Recently I have been demeaned by a christian that takes exception to my language. He/she says that I prove that I am of low quality because I use such language (in so many words). Actually, what agnostic enlightener posted is "why do you have to use such vulgar language? is that THE only vocabulary that you know?"
The fact is that every powerful successful leader on both sides of the proverbial aisle used and uses such language. The fact is the content is what is important. The type of language one uses is a tool of expression to elicit reaction and action by the audience. I purposely use such language because christians don't like it. They find it vulgar and offensive, yet without using cuss words they use language that is explicitly vulgar to me.
Ben Franklin was an advocate of vulgar language, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, and just about every famous general of every military in the world throughout history famously used cuss words.
I find statements by christians to be vulgar and absurd. Language like:
"I'll pray for you."
In fact, I find not only the language by christians offensive, I find their obtrusiveness offensive. How they expect me to respect and obey their religion and yet they deny respect to anything that doesn't agree with their myth.
So you christians that want ME to edit my language to fit YOUR sensibilities, I say......FUCK YOU!
I don't choose to be William Shakespear to relate reality, I would rather be Edgar Allen Poe and expose the hard vulgar fact that is reality.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Mycob4
"The type of language one uses is a tool of expression to elicit reaction and action by the audience."
I agree. My only reservation would be against overuse, which weakens the force of these words. They need to hit the listener unexpectedly like a shit storm out of a blue sky.
As far as I know there's nothing in the Bible that forbids foul language, except for the commandment about taking god's name in vain. So unless god's name is "fuck" or "shit" I think you're on safe ground.
your comments don`t help see if you used that kind of language to your mother or father if they wouldn`t slap you in the head,or if you used that in school.The words we use do have meaning and the way we phrase them by you condoning his behavior your not helping matters any.
@ agnostic enlightener
You don't know how I speak to other people and it isn't your concern anyway. As far as helping matters...WHAT matters?
I will continue to use whatever language I choose so don't think that you have any authority to edit my or anyone else's language because you don't. If it pisses you off GOOD!
I think you are a liar in the first place. You are no more "agnostic" as I am a christian. Even your avatar is a lie. As if you possess the mental capability of Einstein....pshaw!
Look at the language you used in this post. You invoked MY personal family. People that you know nothing about. Then you condoned violence as a solution to what YOU have deemed a problem. That is very christian of you.
1) Imposing your values then advocating violence. That smacks of pure christian idealism.
2) Assuming facts that you cannot know, because you cannot know how I speak to other people....again, a very christian practice.
What's next? Are you going to start dictating what everyone thinks? You have ZERO authority, so fuck off asshole!
Well he is either a liar or has undergone a rather radical series of changes since joining this forum. In case you didn't notice this the same person who used the name "skeptical christian" (they changed their name). I present this as evidence for my claim. In this message we can see you (mykcob4) responding to a post from "skeptical christian"; yet clearly it is now a response to a message from "agnostic enlightener" (when he changed his name it retroactively changed the name on all of his past posts).
@ae:
"The words we use do have meaning and the way we phrase them"
That's why we have grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Without those things, meanings can be lost, obscured, or even reversed.
Perhaps religionists have a point. In my view, redundant words never enhance understanding or communication. I think 'atheists' (rather than humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, etc) are associated in many people's minds with bad language or bad manners. Religionists recognize that association is a sweeping generalization and it may be unjust, but such an association doesn't help the case against religion.
For me, bad language in a discussion is a bit like mention of Hitler, it is usually time to look elsewhere. Swearing (among other redundancies) simply detract from substance for most people. That's my observation.
@ZeffD:
"I think 'atheists' (rather than humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, etc) are associated in many people's minds with bad language or bad manners."
I haven't heard that before. I think the ultimate in bad manners is to launch into prayers at the start of a meal or meeting on the assumption that everyone present is a cultist. That happened to me countless times when I was on a high school board. I politely sat in silence while the Christians intoned their offensive gibberish. Imagine calling on god for wisdom. The very act is evidence of idiocy.
Oh, you were demeaned? Do you need a safe space, or a capichino machine?
I generally just laugh it off, one guy said he was praying that I would come to Jesus after he saw that I disproved his whole nonsensical cult, so I told him that I would pray for him to grow a brain.
No Harry Truman, I'm just fine. I can DEAL with reality. It's the believers that can't handle the real world.
I once, long ago, was in a discussion with an artist about the artistic ability of Norman Rockwell. I said he was a very good artist. My friend said, "No, he is a good illustrator."
I said he's not an artist? He said "No, he doesn't create art. He creates illustrations devoid of reality." And that is the point here. Explicit language illustrates the reality of the world. If one cannot accept "bad" language, one cannot accept the harsh reality of life.
I don't care about being insulted, demeaned, only about being censored. So don't think that I am acting out that I felt anything about the condescending insult. Of that, I couldn't care less. I object to censorship, of dismissing content simply because the type of language used doesn't fit the sensibilities of a frail person that refuses to face reality.
Well take a look at this jackass:
http://www.debate.org/followerofchrist1955/
I really hate this guy, he never uses any real arguments, instead he tries the old 'you're going to hell because you disagree with me' approach. Its really annoying.
I'm with MYKCOB4...on this...
If and when I post...its because I have something to say...and when I have something to say...I choose the words I use.....I choose the tone of the post I use....I choose the language I use ..... I will not be censored by anyone....on content or on tone.... I believe there is NO limit on freedom of speech........NOTHING (legal) is ruled out......content, language or tone.
Communication is difficult enough without imposing totally false rules of vocabulary on posters..... the only tools we have are grammar , punctuation and the actual language we choose to use....I see no reason to self censor..
Now if any one has a problem with that....I deem it to be their problem.......and they have no right to try to impose their problems on me...similarly no right to try to impose their ,self professed ,standards on me.....
So.as far as I'm concerned.....you flame on mykcob ....flame on ......if you feel passionately about something...show it.
That's correct,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I mean.. why are these words so bad anyway? The reason today's "fuck" is considered so profane is because someone in power (way back in time) didn't like it. Simple as that. They're just words.
I like to use them because they really do convey emotion, command attention and can also add extra flavor in humor but like anything in life, too much isn't a good thing. If you agree with me, then great. If not.. then Fuck it.
The only words that would get one banned are the racist, homophobic, sexist, threatening ones. And really, they are the truly vulgar ones, not the word fuck.
That's the truth.
when you write this profanity you may be not aware of who is reading this vulgar writing, it may be offensive to Christians and men and women.Can you please cut it out. please show some consideration to people.i think that you, like a lot of others on this site have a anger issue.You espouse hate a lot of you atheist and secularist have a lot of built in resentment towards people who think differently from you.get help please
ae: "when you write this profanity you may be not aware of who is reading this vulgar writing, it may be offensive to Christians and men and women."
Caveat emptor.
@AE:
"You espouse hate a lot of you atheist and secularist have a lot of built in resentment towards people who think differently from you."
LOL. Look at the history of Christianity. Start with the Crusaders and the Inquisition and work your way forward through the religious wars in Europe, and the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre, to the Irish troubles, the KKK, and the WBC. Atheists are innocent bystanders, appalled eyewitnesses, and often victims of homicidal Christian hatred and cruelty.
The crusades were a military retaliation against Muslim aggression, the guys who had attacked Constantinople remember?
I thought the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem from the Muslims. After doing that (and murdering most of the inhabitants) in 1099, they also went on to sack Constantinople in 1204. The Ottoman Muslims didn't take Constantinople until the middle of the 15th century.
No Truman The Crusades were always about stealing wealth from foreign peoples.
I have a history book with me and it says different. The Muslims had attacked Constantinople an conquered Spain, so launching a military retaitation wouldn't have Ben so unreasonable.
If they'd attacked Spain, maybe. But perhaps they didn't want to destroy Europe's only source of new technology, medicine, architecture, etc.
The first Crusade started 300 years after the invasion of Spain. Even though the Byzantines had successfully beaten off Muslim attacks several times before, the Emperor sought Western help, which turned out to be the equivalent of asking Hell's Angels to clean up your neighborhood. To make matters worse, the Pope gave blanket absolution from all sins for anyone who took part in a Crusade, thereby enabling them to commit every kind of atrocity and still get into heaven.
@ agnostic enlightener
Relativism. Look it up.
In the context of two distinct persons or groups, what one holds important might be unimportant to the other, though benign on the face of it. If both persons or groups peacefully coexist, as in a society, their relative positions on a topic might be in conflict but not to the extent that the greater good (society) suffers. It is important to note that there must be a balance of mutual respect for the greater good (society) whenever relative differences are brought into the light of day. Otherwise, there will be fracturing and isolation into factions that the greater good (society) must suffer.
What is the centerpiece of the matter? Good. That is the crux. You extoll the use of a language that does not appeal to the use of expletives as good, while others use them freely and sense no loss of good from their use. You are offended by its use while to others it's a normal part of speech.
You limit yourself to a certain measure by virtue of your exposure to others who have defined it for you in the context of good. By that measure you judge what is not framed by the definitions you've been indoctrinated with thus far in your life. Others who do not subscribe to being manipulated as you have been, coherently or otherwise, are what scholarly discourse identifies as free thinkers.You cannot venture beyond your definitions of good while others sample it freely as a normal part of sampling life.
I think the heart of the matter here asks who champions the greater good, as if it is in jeopardy of loss or abuse in the hands of errant caretakers, and if you think you are the only custodian of the greater good. Do a bit of introspection and ask yourself who defined your notions of good and why it's so fragile that even a single word can cause it harm.
What an odd phrase; almost as if Christians can't be men and women...
@ agnostic enlightener
HORSESHIT!
@devoutchristian: Chill the fuck out. You voluntarily entered a debate thread on explicit language. Fucking deal with it.
I mean you well too. may god bless you for that.he makes the rain fall on good and bad alike.
I have successfully exposed "agnostic enlightener" for the fraud he really is! He is definitely a christian posing as an agnostic. And it was SO simple. I acted on his fragile sensibilities and he just lost it. I thought that I was being clever. Clearly not as clever as most of the people here, but still clever. On other threads, I pushed this moron fraud inch by inch forcing him to actually defend his REAL position and abandon his pretenses. Finally when he took the bait, I yanked the line hard by starting this thread and specifically pointing him out. What a dolt. He just couldn't keep up the charade.
I suggest that the moderator please change his status to the proper situation.
Or agnostic enlightener could just come clean (having been exposed) and either voluntarily change his status or leave.
Jesus said that its not what goes into a man , but what comes out that determines his character. So brothers and sisters please consider what you post.Be considerate of your friends.
Pages