitiful lot!
What can I say? My mother wouldn't let me swear so it comes from years of oppressed envy that the little boy next door had a penis.
Ever tried therapy? Penis envy is easily put in context.
-
I do love it when people get all uppity about swearing.
-
When I listen to the Queen, or the Prime Minister, or the A of C, or some prominent public figure, giving a speech littered with effing and blinding, I might see it in a different light. I await the Queen's Speech with eagerness to see what choice words she uses! ::) Perhaps you foul-mouthed characters can explain why we aren't in the habit of hearing swearing by such people?
-
Because there's a time and a place?
-
Maybe it was: who knows! Just because a person is a talented writer doesn't mean they behave with opprobrium: to think so is naive.
You do realise that that's a use of incredibly bad language, don't you? (In the literal sense).
-
When I listen to the Queen, or the Prime Minister, or the A of C, or some prominent public figure, giving a speech littered with effing and blinding, I might see it in a different light. I await the Queen's Speech with eagerness to see what choice words she uses! ::) Perhaps you foul-mouthed characters can explain why we aren't in the habit of hearing swearing by such people?
Because - as Rhi said - there's a time and a place (context, in other words) and also partly because they are, in short, old and were probably brought up with what now seem to many (I might even say most people) rather quaint, twee ideas (such as that women shouldn't swear or be sworn in front of, etc.).
-
Maybe it was: who knows! Just because a person is a talented writer doesn't mean they behave with opprobrium: to think so is naive.
You do realise that that's a use of incredibly bad language, don't you? (In the literal sense).
You're not following. I have already acknowledged that (post 37.
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
Of course there is. As Billy Connolly - a master of the art himself - once rightly observed, there are situations in life where "Please go away quickly" just won't do the job.
-
I do love it when people get all uppity about swearing.
Me too ;D
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
Of course there is. As Billy Connolly - a master of the art himself - once rightly observed, there are situations in life where "Please go away quickly" just won't do the job.
Not a good person to quote, I think. There are other words in the extensive English language that can be much more effective in putting someone down, always supposing you have more than a rudimentary vocabulary.
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
Of course there is. As Billy Connolly - a master of the art himself - once rightly observed, there are situations in life where "Please go away quickly" just won't do the job.
Exactly. Just like when 'what a silly person' isn't adequate for someone who tailgates me when I've got my kids in the car.
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
-
I was thinking the same. It's those who oppose swearing (though of course there is a time and a place, as others have already mentioned) that are trying to limit vocabulary.
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
Of course there is. As Billy Connolly - a master of the art himself - once rightly observed, there are situations in life where "Please go away quickly" just won't do the job.
Exactly. Just like when 'what a silly person' isn't adequate for someone who tailgates me when I've got my kids in the car.
Surely you could think of something to make a point, without swearing, which merely puts across the message that you are crude. What about saying to the tailgater, "You must have been born on a highway, because that's where most accidents happen," or something.
-
Surely you could think of something to make a point, without swearing, which merely puts across the message that you are crude. What about saying to the tailgater, "You must have been born on a highway, because that's where most accidents happen," or something.
The tailgater is in the car behind Rhi, Ant - I've no doubt whatever that, being female, she can turn up the volume from time to time but the tailgater is unlikely to hear her.
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
BA, I'll let by a certain amount swearing in my home from people I've not had a lot of dealings with but at some point I would ask them to drop the swearing and pass on perhaps another couple of obviously habitual slips then after that I would ask them to leave and I don't care whoever they might be, thems the rules here.
ippy
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
How many pubs you been to?
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
BA, I'll let by a certain amount swearing in my home from people I've not had a lot of dealings with but at some point I would ask them to drop the swearing and pass on perhaps another couple of obviously habitual slips then after that I would ask them to leave and I don't care whoever they might be, thems the rules here.
ippy
I wouldn't tolerate swearing from a visitor if my kids or my parents were around.
-
We shall have to agree to disagree. For me 'Get lost' is a more suitable way of expressing the feeling. :)
"Get lost" doesn't have the same visceral impact. Although, to be fair, neither does "fuck off" if you don't use it sparingly.
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
BA, I'll let by a certain amount swearing in my home from people I've not had a lot of dealings with but at some point I would ask them to drop the swearing and pass on perhaps another couple of obviously habitual slips then after that I would ask them to leave and I don't care whoever they might be, thems the rules here.
ippy
I wouldn't tolerate swearing from a visitor if my kids or my parents were around.
Why?
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
How many pubs you been to?
How is it relevant how many I've been to?
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
Why is it, do you think, that all languages have swear words?
-
Because there's a time and a place?
Rather, because there isn't a time and place.
Why is it, do you think, that all languages have swear words?
Because there are crude and uncouth people in all languages and cultures, if culture is the word to use in this context.
-
How is it relevant how many I've been to?
Because if there is one thing pubs are generally not noted for, it's the lack of swearing you can hear in them.
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
BA, I'll let by a certain amount swearing in my home from people I've not had a lot of dealings with but at some point I would ask them to drop the swearing and pass on perhaps another couple of obviously habitual slips then after that I would ask them to leave and I don't care whoever they might be, thems the rules here.
ippy
I wouldn't tolerate swearing from a visitor if my kids or my parents were around.
I agree with you, only both my children are in their thirties and for both of us our parents are long gone.
ippy
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjixdVvkfL4
Fourteen fucks and a bugger. The first time I saw it was in a cinema in which the entire audience was helpless with laughter.
Context matters.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjixdVvkfL4
Fourteen fucks and a bugger. The first time I saw it was in a cinema in which the entire audience was helpless with laughter.
Context matters.
What does that say about you, then, and the people who find it so funny? You may as well stand in front of a mirror effing and blinding for ten minutes, and give yourself a good laugh. :D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjixdVvkfL4
Fourteen fucks and a bugger. The first time I saw it was in a cinema in which the entire audience was helpless with laughter.
Context matters.
What does that say about you, then, and the people who find it so funny?
That we all have a sense of humour and don't have our heads up our own arses.
You may as well stand in front of a mirror effing and blinding for ten minutes, and give yourself a good laugh. :D
It doesn't work. Context matters.
-
A little while back a group of scientists, philosophers and other generally brainy types were asked (by a magazine, IIRC) which idea/concept they thought should be retired - in other words, which idea had had its day and should be got rid of.
My vote would be to try to erase this witless idea that swearing indicates a limited vocabulary, which is in itself - ironically - an incredibly unoriginal idea given the amount of times it's trotted out and parrotted by others. I may not have many strengths but I have a superb vocabulary and can be a half-way decent writer when I put my mind to it. It should be obvious upon even a moment's reflection that a person's vocabulary minus swear words is going to be less than the same person's vocabulary + swear words. That's basic arithmetic.
Any twat can see that.
If you really think that, then you are a fool; but I bet you go down a storm at the pub, about closing time! :)
BA, I'll let by a certain amount swearing in my home from people I've not had a lot of dealings with but at some point I would ask them to drop the swearing and pass on perhaps another couple of obviously habitual slips then after that I would ask them to leave and I don't care whoever they might be, thems the rules here.
ippy
I wouldn't tolerate swearing from a visitor if my kids or my parents were around.
Why?
Because it is presumptuous. Similarly I never swear in front of people I don't know well because they might get offended. I'm going through a tough time at the moment so among friends I swear sometimes to vent, but even then I moderate what I say according to who I'm with.
-
I agree with Rose, gratuitous swearing is very jarring. And it robs it of meaning too, which renders it irrelevant.
There's a funny thing with trust and swearing too. It's not commonplace among my peers and when someone drops a swear word into a sentence I know they've relaxed enough to use it, and trust that I won't judge them.
-
No pugger on here has sopping well suggested that are not hacking times and places where it might be winkingly stupid or ballastkickingly inconsiderate to throw in a materducking swearword. However that one might choose to express one's tissing anger or over-suck-whelming frustration at some arshwhipery, has not been shown to be either indicative in the smallest santorum of lack of vocabulary, or if one has ever met anyone of the decksacking upper class stunts, that this behaviour is deserving of cakelicking opprobrium or is anything more than the twitmunching small mindedness of Jen and Bryan bloopy Teale.
-
If you want to say "Fuck Off" ippy just grow a pair and do it. it's not illegal.
No, but it's hardly an intelligent thing to say, either!
I do not believe 'intelligence' has any reflection when using bad language out of annoyance.
I also believe that bad language is not so much the words but the feelings vented behind them.
So if a person does not believe "Fuck Off"
is swearing then for them it is not using bad language. In America 'Fanny' is slang for your bottom it has an entirely different meaning here.
Whilst swearing is bad I think it better for someone to swear at me that physically assault me. So maybe it is a lesser of two evils but also just cuss words to some without any real assault or insult.
-
I never thought I'd see 'cakelicking' used in public. :o
-
How is one demeaned by the use of swear words?
{n.b. "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" is not a reasonable response to this request}
I hope you never have to go to court but if you did for some reason do you think unrestrained swearing would help or hinder your case?
If you think as I do swearing would have a negative effect in a law court surroundings, why do you think that might be?
ippy
I believe that in court you would have no reason to us bad language.
Use of swear words is usually to do with anger.
It really is impolite and unnecessary to use bad language in a court of law.
-
Looking through the thread, I felt as if people were omitting the word 'offensive' which is really what the use of bad language is about.
People can get offended by the use of profane language.
To people who swear they do not find it offensive nor the people they use it in front of. A judge may swear like a trooper outside their court but would never ever use it within the court room whilst in sitting.
So bad language can be offensive. Elderly people especially, I see they find it inappropriate to use bad language.
So I think the word which may have been mentioned on page three of replies (did not read that far) is OFFENSIVE. Some find bad language offensive when used in their presence.
-
As an elderly person, Sass, I don't find it in the least offensive, I just consider it unnecessary. :)
ps. On occasions I swear myself, but it is never necessary to do so.
-
Fuck off - mere vulgar abuse. It is not "swearing".
Bloody - or as usually pronounced Bleddy - is a corruption of By Our Lady. That is an oath and is therefore swearing.
The origins of expressions like Jeepers Creepers and Crikey - now regarded as harmless and suitable for use in front of children, the elderly and those of nervous dispositions are the remnants of medieval oaths and are probably, in reality, more disturbing to those who cling to the irrationalities of religion.
I did like Jeremy Thorpe's "Go forth and multiply - or some such expression."
-
Fuck off - mere vulgar abuse. It is not "swearing".
Bloody - or as usually pronounced Bleddy - is a corruption of By Our Lady. That is an oath and is therefore swearing.
The origins of expressions like Jeepers Creepers and Crikey - now regarded as harmless and suitable for use in front of children, the elderly and those of nervous dispositions are the remnants of medieval oaths and are probably, in reality, more disturbing to those who cling to the irrationalities of religion.
I did like Jeremy Thorpe's "Go forth and multiply - or some such expression."
Words changes, what used to be about oaths no longer is.
-
I'm much more likely to say 'fucking hell' than I am 'Jesus Christ' for exactly the reason HH says. The latter is far more offensive, I think.
-
I'm making a claim for some goods that I've had for longer than the guarantee would cover, but if I can prove the fault was there when the goods were manufactured, I'm still covered by the sale of goods act for up to six years.
How far does anyone think I would get if I swear at the people I need to deal with, would I be more likely to get a good result swearing or not?
I will assume most would know the answer to that question; now have a think why would I be more unlikely to get a positive result if I swear.
Help yourself to all of the swearing you might wish to use, although swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest I do think generally life is far more pleasant without it.
ippy
-
I'm making a claim for some goods that I've had for longer than the guarantee would cover, but if I can prove the fault was there when the goods were manufactured, I'm still covered by the sale of goods act for up to six years.
How far does anyone think I would get if I swear at the people I need to deal with, would I be more likely to get a good result swearing or not?
I will assume most would know the answer to that question; now have a think why would I be more unlikely to get a positive result if I swear.
Help yourself to all of the swearing you might wish to use, although swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest I do think generally life is far more pleasant without it.
ippy
As others have said, context is important.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
-
I'm making a claim for some goods that I've had for longer than the guarantee would cover, but if I can prove the fault was there when the goods were manufactured, I'm still covered by the sale of goods act for up to six years.
How far does anyone think I would get if I swear at the people I need to deal with, would I be more likely to get a good result swearing or not?
I will assume most would know the answer to that question; now have a think why would I be more unlikely to get a positive result if I swear.
Help yourself to all of the swearing you might wish to use, although swearing doesn't phase me in the slightest I do think generally life is far more pleasant without it.
ippy
As others have said, context is important.
Well AO, it's obvious that the others and I have got a point then.
ippy
-
Not if you're agreeing with Floo that a person demeans themselves through the use of swear words.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
A ridiculous analogy. But then what would one expect from a serial swearer but any old excuse?
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
A ridiculous analogy. But then what would one expect from a serial swearer but any old excuse?
Why is it ridiculous. I used your words and just inserted another act?
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
A ridiculous analogy. But then what would one expect from a serial swearer but any old excuse?
Why is it ridiculous. I used your words and just inserted another act?
Sexual acts are highly personal and private between individuals, or should be. Swearing is specifically intended to be heard by others, as we see from the likes of you. As I said, a stupid analogy.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
Bollocks! Context is important. For instance in the company of friends, down the pub or watching the footy or hockey? Swearing ok. Someone acting like a cunt? Swearing ok. To annoy you? Definitely ok. At a formal occasion? Probably not, depending upon company and familiarity. At a job interview? No. You see, people are able to know when and when not too.
As a kid I loved it. Nowadays, especially of people my age, it's just part of normal speech, except for those whose heads are too far up their arses, of course.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
A ridiculous analogy. But then what would one expect from a serial swearer but any old excuse?
Why is it ridiculous. I used your words and just inserted another act?
Sexual acts are highly personal and private between individuals, or should be. Swearing is specifically intended to be heard by others, as we see from the likes of you. As I said, a stupid analogy.
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others. Dressing it up does n' t affect the analogy. You stated that if x was ever wrong, x was always wrong. I just pointed out that that logic does not work. Since you admit that sex has a context, you have to show that swearing dies not to disprove the analogy. And not only have you not done so, you cannot even talk about it without making it personal.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
Bollocks! Context is important. For instance in the company of friends, down the pub or watching the footy or hockey? Swearing ok. Someone acting like a cunt? Swearing ok. To annoy you? Definitely ok. At a formal occasion? Probably not, depending upon company and familiarity. At a job interview? No. You see, people are able to know when and when not too.
As a kid I loved it. Nowadays, especially of people my age, it's just part of normal speech, except for those whose heads are too far up their arses, of course.
What a murky and unattractive person you must be.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
-
And just to note some of my best swearing, as with some of my most enjoyable sex acts have been carried out with no intention of someone hearing or participating in the sex act, quite often the two have been combined.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
A ridiculous analogy. But then what would one expect from a serial swearer but any old excuse?
Why is it ridiculous. I used your words and just inserted another act?
Sexual acts are highly personal and private between individuals, or should be. Swearing is specifically intended to be heard by others, as we see from the likes of you. As I said, a stupid analogy.
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others. Dressing it up does n' t affect the analogy. You stated that if x was ever wrong, x was always wrong. I just pointed out that that logic does not work. Since you admit that sex has a context, you have to show that swearing dies not to disprove the analogy. And not only have you not done so, you cannot even talk about it without making it personal.
Why am I bothering to argue that being foul-mouthed is unacceptable? People like you are anathema in decent society. Go and get a mouth wash.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language. ;D
-
:-[
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
If it is ever wrong to have sex, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't have sex in front of their children or parents etc: hypocrites!
A ridiculous analogy. But then what would one expect from a serial swearer but any old excuse?
Why is it ridiculous. I used your words and just inserted another act?
Sexual acts are highly personal and private between individuals, or should be. Swearing is specifically intended to be heard by others, as we see from the likes of you. As I said, a stupid analogy.
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others. Dressing it up does n' t affect the analogy. You stated that if x was ever wrong, x was always wrong. I just pointed out that that logic does not work. Since you admit that sex has a context, you have to show that swearing dies not to disprove the analogy. And not only have you not done so, you cannot even talk about it without making it personal.
Why am I bothering to argue that being foul-mouthed is unacceptable? People like you are anathema in decent society. Go and get a mouth wash.
Ah so an ad hominem fallacy, that is f a l l a c y, and no argument.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
Bollocks! Context is important. For instance in the company of friends, down the pub or watching the footy or hockey? Swearing ok. Someone acting like a cunt? Swearing ok. To annoy you? Definitely ok. At a formal occasion? Probably not, depending upon company and familiarity. At a job interview? No. You see, people are able to know when and when not too.
As a kid I loved it. Nowadays, especially of people my age, it's just part of normal speech, except for those whose heads are too far up their arses, of course.
What a murky and unattractive person you must be.
Just a normal(ish) bloke. Now, just how did you get your head so far up your own arse?
http://sausedo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/head_up_your_ass1.jpg
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language. ;D
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language. ;D
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
Haven't you noticed I've been discussing this for a while, now, and often enough in the past.
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
-
I'm confused.
Does your enjoyable sex encompass the self-abuse and having your head up your arse?
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
Sad that your life is so sterile.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
It's difficult to decide whether you are joking, or whether it is just inept English.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
It's difficult to decide whether you are joking, or whether it is just inept English.
That would be 'behaviour with opprobrium'
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
It's difficult to decide whether you are joking, or whether it is just inept English.
That would be 'behaviour with opprobrium'
Which error I acknowledged. You should try it sometime.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
It's difficult to decide whether you are joking, or whether it is just inept English.
That would be 'behaviour with opprobrium'
Which error I acknowledged. You should try it sometime.
I acknowledge you made an error. I make them all the time, I don't chastise others for them and make ad homs based on them.
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
It's difficult to decide whether you are joking, or whether it is just inept English.
That would be 'behaviour with opprobrium'
Which error I acknowledged. You should try it sometime.
I acknowledge you made an error. I make them all the time, I don't chastise others for them and make ad homs based on them.
I acknowledged I made an error; and I acknowledge when you did/do! :)
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is. There are people in here who say they won't swear in front of their children or parents, etc: hypocrites!
Bollocks! Context is important. For instance in the company of friends, down the pub or watching the footy or hockey? Swearing ok. Someone acting like a cunt? Swearing ok. To annoy you? Definitely ok. At a formal occasion? Probably not, depending upon company and familiarity. At a job interview? No. You see, people are able to know when and when not too.
As a kid I loved it. Nowadays, especially of people my age, it's just part of normal speech, except for those whose heads are too far up their arses, of course.
The superstitious god myth follower, that likes to swear, quite a mix there AO.
ippy
-
when I have sex, I specifically intend to have it with others.
Well, that's a new development ;D
I would guess that he doesn't always have it with others! Probably puts others off with his language.
Got there before you and my line was way funnier.
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
Yes, making simple ad hominems and not engaging in discussion is summed up by that, good to know you are gaining some self knowledge out of this
I'm happy enough with my self-knowledge; if you are with yours, you must be some sort of misfit.
certainly more happy with my self abuse
I guessed that already.
probably all you could think about, which led you to the ad hominem phallasy
Fallacy, "phallasy/ phallus." You seem to be obsessed! :D
is this a sort of game where I make a joke and you just try and repeat it but get it wrong?
It's difficult to decide whether you are joking, or whether it is just inept English.
That would be 'behaviour with opprobrium'
Which error I acknowledged. You should try it sometime.
I acknowledge you made an error. I make them all the time, I don't chastise others for them and make ad homs based on them.
I acknowledged I made an error; and I acknowledge when you did/do! :)
Have you noticed how these posts resemble very bad wallpaper?
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is.
Bullshit.
If it is ever wrong to do more than 30mph in your car, it always is. Well, no.
-
What a murky and unattractive person you must be.
Swearing, oh yes terribly wrong always, no exceptions. Insulting other forum members who disagree with you? That's absolutely fine.
Hypocrite.
-
Context my foot! Just a lame excuse. If it is ever wrong to swear, then it always is.
Bullshit.
If it is ever wrong to do more than 30mph in your car, it always is. Well, no.
Rubbish! Of course it can be perfectly correct to travel at more than 30mph, in the right, and legal, circumstances. It is never correct to swear, nor necessary, except for uncouths like you, who know no better.
-
It never ceases to amaze me that the most intolerant, hate-filled, vituperous and nastiest contributions to discussion on these boards come from members who claim to be Christian.
Is there something in the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Good Samaritan that I have missed?
-
Trent # 115 ;D
-
Trent # 115 ;D
Where Trent sees wallpaper I see a pyramid, as in looking down from above it.
-
Trent # 115 ;D
Indeed great comment and apologies editing the wallpaper on tablet and phone takes ages
-
Thee are some people spending an inordinate and unhealthy amount of time discussing swearing when they could for example be talking about far more important issues eg ISIS, pensioners who die every 7 minutes, starving babies, earthquakes and much much more!
What's wrong with you people?
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Thee are some people spending an inordinate and unhealthy amount of time discussing swearing when they could for example be talking about far more important issues eg ISIS, pensioners who die every 7 minutes, starving babies, earthquakes and much much more!
What's wrong with you people?
::) ::) ::) ::)
Sometimes it's nice to have a break from such things.
:)
Oh Rose,
You do make me laugh sometimes...
Such a superb answer... xx
-
It never ceases to amaze me that the most intolerant, hate-filled, vituperous and nastiest contributions to discussion on these boards come from members who claim to be Christian.
Is there something in the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Good Samaritan that I have missed?
Probably; along with all the other things you miss.
"Hate-filled?" How can you hate someone you've never met, know nothing about, except the ludicrous things that go on in this forum? You clearly have little grasp of reality. Very sad.
-
It never ceases to amaze me that the most intolerant, hate-filled, vituperous and nastiest contributions to discussion on these boards come from members who claim to be Christian.
Is there something in the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Good Samaritan that I have missed?
This is sadly very true! Obviously we don't know how they behave in real life, but their posts on here don't do the faith they espouse any favours at all! I know I have said it a good number of times, but if Jesus was alive today, would he really want them in his gang? I suspect not!
-
This childish idea that because a person is a Christian they have to be in some way "saintly," not daring to stand up for themselves in vigorous debate.. Yet atheists are free to insult, swear, vilify, with impunity - their very convenient get-out. I am not prepared to come on here and be an aunt sally for these vituperative atheists: I will make my point, and I don't think there is any reason why I shouldn't, and to throw the "not behaving like a Christian " card doesn't wash.
-
What a murky and unattractive person you must be.
Swearing, oh yes terribly wrong always, no exceptions. Insulting other forum members who disagree with you? That's absolutely fine.
Hypocrite.
There speaks that fine, upstanding, delicately-spoken paragon. And you call someone else a hypocrite!
-
It never ceases to amaze me that the most intolerant, hate-filled, vituperous and nastiest contributions to discussion on these boards come from members who claim to be Christian.
Is there something in the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Good Samaritan that I have missed?
This is sadly very true! Obviously we don't know how they behave in real life, but their posts on here don't do the faith they espouse any favours at all! I know I have said it a good number of times, but if Jesus was alive today, would he really want them in his gang? I suspect not!
Are you going to get round to justifying your statement that people demean themselves through the use of swearwords or can we simply write it off as yet another of your stupid utterances?
-
We did once have a thread suggesting rude words that should be banned. IIRC suggestions included panties, raunchy, moist, and Simon Cowell.
-
... along with spume and Wankel rotary engine.
-
In defence of Floo,
I think she used the wrong word.
She meant that they look uncouth when a woman uses foul language in a public place people will naturally find it unacceptable. When a child I can never remember and adult male or female swearing where there were little children.
Even the pub had a place for men only where they swore, gambled and generally enjoyed letting their hair down so to speak.
In hindsight it appears Floo, was wrong in choice of words. So many people use swear words for different reasons. Some because they know no other way, others venting anger and only when angry. Some us it inappropriately in places where there are children.
It is all a matter of personal taste and perception.
I think Floo was reflecting on the fact society hated women using foul language. Difference between cussing words and foul language.
-
How wrong must a thing be for Floo and Sassy to be on the same side?
-
LOL!
-
When I said people demean themselves by using foul language, I meant exactly that!
-
So explain exactly how it is personally demeaning to them to use swear words then.
-
So explain exactly how it is personally demeaning to them to use swear words then.
The loss the respect of others! I would have thrown anyone out who had used foul swear words in front of my children
-
How is losing the respect of those who don't like swearing personally demeaning to the individual who uses swear words?
-
So explain exactly how it is personally demeaning to them to use swear words then.
It shows a lack of intelligence,it could indicate how one is dragged up,and may indicate a dis functional family. Barbarian like.
Nice to agree with floo ;)
~TW~
-
That's just your prejudice TW.
Intelligent people swear some times. People from perfectly functional families swear sometimes.
Some morons are offended by swearing. ;)
-
So explain exactly how it is personally demeaning to them to use swear words then.
The loss the respect of others! I would have thrown anyone out who had used foul swear words in front of my children
Since I don't respect those who think swearing is wrong, by your logic you have just personally demeaned yourself.
-
Oh dear another, know it all, bringing up the sermon on the mount and telling Christians how they are suppose to act. Well here's a news flash Harrow, Jesus meek and mild is NOT Biblical. He wasn't exactly all, sermon on the mount, when He went after those people doing business in God's house, nor was He all, sermon on the mount, when he verbally assaulted the religious leaders, often provoking the confrontations Himself. If you want to look down your nose at us, climb out of your foggy bog and read the New Testament and maybe check to make sure you have no rotten smelly parts yourself first.
-
This is going to be one of those circular things where if I suggest anyone who might be intelligent who swears, people will just go they can't be intelligent because they swear. One wonders if the use of a circular argument is intelligent?
-
Oh dear another, know it all, bringing up the sermon on the mount and telling Christians how they are suppose to act. Well here's a news flash Harrow, Jesus meek and mild is NOT Biblical. He wasn't exactly all, sermon on the mount, when He went after those people doing business in God's house, nor was He all, sermon on the mount, when he verbally assaulted the religious leaders, often provoking the confrontations Himself. If you want to look down your nose at us, climb out of your foggy bog and read the New Testament and maybe check to make sure you have no rotten smelly parts yourself first.
As you see, Harrowby Hall, it isn't that the Christians are hypocrites, it's that Jesus was hypocritical and they just want to follow him
-
And another one! Read the New Testament Mr. Nearly and climb out of your out of your fog. Or have a cookie, whatever helps you make it through the day.
-
New testament bah woosie stuff bring back the brimstone!!!! ;)
-
And another one! Read the New Testament Mr. Nearly and climb out of your out of your fog. Or have a cookie, whatever helps you make it through the day.
I was just reading your post which portrayed acting hypocritically as justified because Jesus acted that way.
-
That's just your prejudice TW.
Intelligent people swear some times. People from perfectly functional families swear sometimes.
Some morons are offended by swearing. ;)
It is not prejudice,it is views from life, ever swearing and going nowhere.Reminds me of the song.I was a big man yesterday,but boy you want to see me now.
~TW~
-
It is prejudice.
That you claim that this prejudice is informed by experience is irrelevant.
-
It is prejudice.
That you claim that this prejudice is informed by experience is irrelevant.
Might be to you,you have what is known as fog in the mind,a look at me syndrome.
Still as the film say's Carry on Swearing.
~TW~
-
Resorting to ad-hom.
You lose.
-
Resorting to ad-hom.
You lose.
NO why don't you list the benefits of swearing.
~TW~
-
Not a benefit, but a reason, free speech.
-
Not a benefit, but a reason, free speech.
Well coming from you I would expect that,the problem with that is this type of free speech spoken in certain places could get you a free night in a police cell.So benefits none.
~TW~
-
Resorting to ad-hom.
You lose.
NO why don't you list the benefits of swearing.
~TW~
Does there have to be? Anyway, I can think of at least one: in certain situations it enables people to let off steam without resorting to violence.
-
That's the beauty of free speech: it allows the nurds to say unpleasant things and justify it by bleating, "it's freedom of speech!" Any freedom carries along with it responsibility; and if that is ignored, then that freedom merely becomes licence for the irresponsible and uncouth.
-
Resorting to ad-hom.
You lose.
NO why don't you list the benefits of swearing.
That's easily done.
1. It's fun - it feels good.
2. In the hands of a real master (i.e. someone really creative) it can be both funny and creative.
3. It reduces anger and stress.
4. It can reduce physical pain (I'm posting on my phone otherwise I'd provide any number of links to this effect).
-
1. It's fun - it feels good.
2. In the hands of a real master (i.e. someone really creative) it can be both funny and creative.
3. It reduces anger and stress.
4. It can reduce physical pain (I'm posting on my phone ofherwise I'd provide any number of links to this effect).
1. I may be fun to a certain, crude, type. It may not feel so good to the listener, or the person on the wrong end of it.
2. It's never funny, except to morons. And to consider it creative rather demeans the concept of creativity.
3. I think it equally likely to increase anger and stress, both to the swearer and to the listener.
4. Rubbish! It may engender a sense of satisfaction to the Neanderthal doing it, but not to those unfortunate enough to be in hearing, unless they are equally dim.
I note that all your justifications show no consideration at all to those who may be in the hearing of the swearer, or may be on the receiving end. Typically self-indulgent and unsympathetic.
-
BA, you're so far up your own arse. I bet you love the smell of your own farts as well, don't yer.
-
BA, you're so far up your own arse. I bet you love the smell of your own farts as well, don't yer.
That's the pleasure of this forum: it has so many cultivated and sophisticated posters - pity you're not one of them!
-
Ooooo! ::)
-
Ooooo! ::)
Wow! Brilliant repartee.
-
they could for example be talking about far more important issues eg ISIS, pensioners who die every 7 minutes, starving babies, earthquakes and much much more!
What's wrong with you people?
I imagine we all pretty much agree that those things are bad.
-
1. I may be fun to a certain, crude, type. It may not feel so good to the listener, or the person on the wrong end of it.
Don't assume that everybody else lives by your own uptight, narrow, pinched and prudish standards. It's not 1934 anymore and we don't all live in one of Harry Enfield's Mr Cholmondeley-Warner sketches.
2. It's never funny, except to morons.
I'm sure you know how much credence is given to argument by assertion, don't you? "Anybody with a screen name of BashfulAnthony is a moron." See how it works?
And to consider it creative rather demeans the concept of creativity.
No it doesn't.
3. I think it equally likely to increase anger and stress, both to the swearer and to the listener.
You're hardly in a position to know, though, are you?
4. Rubbish!
Your usual attitude to evidence very much in play here, I see.
I note that all your justifications show no consideration at all to those who may be in the hearing of the swearer, or may be on the receiving end. Typically self-indulgent and unsympathetic.
Don't judge everybody else by your own standards. Your quaint, fustian, black-and-white world is not the world that most people live in (and don't want to, for that matter).
-
2. It's never funny, except to morons. And to consider it creative rather demeans the concept of creativity.
I earlier posted a Youtube clip of the beginning of Four Weddings and a Funeral which contained 14 fucks and a bugger. It has been universally acclaimed as hysterical except by humourless miserable t**s po*s who can fu*k off as far as I'm concerned.
Get your head out of your a**e and embrace the richness of the entire English tongue.
I think it equally likely to increase anger and stress, both to the swearer and to the listener.
You'd be a tw*t then.
Rubbish! It may engender a sense of satisfaction to the Neanderthal doing it, but not to those unfortunate enough to be in hearing, unless they are equally dim.
According to f***w*t Anthony, it's really bad to swear, but insulting people is perfectly fine.
F**k o*f.
And yes, I do feel better, less angry and violent for writing that post.
-
Shaker, you are an ignoramus and so egotistical you make Pietersen look like Pope Francis. Anybody who contends that there's nothing we can do about climate change, world starvation or ISIS, is so totally wrapped up in his own, sordid world, it it is numbing. It is wholly understandable that a person so out of empathy with his fellows should feel that swearing, so obnoxious to so many, is an acceptable way to behave in society.
-
Shaker, you are an ignoramus and so egotistical you make Pietersen look like Pope Francis.
And who is Pietersen? Am I supposed to know who this is?
Anybody who contends that there's nothing we can do about climate change, world starvation or ISIS, is so totally wrapped up in his own, sordid world, it it is numbing. It is wholly understandable that a person so out of empathy with his fellows should feel that swearing, so obnoxious to so many, is an acceptable way to behave in society.
Doubtless you feel better after that little irrelevance-stuffed paddy.
Now: do you have something on-topic to contribute in response to the points I raised earlier?
I suppose not. If you had, you'd have done so already.
-
Shaker, you are an ignoramus and so egotistical you make Pietersen look like Pope Francis. Anybody who contends that there's nothing we can do about climate change, world starvation or ISIS, is so totally wrapped up in his own, sordid world, it it is numbing. It is wholly understandable that a person so out of empathy with his fellows should feel that swearing, so obnoxious to so many, is an acceptable way to behave in society.
There's no need to insult other posters. It bespeaks a shallow mind, a childish intellect.
-
It certainly bespeaks somebody furious at being unable to gainsay the opposing arguments put forth, that's for sure.
-
Shaker, you are an ignoramus and so egotistical you make Pietersen look like Pope Francis. Anybody who contends that there's nothing we can do about climate change, world starvation or ISIS, is so totally wrapped up in his own, sordid world, it it is numbing. It is wholly understandable that a person so out of empathy with his fellows should feel that swearing, so obnoxious to so many, is an acceptable way to behave in society.
There's no need to insult other posters. It bespeaks a shallow mind, a childish intellect.
So, since you've just roundly insulted me, that little assertion applies equally to you! Fool!
-
So, since you've just roundly insulted me, that little assertion applies equally to you! Fool!
It's not an insult if it's true.
-
So, since you've just roundly insulted me, that little assertion applies equally to you! Fool!
It's not an insult if it's true.
Yes, it is. Idiot. You sound more absurd the longer you go on!
-
So, since you've just roundly insulted me, that little assertion applies equally to you! Fool!
It's not an insult if it's true.
Yes, it is. Idiot. You sound more absurd the longer you go on!
Here's the thing. I'm not the one claiming that swearing is bad whilst simultaneously insulting the people who disagree with you. You think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, yet you seem incapable of meeting it yourself.
I'll do a deal with you. I'll stop using swear words on this forum if you stop insulting other posters.
-
"Your quaint, fustian, black-and-white world is not the world that most people live in (and don't want to, for that matter)."
Apart from the glaring irony of that remark, I wonder on what basis you come to that conclusion? Is It based on some kind of evidence? Or just a figment your usual screwed up thinking?
-
So, since you've just roundly insulted me, that little assertion applies equally to you! Fool!
It's not an insult if it's true.
Yes, it is. Idiot. You sound more absurd the longer you go on!
Here's the thing. I'm not the one claiming that swearing is bad whilst simultaneously insulting the people who disagree with you. You think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, yet you seem incapable of meeting it yourself.
I'll do a deal with you. I'll stop using swear words on this forum if you stop insulting other posters.
Okay, with the caveat that, I'll also go with your contention just now, that telling the truth is not insulting.
-
Apart from the glaring irony of that remark, I wonder on what basis you come to that conclusion? Is It based on some kind of evidence?
Yes. The best kind - direct personal experience of a very wide variety of people at work and at play (as it were) over many years.
-
Apart from the glaring irony of that remark, I wonder on what basis you come to that conclusion? Is It based on some kind of evidence?
Yes. The best kind - direct personal experience of a very wide variety of people at work and at play (as it were) over many years.
!! I didn't realised I was so widely known!
-
Okay, with the caveat that, I'll also go with your contention just now, that telling the truth is not insulting.
Fine, but be aware that there are no stupid people or morons or idiots or otherwise mentally challenged people on this forum.
-
Okay, with the caveat that, I'll also go with your contention just now, that telling the truth is not insulting.
Fine, but be aware that there are no stupid people or morons or idiots or otherwise mentally challenged people on this forum.
Bearing that comment in mind, I hope you realise how much you are asking of me?
By the way, does our "deal" preclude you from insulting as well as not swearing?
-
Bearing that comment in mind, I hope you realise how much you are asking of me?
Yes.
By the way, does our "deal" preclude you from insulting as well as not swearing?
No it doesn't, but I'll give it a go.
-
Bearing that comment in mind, I hope you realise how much you are asking of me?
Yes.
By the way, does our "deal" preclude you from insulting as well as not swearing?
No it doesn't, but I'll give it a go.
Right. I guess it will be a test of endurance as much as anything.
-
So, since you've just roundly insulted me, that little assertion applies equally to you! Fool!
It's not an insult if it's true.
Yes, it is. Idiot. You sound more absurd the longer you go on!
I know this has been pointed out already, but can't you see it's more offensive to call someone an idiot than to swear when you stub your toe?
-
Bashers
In an earlier post in this thread I pointed out that what is commonly called "swearing" is nothing of the kind. It is simply the use of particular expressions or words which are - at the time - considered socially unacceptable.
You appear to espouse a religious conviction that you call "Christianity" which, in your case, is concerned with restricting the behaviour of people (Thou shalt not ... etc) rather than the empowering answer of a Nazarene carpenter to the question: Who is my neighbour? One of the "shalt nots" concerns "taking the Lord's name in vain." It is this last activity which is swearing, not using words which suffer the lingering efects of Victorian opprobrium.
In the main, the words you consider unacceptable are concerned with sexual activity, anatomical parts and physiology generally. They reflect a particular sense of shame that people felt as a result of their human condition, reinforced by occupants of the pulpit in their politically-approved role of social controllers. The disapproval of the use of these words is little more than fashion. And fashions change.
Who knows, in a decade or two these words may have lost all their power to shock and have been reabsorbed into everyday speech. Who knows, a future Archbishop of Canterbury may decide to refer to the treatment of refugees as "Fucking shit."
Why, as a self-proclaimed Christian, are you so exercised about secular words rather than words like Crikey or Jeepers Creepers which clearly derive from "the Lord's name"?
-
My old pp used to swear like a trooper, HH. But he'd never take the Lord's name in vain.
Shaker's right about swearing being good for mental health btw. It's value is recognised in therapeutic settings as a way of venting anger, fear, grief and distress and if a client or patient feels the need to swear they are allowed to do so without censure. It's even better to vent all that stuff before therapy becomes necessary.
-
Bashers
In an earlier post in this thread I pointed out that what is commonly called "swearing" is nothing of the kind. It is simply the use of particular expressions or words which are - at the time - considered socially unacceptable.
You appear to espouse a religious conviction that you call "Christianity" which, in your case, is concerned with restricting the behaviour of people (Thou shalt not ... etc) rather than the empowering answer of a Nazarene carpenter to the question: Who is my neighbour? One of the "shalt nots" concerns "taking the Lord's name in vain." It is this last activity which is swearing, not using words which suffer the lingering efects of Victorian opprobrium.
In the main, the words you consider unacceptable are concerned with sexual activity, anatomical parts and physiology generally. They reflect a particular sense of shame that people felt as a result of their human condition, reinforced by occupants of the pulpit in their politically-approved role of social controllers. The disapproval of the use of these words is little more than fashion. And fashions change.
Who knows, in a decade or two these words may have lost all their power to shock and have been reabsorbed into everyday speech. Who knows, a future Archbishop of Canterbury may decide to refer to the treatment of refugees as "Fucking shit."
Why, as a self-proclaimed Christian, are you so exercised about secular words rather than words like Crikey or Jeepers Creepers which clearly derive from "the Lord's name"?
Swearing is all too often deliberately used to be offensive to someone, or about something. There are myriad ways to make a point without having to resort to the crudest terms. I am not basing my objections in religious terms, but simply in terms of reasonable taste.. When I hear the Queen, or the Prime Minister, or any notable, stand up and deliver a speech littered with expletives, I'll accept it as the norm. People who swear are either too angry to make a pointed comment, or without the necessary ability to respond as mature adults. May sound pompous, but I think it's a reasonable way to conduct your interactions with others.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1So7I5qX6ew
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMQ7X3wauRQ
-
The truth is that half of you have never been between a rock and a hard place.
People who have never sworn suddenly swear due to stress and severe circumstances.
Oh and there is "I have never had a tough time" judging them...
Grow up! Some people would make a saint swear... But God is not condemning because someone swears..
I never liked swearing, never used it but this last year things have been so bad I have used bad language and shocked family, But then I have reason... this year I also suffered from exhaustion... The truth is that you should NOT judge anyone till you have walked a mile in their shoes...
God understands it is just man thinking he is God and doing what Christ didn't. Looking down on others...Swearing is no different to disliking or hating others.. In fact God compares hatred to murder... I think swearing a lesser way of behaving compared to mistreating people.
-
The truth is that half of you have never been between a rock and a hard place.
People who have never sworn suddenly swear due to stress and severe circumstances.
Oh and there is "I have never had a tough time" judging them...
Grow up! Some people would make a saint swear... But God is not condemning because someone swears..
I never liked swearing, never used it but this last year things have been so bad I have used bad language and shocked family, But then I have reason... this year I also suffered from exhaustion... The truth is that you should NOT judge anyone till you have walked a mile in their shoes...
God understands it is just man thinking he is God and doing what Christ didn't. Looking down on others...Swearing is no different to disliking or hating others.. In fact God compares hatred to murder... I think swearing a lesser way of behaving compared to mistreating people.
Sass is a clone of the deity and knows exactly what it is thinking! ;D ;D ;D
-
The truth is that half of you have never been between a rock and a hard place.
People who have never sworn suddenly swear due to stress and severe circumstances.
Oh and there is "I have never had a tough time" judging them...
Grow up! Some people would make a saint swear... But God is not condemning because someone swears..
I never liked swearing, never used it but this last year things have been so bad I have used bad language and shocked family, But then I have reason... this year I also suffered from exhaustion... The truth is that you should NOT judge anyone till you have walked a mile in their shoes...
God understands it is just man thinking he is God and doing what Christ didn't. Looking down on others...Swearing is no different to disliking or hating others.. In fact God compares hatred to murder... I think swearing a lesser way of behaving compared to mistreating people.
Sass is a clone of the deity and knows exactly what it is thinking! ;D ;D ;D
Bus Sass does have a point - whether she recognises it or not is a different matter. But any god isn't going to be bothered about swearing. He, she, it or they, frankly, couldn't give a damn!
Swearing is a social not a theological matter. It consists of using words whose use is contrary to the prevailing norm. The prevailing norm changes and yesterday's swear words are today's acceptable vocabulary.
In current English, words current carrying some level of social disapproval are mostly related to sex. Our parents were embarrassed about sex so any reference was camoflaged with neutral words like mate - which is what animals did. The use of the vulgar, common or garden expression was beyond the pale. Now, everybody (almost) says "fuck" and nobody turns a hair. The bad words now are related to ethnicity the most obvious being one which begins with "n".
It is interesting that a couple of years ago it seemed as though a new forbidden word was emerging. It began with "p" and was a shortened version of a word meaning "not aristocratic" and policement guarding the gateway to Downing Street appeared to consider the "p word" the most insulting and upsetting thing they had ever heard (or said they had heard).
And a judge agreed with them.
-
Now, everybody (almost) says "fuck" and nobody turns a hair.
... except for Bashful Anthony, who not only turns a hair but whose entire wig spins around.
-
Now, everybody (almost) says "fuck" and nobody turns a hair.
[/b]
... except for Bashful Anthony, who not only turns a hair but whose entire wig spins around.
No everybody does not. They may in the circles you mix with. How often do you hear it in the news, political programmes, documentaries, any intelligent programmes, or by any people with decent standards? Why do we not hear swearing on these programmes, if it is acceptable - not that many of you foul-mouths would look at any intelligent programmes! The thing is, you try desperately to justify your nasty habit, but it's only nasty people, with no control, no decent vocabulary, no standards, who do it.
-
How often do you hear it in the news, political programmes, documentaries, any intelligent programmes, or by any people with decent standards?
How often do you hear them calling their opponents twerps or trolls? Your protestations might be more credible if you weren't so quick to insult people.
-
How often do you hear it in the news, political programmes, documentaries, any intelligent programmes, or by any people with decent standards?
How often do you hear them calling their opponents twerps or trolls? Your protestations might be more credible if you weren't so quick to insult people.
I prefer to call it being honest, and without the necessity to use expletives. I hear people on tv and the radio, calling others names from time to time, but I do not hear them swearing. If it is okay to swear, why is it still referred to as "bad language?"
-
The thing is, you try desperately to justify your nasty habit, but it's only nasty people, with no control, no decent vocabulary, no standards, who do it.
People like Prince Philip?
I wonder if the Queen will be suing for divorce any time soon because he obviously a very nasty guy.
-
No everybody does not. They may in the circles you mix with.
Which is a broad spectrum of ordinary people.
How often do you hear it in the news, political programmes, documentaries, any intelligent programmes, or by any people with decent standards?
News, not at all, because these tend to be the most tight-arsed, suit-collar-and-tie modes of broadcasting in this country.
Political programmes? Sometimes.
Documentaries? Quite a lot. Watch more documentaries.
Why do we not hear swearing on these programmes, if it is acceptable - not that many of you foul-mouths would look at any intelligent programmes! The thing is, you try desperately to justify your nasty habit, but it's only nasty people, with no control, no decent vocabulary, no standards, who do it.
It's only prudes who think it's still 1937, unable to take on board the fact that times have changed and the world has moved on without them, who complain.
-
How often do you hear it in the news, political programmes, documentaries, any intelligent programmes, or by any people with decent standards?
How often do you hear them calling their opponents twerps or trolls? Your protestations might be more credible if you weren't so quick to insult people.
I prefer to call it being honest, and without the necessity to use expletives. I hear people on tv and the radio, calling others names from time to time, but I do not hear them swearing. If it is okay to swear, why is it still referred to as "bad language?"
So, you consider calling people by words which they find demeaning, insulting and offensive is "being honest"? And the only justification for this is that they have said something with which you disagree. If you met them face to face, and did not have the anonymity which this forum gives, would you still use the same demeaning, insulting and offensive words?
How do you accommodate this with your primary requirement, since you proclaim yourself to be Christian, to exercise charity?
How is it preferable to cause people pain by the way you address them than to use odd words which are arbitrarily not considered socially acceptable?
-
I prefer to call it being honest,
What you call it is of no consequence.
You are a complete hypocrite.
-
I prefer to call it being honest,
What you call it is of no consequence.
You are a complete hypocrite.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh my, Jeremy, how succintly true! Thank you for that belly laugh so early in the morning!
-
A certain 'Christian' poster on this forum seems to be a grand master where hypocrisy is concerned. :o Whilst they accuse others of hypocrisy, and goodness knows what else, they fail to realise how huge is the beam in their own eye!
-
Interesting debate the other day as to whether it is acceptable for the police to swear at a person thy are questioning/stopping in the street/arresting.
Any thoughts?
-
Interesting debate the other day as to whether it is acceptable for the police to swear at a person thy are questioning/stopping in the street/arresting.
Any thoughts?
Perhaps they feel that if they use a linguistic register similar to the one they perceive their victim client to habitually use, their communication with him may be more effective.
-
"Just take the fucking photograph"
-
Interesting debate the other day as to whether it is acceptable for the police to swear at a person thy are questioning/stopping in the street/arresting.
Any thoughts?
Yes, it would be totally unprofessional.
-
"Just take the fucking photograph"
It is a wonder his Missus hasn't had him locked in the Tower! ;D
-
"Just take the fucking photograph"
It is a wonder his Missus hasn't had him locked in the Tower! ;D
I expect she was thinking it too. She just didn't say it.
-
I prefer to call it being honest,
What you call it is of no consequence.
You are a complete hypocrite.
What you, as an amateur theologian, amateur scientist, amateur everything (obvious to everyone except yourself) call is usually presumptuous clap-trap; and you know it: that's why you criticise others, because in your heart you know you are a charlatan. Your vile use of expletives is a further example of your realisation of your real inadequacy, and you hide behind the bluster. It's only naive souls (oops, sorry, you don't have one of those!) like Floo, who put even an iota of credence in what you say, and she doesn't know better.
-
What you call it is of no consequence.
You are a complete hypocrite.
With apologies to Mr Burns for the misquote,
"Oh would some power the giftie give him, to see himself as others see him."
-
What you call it is of no consequence.
You are a complete hypocrite.
With apologies to Mr Burns for the misquote,
"Oh would some power the giftie give him, to see himself as others see him."
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us! Is the correct quote, and it applies to you as much as anyone, as I have said in the past. But then it is given that you will side with anyone who disses me, even foul-mouthed pedants and know-alls.