a plea

[jaredstar]

first off if this is in the wrong place i am sorry.


Web comic Makers, Fanfic Writers, Abridgers and other assorted creative types, lend me your ears.
I come to you today with a request nay a plea. For a long time I have noticed that a certain phrase has started to become more prevalent in various works (most notably fanfiction). I speak of course of the phrase that consists of the word god and the word damn (my own morals keep me from using the phrase even in the descriptive sense.) Now there are a few ways I could try to get my point across. I had considered using a religious view point, but I realized that it might fall on deaf ears of Atheist and Agnostics. So with that in mind I come to you from the viewpoint of a concerned person.

Before I continue I guess I should state what I am trying to achieve. In short I am trying to get you the creative community to try and stop using that phrase in your works. As I stated earlier I had considered coming to you from a religious viewpoint, (it is considered an extremely offensive term in Christianity and while I haven’t asked I assume it is the same with the other two Abrahamic religions.) But ultimately I decided to go with trying to appeal to your senses of decency.


Simply put I find the use of the phrase to be unnecessary. There are other ways to express great anger at a situation then the use of that phrase. For instance just sticking with the word damn (not fond of that one either, but one has to pick their battles.) And maybe add a physical action to punctuate. (Though I admit this really only applies to mediums that involve text.)


In any case however you choose to do it is up to you.
At this point this is starting to run a bit long so I am going to sum up my final point a while back a fanfiction writer whose stories I used to read mentioned a question asked of him. (This of course assumes that you either already have children or plan to have children at some point.) The question has been altered of course to fit the situation but it comes down to this. When your child or children are old enough to access the internet themselves and by chance stumble on your works. Is that a phrase you want added into their vocabulary especially it if is counter to whatever morals and values you have tried to teach them. In the end that is your call to make.

If you agree with me (no matter if you are one of the groups mentioned above or not) then please send it forward to whomever you deem appropriate. If you don’t agree with me I thank you for taking the minute and half it would take to read this.

[Psalm Of Fire]

Hi Jadestar! I'm a bit confused here: you asks writers not to use "god damn", and the only reason I see you offering is "think of the children, we don't want them using it". But why? Without a reason why the children shouldn't use it, that's the equivalent of saying "don't eat fruit, think of the children, we don't want them to grow up and eat fruit". I'm not saying these two thing are the same, eating fruit and having characters swear with "god damn", but without an argument to separate them (to define one as bad) for the matter of your post they are the same.

And length is no problem.

So, for what reasons to you see using gd is no good? (Self or social damage arguments will be the most universal. Respect for believers will turn out a lot more mixed results, but isn't a bad thing.)

[jaredstar]

for me personally it relates to the fact that as a Christian i find the term offensive. I've tried to ignore it but as it gets more prevalent that is becoming harder. I also figure that other believers who read fanfiction might have the same problem.

I was going to go in to a spiel about the social damage but at the moment i can't seem to think of any other then the effect it has on children (but that lead right back into religion.)

[Wittgen]

I find the idea that language choice and decency are anything more that tangentially related to be absurd. Consider a person who curses like a sailor while living a a normal life and someone who would be aghast at taking the lord's name in vain but repeatedly covers up for pedophiles and helps them move to new places where they can hurt more children? Who has the moral high ground?

[Magnificate]

Religious argument works good enough for me.

However, in case of fanfics or other creative works I can see certain characters using it with no problem. The author in the narrative itself? There is hardly ever any need to do that.

Witt, moral highground is irrerelavant IMHO. I'd prefer both these people not to swear.

[Wittgen]

My point is that language use is not really part of morality at all. If you prefer not to swear, don't swear. But trying to proscribe swearing is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Censorship is unacceptable.

[Lthayer3]

jaredstar, if something can't be in writing simply because some subset of the population finds it offensive, a number of works of famous literature would have to be banned. Mark Twain comes to mind immediately as having used words that today are considered quite offensive. And what would happen if a new religion was founded that found the word "fire" or something offensive. And it attracted a few million followers. Would that word then be banned from appearing in written form for the good of the children of that religion? I don't think so. Just because some people follow a certain set of religious morals doesn't mean they have the right to force everyone else to follow them, too. Otherwise, we'd all have a much stricter set of guidelines from Islamic morals than what even the Catholic church considers permissible.

Simply put, in most of the Western world, there is a concept known as Freedom of Speech. Yes, speech may sometimes be vulgar and offensive, but it has to be that way to accurately represent some characters and situations. For the most part, the Western world has moved beyond the eras of witch trials, state mandated religions, book burnings, and such. People have the right to believe, read, and write whatever they want, as long as it is directed at an appropriate age range.

To get to your argument about it being for the good of children, the vast majority of writing is not appropriate for young children in the first place. A person can find books in any public library that they wouldn't want a young child to pick up and read. While the internet makes access to offensive subject matter much easier, it still remains a parent or guardian's duty to monitor what their child is doing and direct them away from what they would consider morally offensive. There are far worse things a child could encounter on the internet than a few vulgar words, anyway.

Rating systems exist on fanfiction websites and such for a reason. Just like there are ratings for movies and video games, authors almost always have a set of rating guidelines to follow. And the vast majority of fiction I have read on the internet have been rated at or above their appropriate level. Provided young children are directed away from anything above the K or K+ ratings, it is highly unlikely they would encounter any offensive language. And web filters have evolved tremendously since they were invented. I'd imagine there are even some quality free filters that can effectively prevent a child from even seeing a curse word on the internet.

last edited - 11:28

[Psalm Of Fire]

jaredstar, if something can't be in writing simply because some subset of the population finds it offensive, a number of works of famous literature would have to be banned. Mark Twain comes to mind immediately as having used words that today are considered quite offensive. And what would happen if a new religion was founded that found the word "fire" or something offensive. And it attracted a few million followers. Would that word then be banned from appearing in written form for the good of the children of that religion? I don't think so. Just because some people follow a certain set of religious morals doesn't mean they have the right to force everyone else to follow them, too. Otherwise, we'd all have a much stricter set of guidelines from Islamic morals than what even the Catholic church considers permissible.

Simply put, in most of the Western world, there is a concept known as Freedom of Speech. Yes, speech may sometimes be vulgar and offensive, but it has to be that way to accurately represent some characters and situations. For the most part, the Western world has moved beyond the eras of witch trials, state mandated religions, book burnings, and such. People have the right to believe, read, and write whatever they want, as long as it is directed at an appropriate age range.

He never suggested banning. He only asked that we exercise our freedom through restraint. There's a large difference between people refraining from exercising their right to swear via respect or audience considerations, and asking to put it into law.

it still remains a parent or guardian's duty to monitor what their child is doing and direct them away from what they would consider morally offensive.

Agreed, and it's also their responsibility to prepare the child for when they encounter stuff in their life.

My point is that language use is not really part of morality at all. If you prefer not to swear, don't swear. But trying to proscribe swearing is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Censorship is unacceptable.

I don't know... I feel like your argument isn't specific to language. For instance:

I find the idea that domestic abuse and decency are anything more that tangentially related to be absurd. Consider a person who occasionally beats their wife, while living an otherwise normal life and someone who would be aghast at taking a candy barn but repeatedly covers up for pedophiles and helps them move to new places where they can hurt more children? Who has the moral high ground?

I'm not saying swearing and domestic abuse are the same. What I did was swap the language argument for something more extreme and obviously (hopefully) wrong. If I understand your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, it is this: Y (aiding pedophiles) is so much worse than X (language), that doing X or not shouldn't be considered a part of morality. I don't find that to be a useful argument. A teaspoon of gasoline swallowed may not kill you, but it's still not a smart thing to keep doing. Either the thing (in context) is wrong, and should not be done, or it's not wrong, and is fine to use.

Shouldn't arguments, therefore, focus on when and where / if X is wrong?

[Greybane]

My point is that language use is not really part of morality at all. If you prefer not to swear, don't swear. But trying to proscribe swearing is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Censorship is unacceptable.

Given the moral system that Jaredstar seems to be a part of, language is a part of his morality system. The second commandment, int the New International Version (NIV) Bible is "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Generally using "God damn" as a swear is considered a misuse of the name, unless you are literally asking God to send someone or something to hell. At which point other problems come up with morality, but that isn't the point. Basically Witt, your first point on language not being part of morality is wrong here to the best of my knowledge. I can pull up examples from other faiths if you want.

I also fundamentally disagree with your assertion that all censorship is wrong. To use an overdone cliche, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater where there is none, and such an action has a high likely hood of causing injuries or other damages is not something that should be allow, or at least I don't believe it should be. Technically that is censorship. Military concealing information that, if released, could cause the death of dozens of innocents makes sense, even if it is censorship. I agree that most forms of civil censorship go too far (banning a book from the library is a surefire way to get me raging and go read it) and are wrong, but I can't agree with your statement in whole about it all being wrong.

If Jaredstar was commanding us to not use it, I would have a problem with that, but he asked us to refrain from using it, politely. I may not agree with his reasoning or argument, but if it makes him feel better, I will stop using it in this forum. I ask everyone else to choose for yourself.

Edit: The capitalized LORD in the quote above are copied from the source. Don't read into it.

[Darkandus]

What's wrong with asking God to damn something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are there not multiple cases of people in the bible asking God to damn things, and then God doing so? Or even damning things of his own volition?

Back in the old testament he regularly went around damning things. It was pretty much part of his job discription right under world creation. Should I not ask a sandwich maker to make me a sandwich? Should I not ask a scientist to do scientific study? Why can I not ask God to do a large fraction of his apparent job and damn things?

To damn in the Christian fate is the act of God condemning something to hell. He apparently does it quite often if you don't follow his rules.

[jaredstar]

After some consideration i am will to accept that it was a bad idea to release my statement in its current form. (At the very least i should have gotten a better writer to type it up.)

I am going to take some more time to write this up in a better form and try again.


That being said Greybane, Psalm, Magnificate thank you

[Dervon]

Lthayer3

jaredstar, if something can't be in writing simply because some subset of the population finds it offensive, a number of works of famous literature would have to be banned. Mark Twain comes to mind immediately as having used words that today are considered quite offensive. And what would happen if a new religion was founded that found the word "fire" or something offensive. And it attracted a few million followers. Would that word then be banned from appearing in written form for the good of the children of that religion? I don't think so. Just because some people follow a certain set of religious morals doesn't mean they have the right to force everyone else to follow them, too. Otherwise, we'd all have a much stricter set of guidelines from Islamic morals than what even the Catholic church considers permissible.

QFT. Personal addendum: As Greybane points out later in the thread, there is baggage linked to the term within the precepts of one particular religious set. Within that set, this appeal makes sense. Outside that set, one can essentially boil the issue down to two possible points: either its inherent offensive nature to the set, or its inherent offensive nature as a word. However, the matter was phrased much more in term of the former, rather then the latter. Which weakens the appeal, since the matter of one's child stumbling across one's work, wouldn't one be more worried about ANY swearing, rather then a specifically offensive term? Why not request no offensive language in fanfiction, then? Well because that suddenly sounds rather silly, does it not?

Simply put, in most of the Western world, there is a concept known as Freedom of Speech. Yes, speech may sometimes be vulgar and offensive, but it has to be that way to accurately represent some characters and situations. For the most part, the Western world has moved beyond the eras of witch trials, state mandated religions, book burnings, and such. People have the right to believe, read, and write whatever they want, as long as it is directed at an appropriate age range.

To use an overdone cliche, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater where there is none, and such an action has a high likely hood of causing injuries or other damages is not something that should be allow, or at least I don't believe it should be. Technically that is censorship. Military concealing information that, if released, could cause the death of dozens of innocents makes sense, even if it is censorship.

I would like to touch on this, for a second. The things you mentioned, Greybane, aren't strictly speaking 'censorship'. They are consequences. In the case of the cinema, there is an expected code of conduct for which you can be thrown out. In the case of the military, the very nature of the oath you swear means that you give up certain rights in order to play a part of the larger whole. If a forum, for further example, has 'One Shall Not Post Obscenity' in its End-User Agreement one ticks as 'accepted' before one can post, that that person cannot cry foul of 'censorship' and mention 'Freedom of Speech' when they are banned for posting the same.

In returning to Lthayer3's initial point, there is indeed a freedom that is both precious and fragile in its nature. I hate, HATE the fact that the derps (to use a term as neutral as I can, given who I refer and to keep myself from being banned) over at WBC got their right to be hate-mongering herps affirmed by the US Supreme Court. But you know what, maybe that is the true test of freedom of speech. The capacity to defend that which you find truly distasteful because the very act of defense re-affirms the validity of that freedom. And really, when you ban one word because one set of people finds it offensive, where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? How do you define offense and who deserves to bring it up as a means to censorship?

To get to your argument about it being for the good of children, the vast majority of writing is not appropriate for young children in the first place. A person can find books in any public library that they wouldn't want a young child to pick up and read. While the internet makes access to offensive subject matter much easier, it still remains a parent or guardian's duty to monitor what their child is doing and direct them away from what they would consider morally offensive. There are far worse things a child could encounter on the internet than a few vulgar words, anyway.

Rating systems exist on fanfiction websites and such for a reason. Just like there are ratings for movies and video games, authors almost always have a set of rating guidelines to follow. And the vast majority of fiction I have read on the internet have been rated at or above their appropriate level. Provided young children are directed away from anything above the K or K+ ratings, it is highly unlikely they would encounter any offensive language. And web filters have evolved tremendously since they were invented. I'd imagine there are even some quality free filters that can effectively prevent a child from even seeing a curse word on the internet.

/thread, right there. Ball out of the park. Home-run. Etc...

QFT yet again, Lthayer3.

...

@Darkandus: Greybane has pointed where the issue lies. It falls under the purview of 'taking the word of God in vein', an act that the Cristian Faith finds offensive. Given that in the Bible those men were LITERALLY succeeding in calling down smites, there is a difference.

[Darkandus]

It might be in vain, but maybe if I do it often enough God will smite things for me. :sad:

And how am I to know if it will be in vain until after I've said it and no damnings have occurred?

What if I use please? As in, "God, please damn that person over there." Does that make it better or worse?

[Lthayer3]

He never suggested banning. He only asked that we exercise our freedom through restraint. There's a large difference between people refraining from exercising their right to swear via respect or audience considerations, and asking to put it into law.

True, he never suggested banning. That was my mistake taking the leap to the more typical argument.

I understand that there is a difference in asking people not to do something and actually taking action to prevent people from doing something. But in this case, that distinction is quite small. In most cases, the first part generally leads to the second. There is rarely an immediate leap to banning any action, but rather a gradual movement. And in this case, a gradual movement towards preventing the general public from exercising their right to free speech is simply unacceptable, at least to me.

Back to the original post, another point I missed: "Is that a phrase you want added into their vocabulary". I certainly haven't added every phrase I come across to my vocabulary. Not even as a child. With appropriate values, even a child can read offensive language and know that what they read isn't something they should actually use. It still all comes down to a parent teaching the child right from wrong.

. . . . . . . . . .

I sort of think language choice is part of decency, which I see as part of morality. Although how much different actions affect how decent a person is will change from religion to religion and even person to person. What I see in Wittgen's argument is that he is comparing something that can be proven to (at least probabilistically) harm other people (aiding a pedophile) with something that will only harm people if they allow it. Breaking Witt's argument down to that level, it cannot be swapped to become Psalm's argument where both cases can be proven to harm others. Language is a tricky thing to come up with good arguments for comparison.

There is generally a huge difference between saying something and doing something. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Words can be ignored, and only affect people if they let them (unless, like, the words are so loud they're a noise violation). For this reason, cursing generally registers much lower on most people's offense-o-meter. Some people will find someone who curses to be less of a decent person if they are greatly offended by cursing -- and in some cultures in history, offensive language merited harsher punishments than thievery, adultury, and more.

That's not to say that people should just be allowed to say whatever they want -- saying intentionally malicious things on a school playground, for instance, should be punishable. But even that is more because parents expect schools to uphold a certain level of morality that would be tolerated at home. Determining what is morally right or wrong is extremely situational, so global guidelines like not taking the Lord's name in vain are just ridiculous.

What I'm getting at is that even if saying or doing something may go against even generally accepted decency levels, it shouldn't be discouraged simply because it might be considered indecent. In my view, no regulation should be based upon morality. Guidelines are fine to help people monitor decency themselves, but that's as far as I think it should be taken (*). Morality can be different from person to person. Regulations should only be placed upon things that can be scientifically proven to (at least have a good chance at causing) harm to other people.

Whew. That took a while. And apparently there are now 5 new posts... Oh well.

EDIT: Oh, Darkandus, your posts crack me up.

(*) Footnote edit: At least as regulated by governments. Morality may be regulated by subsets of the population for members of that subset. I won't argue with that. But no group (religion, club, etc) should ever attempt to regulate their set of morals for someone who is not a member of said group.

last edited - 3:18

[Wittgen]

Psalm, my post was rushed and self edited, but I was not using that example to try and show how swearing isn't bad. I know my follow up really makes it seem like it was. I was, again, rushed and not thinking. Sorry. I came up with that example initially because I was thinking about how absurd it is to give much weight to Christian ideas of decency. Especially if you're not Christian.

Arguing for swearing not being immoral, I would point to the fact that it doesn't hurt anyone. Yes, if you go around verbally abusing people, that's bad. But if you write a story where someone curses? Or if you curse in the company of friends, all of whom feel it's acceptable? Not hurting anyone, so not bad. And I should point out that verbal abuse does not necessarily involve "vulgar" language.

Greybane, I am not wrong about language only being tangentially related to morality. To be clear, when I am using morality here, I mean it as "how good a person you are" and not "how well you follow whatever organization's code of behavior." I think this difference is what tripped you up. For example, many religions proscribe the eating of pork. Does this mean that if you eat pork, you are not as good a person as if you abstain? No. It just means you're not as good a Jewish person or Muslim or whatever.

Also, Grey, your points on censorship are antiquated. The yelling fire in a movie theater case (Schneck v. United States) was settled in 1919. Free Speech does not protect speech that endangers other people. Obviously, one's right to say what they want does not trump another's right to not get stampeded as a direct result of what the other person said. I don't even know why this would be considered censorship. To be clear, I was referring to attempts to stop other people from expressing themselves in ways that one person or group happens to find distasteful or offensive. Such things are gross violations of personal freedoms, and I stand by my statement that such things are wrong. .

Lthayer made every argument I want to make about free speech, and he made them better than me. So I will finish there.

[Psalm Of Fire]

Lthayer3, I think your argument is well worded and thoughtful.

What I see in Wittgen's argument is that he is comparing something that can be proven to (at least probabilistically) harm other people (aiding a pedophile) with something that will only harm people if they allow it.

What a great distinction!

Breaking Witt's argument down to that level, it cannot be swapped to become Psalm's argument where both cases can be proven to harm others.

Ah ah ah ; ), I never argued that domestic violence and harsh language were the same. I proposed that the logic in the argument functioned as well for 'obviously wrong' things as much as it did 'questionably wrong' things, making it useless for distinction between right and wrong acts.

There is generally a huge difference between saying something and doing something. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Words can be ignored, and only affect people if they let them (unless, like, the words are so loud they're a noise violation).

Hm... I hear what you're saying, and agree there is a distinction between words and actions (especially for the subject of this discussion, lol). Media can be avoided. Words said to you, however, will have an effect because of the nature of the way the mind processes language (emotional centers first, logic second). The effect can be overcome with counter-effort, but it will at least cost you that effort. Of course, this effort is a bit like muscle in my experience: the more you practice negating the effect of negative speech the easier it gets. It's a little off-topic >.< . Anyway, the way I see it is: "Stick and stone can break my bone and words can harm my mind, but I can fight, and know my way, and leave the haters behind."

Determining what is morally right or wrong is extremely situational, so global guidelines like not taking the Lord's name in vain are just ridiculous.

Is that a global guideline, them being ridiculous? While I feel almost any act can be right in one case and wrong in another, I disagree about all global guidelines being ridiculous. I don't ever feel rape is right. In fact, I'll say: rape is, as far as every situation I have imagined or observed, wrong.

At least as regulated by governments. Morality may be regulated by subsets of the population for members of that subset. I won't argue with that. But no group (religion, club, etc) should ever attempt to regulate their set of morals for someone who is not a member of said group.

I generally agree. But, again, who's regulating? Or, are you arguing that jaredstar shouldn't request we don't use harsh hlanguage?

--

@Wittgen
To understand the Christian moral perspective you need to adjust your perspective a bit more. For instance, you argue that cursing hurts no one, but from the Christian perspective it's a form of betrayal to the maker, redeemer, and one who endured torture to prevent losing you. It's a sign of disrespect to the God whom you adore. It's like, "don't talk about my momma!" It's disturbing, if not painful. (From the Christian moral perspective, however, requesting those who don't follow to abstain for moral reasons is ridiculous. Requesting because "I don't like it" is a fair request, even if not particularly compelling.)

To be clear, when I am using morality here, I mean it as "how good a person you are" and not "how well you follow whatever organization's code of behavior."

From the Christian perspective, the Christian "code of behavior(attitude)" is not distinct from morality: it is morality. You create a distinction the Christian perspective does not see. They can understand how in one area it would be wrong to shout (for instance, if you're doing it in a library as a form of petty rebellion) and isn't wrong in another. It sees those codes as independent, variable. But it sees the disrespect and trivialization of the creator-God as wrong in every situation.

Also, Grey, your points on censorship are antiquated. The yelling fire in a movie theater case (Schneck v. United States) was settled in 1919. Free Speech does not protect speech that endangers other people.

If I understand correctly, Greybane was not arguing that endangering free speech should not be protected, but that the concept that some self-censorship is valuable. It is considered censorship because you are choosing not to say something. It's an extreme example to clearly illustrate the point, and one he suggest also retains situational value in less extreme circumstances.

To be clear, I was referring to attempts to stop other people from expressing themselves in ways that one person or group happens to find distasteful or offensive. Such things are gross violations of personal freedoms, and I stand by my statement that such things are wrong. .

I'm trying to understand how this applies. Do you mean that you feel your personal freedoms were grossly violated by jaredstar's request?

[Lthayer3]

Lthayer3, I think your argument is well worded and thoughtful.

Thanks =) Debates that don't degenerate into name calling in the first few posts are fun. (And I'm bored and have nothing better to do than reply in this thread =/ )

Determining what is morally right or wrong is extremely situational, so global guidelines like not taking the Lord's name in vain are just ridiculous.

Is that a global guideline, them being ridiculous? While I feel almost any act can be right in one case and wrong in another, I disagree about all global guidelines being ridiculous. I don't ever feel rape is right. In fact, I'll say: rape is, as far as every situation I have imagined or observed, wrong.

And yet, it still wasn't worded well enough. I knew using the word ridiculous was a mistake that would be used against me by anyone who cared to debate that part of my post, but I went and did it anyway. Silly me.

Well, maybe that part wasn't quite clear. What it should say is something like "so rules should not be based on morality if those rules are designed to affect people who may adhere to different moral codes". Whether an act is right or wrong is entirely based upon a person's individual moral code -- even something like rape. Thankfully, the vast majority of the human race today agrees that kidnapping, murder, rape, and other such things are morally wrong. The laws against those things, however, are not grounded in morality.

At least as regulated by governments. Morality may be regulated by subsets of the population for members of that subset. I won't argue with that. But no group (religion, club, etc) should ever attempt to regulate their set of morals for someone who is not a member of said group.

I generally agree. But, again, who's regulating? Or, are you arguing that jaredstar shouldn't request we don't use harsh hlanguage?

Hmm. You bring up an interesting point. My arguments have continued to argue against regulating/banning/whatevering actions based on morality, rather than jaredstar's less aggressive request. Let's see if I can adequately cover that...

Let me put it this way (best example I can put together): Have you ever observed a confrontation where someone (*) asked a smoker to please go elsewhere if they're going to smoke? Generally, smokers (and humans in general) don't like to be told what to do if they're not violating any rule. From my experience, the smoker will usually either completely dismiss the request or respond rather rudely.

(*) : assuming they are not an authority at the present location, if it is privately owned

Amusingly (I personally abhor smoking), I am represented by the smoker in this instance (although I have only used curse words in my writings a handful of times). If someone is offended by the smoking, they should go elsewhere. jaredstar is entering a community that polices itself fairly well, marking potentially offensive material as such, and reporting material that violates what few regulations exist. Instead of following the accepted standard that people know and understand, he wants to ask people to change the way things work.

Think about the controversy about minarets in Switzerland, for instance. The Muslims are perfectly right (by my moral standards, at least) to be offended even by the suggestion that they change their mosques. The burqa controversy in France is another good example. Or how various forms of media depicted (and occasionally continue to depict) the prophet Muhammad despite requests for censorship from leaders in the Muslim world.. Asking someone to (maybe not drastically in this case, but moderately at least) change their moral code is like a mother-in-law telling you how you should be raising your kids. At best, it will be received rather frostily. At worst, there will be an explosive confrontation. (For an example, I'd suggest trying to personally message an author who frequently uses offensive language and ask them to stop doing so. I think the results would be rather amusing. And probably offensive.)

If you want others to follow your moral code, generally leading by example and gentle nudges over a longer period of time will work best. Creating a situation that can develop into a confrontation, no matter how well intentioned to begin with, will lead to defensiveness and is much less likely to actually create changes unless it expands into a wide scale conflict. (Although, yay for democracy in the Middle East and North Africa *cough*)

However, maybe jaredstar is right. Maybe 20, or 50, or 100 years down the line, it will be proven that offensive language causes undue harm, and there will be laws against it. (Or, better yet, it will be proven that God does exist, and people will all follow the moral code outlined by religious texts.) But that isn't the case now, and the Internet is most certainly a community encompassing people that adhere to different moral codes.

So, while jaredstar certainly has the right to ask people to follow his moral code and be offended by taking the Lord's name in vain, I similarly have the right to become offended by his request and offer verbal rebuttals as to why people can follow whatever morals they like (and accept consequences if those morals clash with laws they should be following).

Ok, I think I'm done with my rambling essayish response.

[Psalm Of Fire]

Thanks =) Debates that don't degenerate into name calling in the first few posts are fun

Indeed!

And yet, it still wasn't worded well enough. I knew using the word ridiculous was a mistake that would be used against me by anyone who cared to debate that part of my post, but I went and did it anyway. Silly me.

Silly you,it's not the word, it's the principle ^_^. Your principle made about as much sense as "there is absolutely no absolute truth", you give a global guideline condemning global guidelines. That's all I was saying. Your new explanation is much more clear.

The laws against those things, however, are not grounded in morality.

Interesting... I'm thinking back about how laws came to be. "An eye for an eye" was one of the first recorded, right? If so, what right does the state have to enforce such a code?

Let me put it this way (best example I can put together): Have you ever observed a confrontation where someone (*) asked a smoker to please go elsewhere if they're going to smoke? Generally, smokers (and humans in general) don't like to be told what to do if they're not violating any rule. From my experience, the smoker will usually either completely dismiss the request or respond rather rudely.

Been there, seen that, yeah. *Continues reading your post and pondering*

change their moral code is like a mother-in-law telling you how you should be raising your kids

The smoker analogy is ringing a little better for me so far : P

If you want others to follow your moral code, generally leading by example and gentle nudges over a longer period of time will work best. Creating a situation that can develop into a confrontation, no matter how well intentioned to begin with, will lead to defensiveness and is much less likely to actually create changes unless it expands into a wide scale conflict.(Although, yay for democracy in the Middle East and North Africa *cough*)

Lol. Anyway, let me repeat the message of this back to you to see if I understand: Jaredstar's method is ill-advised (morality aside)?

But that isn't the case now, and the Internet is most certainly a community encompassing people that adhere to different moral codes.

I'm not quite sure I understand the relevancy of this statement.

So, while jaredstar certainly has the right to ask people to follow his moral code and be offended by taking the Lord's name in vain, I similarly have the right to become offended by his request and offer verbal rebuttals as to why people can follow whatever morals they like (and accept consequences if those morals clash with laws they should be following).

Agreed, with the addition that it's really quite bothersome to get offended so much.

Well, looks like we've closed the debate between each other concerning jaredstar's post: A) He has and should have the legal right to ask others to follow this aspect of his moral code, B) others have and should have the legal right to say no or oblige.

Now I'm more interested in this "laws not founded in morality" thread of discussion.

[ewuvi]

New topic with a clear OP, or people will get confused if you want to debate that.

[Psalm Of Fire]

Starting new debate topics is like taking a dump of a fire. Sure, the results could be good: never get cold while you're doing it, dramatic lighting... but it's scary and could raise a real stink!

Are we sure that's the best idea? Why not just continue this thread? I outlined the intent plain-as-day at the bottom of my last post, and anyone who doesn't read it is only getting half the point of forum anyway.

Mostly, I guess, I just don't want to raise a stink. Last time I started a debate thread we got the Team7 Sensei Incompetence thread -_-.

EDIT: Let's move this to PM, eh, L3?

[Lthayer3]

Okie dokie. Sorry ewuvi =(

We haven't gone completely off-topic yet, but I'll contain this to PM now (since it is certainly heading in that direction, especially with part of the reply I was about to send). My next happy reply is about to be sent.

Edit:
Also, L3 I don't think I've ever seen someone abbreviate my username that way before. It works well

last edited - 10:04