Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/29/09 01:32 PM, poxpower wrote: It's not about this particular instance but about the very existence of the FCC and things like the FCC.

And I have shown you an instance where they are censoring words, not ideas.

If you're talking about a straight-up porno video or a really scary movie, then I think you might have more of a case to censor it. But even then, countless kids in the 80s grew up on horror movies, Mortal Kombat and using the internet for porn. I dare you to tell them appart from anyone else in a double-blind study.

If you're going to censor pornographic or violent imagery to shelter young people, don't you think it would be equally valid to do the same with things that are mildly obscene and the like? Because which are they going to have easier access to; porn and horror movies, or what comes on network tv? Either way, they haven't seen it, and if what they haven't seen is going to have a strong chance to fuck them up, we might as well be concerned about the lightweight stuff as well.

I'm absolutely not afraid that it will traumatize anyone.

And has been stated before, you are not a representative sample of the population, what's fine for you may not (and probably isn't) fine for everyone else. If everyone has your wiring then this wouldn't be an issue to be discussed, because we would all be in agreement over it.

What they should warn against is those fucking jump scare movies. Sooner or later it'll give a guy a heart attack and then someone will actually have a real case to ban something from movies or force them to have warnings.

That's what the "R" rating is for, that way you know going in (especially in the case of a really scary movie) that there's a good chance there will be those scary jump moments. The problem would arise if there wasn't a rating system in place.

Regardless of that, I would never force anyone to obey my will.
If it annoys me, I'll avoid it. I don't have to force everyone else to not do it.

Then what are you arguing for?

Where's the evidence that it "corrupts the young" or whatever insane reasons they could possibly have to go around annoying people with this?

Have you ever dealt with children?

Children (especially young children) are like sponges; they pick up whatever is in the environment around them. If you introduce a child to swearing at a young age and don't try to correct them from it, you've impaired the child socially; no one wants a child who swears around their children, and no school wants to deal with a child who swears, either. So now little Johnny has to go to an alternative school with other equally screwed up kids, and it's pretty much dowhill from there.

I mostly delete spammers. Fortunately for me, 99% of the people who post porn, racial slurs and swear words are doing it just to spam.

Same difference.

There's something that's being overlooked here. Newgrounds is a privately owned media, so it has every right to decide its own rules, policies and ratings and moderate its content accordingly. Being part of this community is entirely voluntary.

FCC is run by the government, so it should have no right to ban certain words.

At 9/29/09 02:29 PM, AapoJoki wrote: There's something that's being overlooked here. Newgrounds is a privately owned media, so it has every right to decide its own rules, policies and ratings and moderate its content accordingly. Being part of this community is entirely voluntary.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

FCC is run by the government, so it should have no right to ban certain words.

Um, on what basis is that? Because I think Steve and Proteas have made a great case for the idea that things like the FCC exist because people in society WANT them to. It's something the society agrees with having around so it becomes a case of the government doing what people want, sometimes that actually DOES happen.

At 9/29/09 03:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's something the society agrees with having around so it becomes a case of the government doing what people want, sometimes that actually DOES happen.

Who exactly is this society that "agrees" on it? I don't see how it's any different from a mob rule. If people want content with no swear words, they can just boycott those that use them. If there's one thing where the government should have no place, it's deciding the words that people can use.

On the subject of the BBS being a private property: yes, that is true, they can make whatever rules they want. But as citizens, I think they have a responsibility to make their service fair and their policies based on what's logical.
If they stand up for free speech by saying "yes, swear all you want" then I think that's more commendable than a site like Fark.com that says "well fuck this, I want to be popular so you can't swear on this site".

Each new pussy rule you enforce on your website makes you more of a tool. Of course if you don't care because it makes you rich, then that's your choice but you're still a tool.

Personally I would rather be a rich tool than a poor defender of freedom. But on the reverse, once you do get to be rich and powerful enough, I'd say it's time to stand up for yourself and use that power.

At 9/29/09 02:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

If you're going to censor pornographic or violent imagery to shelter young people, don't you think it would be equally valid to do the same with things that are mildly obscene and the like?

Well first off, you have to figure out why you should ban violence and sex in the first place.
That's step 1. I Don't think anyone's ever provided evidence that it should be done anyway. From attacking music to video games to movies, the critics at every decade has used the same arguments backed by nothing but their own "gut feeling".

Show me the evidence that it really fucks kids up to see violence or porn and then we can go from there.

And has been stated before, you are not a representative sample of the population

That doesn't matter. If I'm right, I'm right.
You can't vote on reality.
Does seeing tub girl has effects so great that it warrants censorship of any kind?

That's what the "R" rating is for

Spider-Man had some, The Mummy had some etc. It's not restricted to R-rated or even PG-13 rated movies.

Then what are you arguing for?

That there is an organization that polices this thing based on the demands of a tiny minority of droning old crones with a big mouth and a lobby. Rather than let each show and advertiser deal with it on their own, they put themselves above it all and reserve the right to police everything.

Children (especially young children) are like sponges;

That's not evidence of anything.
Show me any sort of concrete evidence that societies with violent/obscene/ swearwords media incite more violence than those that don't.

Same difference.

A spammer is not using his right to speech, he's just there to fuck the board up and cost ressource. It's vandalism basically, i.e. defacing another person's property ( the BBS ) for your enjoyment.

At 9/28/09 12:36 PM, Aggzza wrote: i sill don't understand why people dislike swearing so much, they're just words, they're not hurting anyone. ANYONE. words are basically frequencies that people can hear through they're ears, but some people take it to seriously.

Well, words are powerful things and while I do agree with you on advocating freedom of speech, if someone says extremely negative things to you, I'm betting you're going to be very mad, and it's going to lead to stuff like fights if you're into those things.

At 9/29/09 03:42 PM, poxpower wrote: Personally I would rather be a rich tool than a poor defender of freedom. But on the reverse, once you do get to be rich and powerful enough, I'd say it's time to stand up for yourself and use that power.

Who would listen to you at that point? Who would take you seriously?

It's kind of like Bill Hicks talking about Orange Drink. The simple fact that he would take money to endorse a product or lifestyle would run counter to his whole act and ideology, thus making anything he said ring hollow and seemingly dishonest... is he talking from his heart, or is some special interest paying him to do this?

Or a better case yet, Norma McCorvey's support of the pro-life movement years after winning Roe V Wade in her favor.

Show me the evidence that it really fucks kids up to see violence or porn and then we can go from there.

No. We've been down this road before, and if we do that, you'll call bullshit on every source we provide you touting yourself the be-all-end-all of experts despite having no background on the matter.

That doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. As I have previously stated, if everyone had the same mindset as you, this wouldn't be an issue

If I'm right, I'm right.

Prove it.

Does seeing tub girl has effects so great that it warrants censorship of any kind?

It kind of made me want to take a drill and press it to my temple the first time I saw it, just to rid myself of that image. Just goes to show that everyone reacts differently to the same image.

Spider-Man had some, The Mummy had some etc. It's not restricted to R-rated or even PG-13 rated movies.

There's a difference between the one or two swear words as used in those movies and the sexually explicit and vulgar language used in such movies as Reservoir Dogs, pox. You know that.

That there is an organization that polices this thing based on the demands of a tiny minority of droning old crones with a big mouth and a lobby. Rather than let each show and advertiser deal with it on their own, they put themselves above it all and reserve the right to police everything.

But you just said that you wouldn't force anyone to obey your will. You're arguing that a governing body should not exist, and this is an extension of your will. Which begs the question; what are you arguing for?

A spammer is not using his right to speech, he's just there to fuck the board up and cost ressource. It's vandalism basically, i.e. defacing another person's property ( the BBS ) for your enjoyment.

Correction; he's using his right to free speech, and reaping the consequence of misusing that free speech to fuck with people. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from your actions.

At 9/29/09 01:32 PM, poxpower wrote: At any rate, I'm PRETTY SURE that swearing doesn't fuck kids up, so that should be entirely left out. And the same goes for violence and a pretty hefty dose of butt-grabbing.

Depends on what you mean by "fuck kids up". Does swearing like, outright traumatize them? Highly doubtful. However if they're around swearing all the time and start to incorporate it into their regular vocabulary then that could lead to problems elsewhere. I know of little kids (e.g. from four to seven years old) who swear like sailors and have all sorts of behavioral and disciplinary issues at home and at school. As far as kids go what the issue is, is what their sense of "normal" can develop into. If they're around cursing all the time, or worse, outright domestic violence, then they carry all that with them as they develop into adulthood, and at that point it's a lot more difficult to do anything about it. Old habits are hard to BLAH BLAH BLAH et cetera et cetera.

In any case this isn't even about children anyway -- SNL airs during late-night hours.

That's not the point. The idea is: what's the basis for banning swear words?
Other than pure whim?

A general sense of being courteous and considerate of other people?

When you previously stated to Proteas that "this is the real world" and yadda yadda ya... it's almost as if you're completely divorced from what it's like to actually LIVE in the real world. In the real world, people don't particularly care if linguistics and by extension swearing are artifices of human creation and that there is no objective basis for what constitutes "offensive", blah blah blah so on and so forth. Remember mod meet several few years ago when RedCircle got punched in the face for what he blurted-out standing outside of Friday's? THAT is the real world for you. People are affected and even offended by words whether you think they have a 'right' to be offended or not. That's how things work when you have to deal with other human beings and take other people's sensibilities into consideration. People can get fined, fired, or FUCKED-UP for what comes out of their mouths.

I ALWAYS WIN STEVE.
ALWAYS.

LOL you're silly.

At 9/29/09 02:29 PM, AapoJoki wrote: There's something that's being overlooked here. Newgrounds is a privately owned media, so it has every right to decide its own rules, policies and ratings and moderate its content accordingly. Being part of this community is entirely voluntary.

FCC is run by the government, so it should have no right to ban certain words.

Even privately-owned websites are responsible for following the rules of the country they're hosted-in... or do you think things like this and this are there because they're fun and interesting reads for the site's target audience? It's privately-owned -- so what, they still have to adhere to all applicable copyright laws and whatever else the government requires of them.

Radio and television broadcasters that are licensed by the government to broadcast across the nation are responsible for following government ordinance or else they can get their broadcasting licenses revoked. It isn't much different than other sorts of licenses -- e.g. you might own a dozen cars but that doesn't mean shit if your license to drive is taken away from you. "It's private property, WAHHHH." Still doesn't mean you're allowed to drive... I mean hey, you CAN if you want, but you can also sit your dumb ass in jail for getting caught doing it, too.

At 9/29/09 05:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/29/09 03:42 PM, poxpower wrote: If I'm right, I'm right.

Prove it.

Notice the keyword here; "if" he's right. If he was right, he'd know it. Yet I bet he hasn't done a lick of research into the issue. I have. And what I can tell you all is there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other about the issue, just that there's studies on both sides (i.e.; some say it is damaging, some say it is not). So you know what that means, pox?

It's a subjective issue.

Everybody's different, everybody reacts differently to the same thing, and as such there cannot be a clear cut consensus on the issue. Since a fair number of people on here seem to think that it's the government's job to help out the less fortunate in society, they would be remiss to NOT censor the media in order to keep it from harming people psychologically. You consider it bullshit, I consider the fact that such measures are taken in your country as well yet you haven't said a THING about it to be bullshit.

At 9/29/09 05:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

If I'm right, I'm right.

Prove it.

Prove what? That swearing isn't harmful?
I can't even find any studies.
This is a pattern with you. You demand proofs of negatives. If I tell you "there's no evidence of X" then you'll demand "prove there's no evidence of X".

Like right now. Where's the evidence that swearing is bad for anyone? I can't find it.

And your counter-argument is "oh yeah well I won't bother proving it because then you'll just argue about it".

So why did you even bother replying to anything anyway?

Just goes to show that everyone reacts differently to the same image.

So you're traumatized now I see. List all the horrible scars you have from seeing this and explain to me how it damaged you as a person.

There's a difference between the one or two swear words as used in those movies and the sexually explicit and vulgar language used in such movies as Reservoir Dogs, pox. You know that.

We were talking about jump scares.

But you just said that you wouldn't force anyone to obey your will.

*sigh*
Yes, in society there comes a time where you have to tell people to not take away your freedom. If you somehow equate this to taking away THEIR freedom to take away MY freedom, then have fun living in that world.

Correction; he's using his right to free speech

Destroying other people's property is not the right to free speech.

At 9/29/09 06:15 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

I know of little kids (e.g. from four to seven years old) who swear like sailors and have all sorts of behavioral and disciplinary issues at home and at school.

If you can somehow prove swearing causes behavioral problems, then do it already.
"swearing" is not a behavioral problem in and of itself.

Remember mod meet several few years ago when RedCircle got punched in the face for what he blurted-out standing outside of Friday's? THAT is the real world for you.

So? What's the point of that? Saying that we should obey to the threat of violence for using certain words? I can't say the N-word cause if I do and someone punches me, then he was right and I was wrong?
Banning the n-word is an insult to black people. It's saying "hey, you're so fucking stupid and violent that this word will make you flip out, so we'll leave it out of our vocabulary for now".

People can get fined, fired, or FUCKED-UP for what comes out of their mouths.

So let's change it.
What are we waiting for?
13 years of South Park and they're still bleeping the word "fuck" while Cartman is feeding a kid some chilly made from his own parents. What kind of retarded society is this?

At 9/29/09 06:15 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Even privately-owned websites are responsible for following the rules of the country they're hosted-in...

Well, duh. I'm not fucking stupid. Of course you have to obey the law.

whatever else the government requires of them

That's the problem. There are certain kinds of laws that the government shouldn't even have the right to make. Banning words is one of them.

Fuck christians.

Seriously, this swearing bullshit if annoying, "you don't say those words because there offensive" but wait I don't need those words to be offensive! Why don't we censor all words which can be used in a offensive way? Seriously I can't properly say nigg@r on this site, and every person I've debated on the ethics of using such word losses when I'm done finishing talking and just agree's.

At 9/28/09 08:30 PM, Jon-86 wrote: If you don't have swear words that are "bad" and "you shouldn't say" then how can you ever have any fun saying them if they mean nothing? Good on this lassie for swearing on the news. Its great to know people are still all uptight about that. Makes me laugh. Ach well if the disapproving stare from a granny doesn't stop you nothing will :P

Balls to it :D

I agree, at High School no one gives a fuck about swearing, not even the administration, in my book I read a line that said "Napeloan I'm gonna fuck you like I fucked your wife"

At 9/29/09 06:58 PM, poxpower wrote: Prove what? That swearing isn't harmful?
I can't even find any studies.

Clicky.

Like right now. Where's the evidence that swearing is bad for anyone? I can't find it.

This goes back to the whole "artificial constructs of language and culture" that you seem to despise so much. Society has deemed those 7 words as words as being to vulgar to be used in polite conversation, and the repercussions of using those words can be bad in some cases. I could get wrote up or fired if I cussed at my job (as I am sure you would as well), and if I do it loudly enough in a public place I can get arrested for obsecenity and disturbing the peace.

That being said, if it's bad for an adult to do, why would you allow a child to hear those words and incorporate them into their vocabulary?

So you're traumatized now I see. List all the horrible scars you have from seeing this and explain to me how it damaged you as a person.

Actually, the image has all but been blocked from my mind. So you could say I have mental scarring in the form of a repressed memory with regards to that image.

Not to say that I don't consciously know what tubgirl is, but I can't easily put a mental picture to it right now.

Yes, in society there comes a time where you have to tell people to not take away your freedom. If you somehow equate this to taking away THEIR freedom to take away MY freedom, then have fun living in that world.

So you think you ought to have the right to randomly swear on tv and not have people offended by it?

You wouldn't be on the air very long, even in Canada.

If you can somehow prove swearing causes behavioral problems, then do it already.

Swearing doesn't cause behavioral problems behavioral problems by itself, bad parenting causes behavioral problems. If you're letting your kids watch television of movies with a lot of swearing in it, and you're not taking an active role in you're child's upbringing as to tell them WHAT those words mean and NOT to use them, then you're a bad parent, and you're kid is going to have some behavioral problems.

So? What's the point of that? Saying that we should obey to the threat of violence for using certain words? I can't say the N-word cause if I do and someone punches me, then he was right and I was wrong?

Back to the getting arrested thing. He could have been arrested for disturbing the peace by using a racial slur while the other guy was arrested for assault.

At 9/29/09 08:08 PM, camobch0 wrote: Fuck christians.

...?

The FCC is a government run agency. Show me where a religious viewpoint plays into this, and then we'd have an interesting topic for discussion.

At 9/29/09 08:32 PM, Warforger wrote: Seriously I can't properly say nigg@r on this site, and every person I've debated on the ethics of using such word losses when I'm done finishing talking and just agree's.

Care to site such topics?

I agree, at High School no one gives a fuck about swearing, not even the administration, in my book I read a line that said "Napeloan I'm gonna fuck you like I fucked your wife"

That's because High School these days is no where what it was 20 or 30 years ago; the teachers aren't allowed to do anything that would in anyway cause the students to be harmed or to become angry. Go ask your parents or grandparents what would happen to them if they swore in school, and you'll get the general idea of how much things have changed.

At 9/29/09 06:58 PM, poxpower wrote: If you can somehow prove swearing causes behavioral problems, then do it already.

LOL oh you.

"swearing" is not a behavioral problem in and of itself.

Says you... despite the fact that swearing is not considered socially-acceptable in schools, courts, congress, restaurants, hotel lobbies, retail stores... basically anywhere people are expected to act in a civil manner. So, I'd say that not being able to refrain from swearing or not being able to distinguish when it is or isn't appropriate IS in fact a behavioral problem in and of itself. If you ask for concrete evidence that children learn their language from the language spoken around them, or for concrete evidence that foul language is unacceptable in a wide variety of social environments... then sorry, I cannot supply the desired proof for such as asinine pair of requests as that.

So? What's the point of that? Saying that we should obey to the threat of violence for using certain words? I can't say the N-word cause if I do and someone punches me, then he was right and I was wrong?

The point is that it doesn't matter if there is an objective basis for what is offensive or what isn't offensive. The point is that you are dealing with other people (and in the case of a, or THE, National Broadcast Company, an entire country full of 'other people') who don't necessarily have the same sensibilities as you. The point is that offending others because you don't give two shits about what they think is uncivil behavior that in no way works towards the betterment of society, and if anything, only works towards its detriment. The point is, if you don't understand all that by now, then you probably shouldn't be going on about "real life" and what happens in it since you're entirely divorced from the real life sequence of cause-and-effect events that people's words have on one-another.

People can get fined, fired, or FUCKED-UP for what comes out of their mouths.

So let's change it.

No, let's not. Why should people be shielded from the consequences of what they say to others? Should they also be shielded from the consequences of what they DO to others? There's no objective basis for offensiveness of speech... but hell, there's no objective basis for the tolerance of physical pain either. If that's all you know how to measure things by... then people have just as much right to offend your face with a clenched fist as you have the right to offend their ears with a vulgar slur. It doesn't make it okay if you think they shouldn't be offended by words, or if you think that you wouldn't be offended in a similar situation... just like it doesn't make it okay for someone to hit you with a left hook to the jaw just because they think they could eat the same punch with no problem.

At 9/29/09 07:00 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Well, duh. I'm not fucking stupid.

You suuuure? :P

There are certain kinds of laws that the government shouldn't even have the right to make. Banning words is one of them.

First off, for the instance this topic is talking about, the word isn't so much banned as it is regulated. Remember that Pox was wrong before he even tabbed off the topic title field -- that chick was never in danger of being fired, and the FCC hadn't actually imposed any sort of fines against NBC because it happened during late-night programming as opposed to daytime or primetime programming.

So anyway... why shouldn't this type of thing be regulated? The government is responsible for deciding which industries can use which radio bands for which purposes, as well as who gets to use which frequencies within them. They're basically analogous to highways and roads. The government then, has in its best interests to make sure that individual broadcasters are using those frequencies responsibly just like they have it in their best interests to make sure that individual drivers are using highways and roads responsibly. Saying that there shouldn't be ANY sort of regulation for what is or isn't acceptable usage of government-regulated airwaves (e.g. what content ratings can air within what time slots) is almost like saying that there shouldn't be any regulation for which side of the street people are allowed to drive on government-regulated roads. They're both mediums of transport and both should be used by private entities in a manner that acts responsibly towards everyone else who partakes of their usage.

At 9/29/09 08:32 PM, Warforger wrote: I agree, at High School no one gives a fuck about swearing, not even the administration, in my book I read a line that said "Napeloan I'm gonna fuck you like I fucked your wife"

Get your cellphone and record a video of you telling your math teacher to go fuck his/her faggot-self in front of the whole class. Come back here and show us all how that works out for you.

Apparently, no one has ever stepped in a public building in they're life. I hear 10 year old kids curse so casually its not even funny.

At 9/29/09 08:54 PM, Proteas wrote:

I could get wrote up or fired if I cussed at my job (as I am sure you would as well), and if I do it loudly enough in a public place I can get arrested for obsecenity and disturbing the peace.

You confuse what's the law and what's science.
Where the scientific evidence that swearing is bad for anyone? ???
??? Where's the scientific evidence that a child raised on the word "fuck" is somehow worse off? Where is that?

Actually, the image has all but been blocked from my mind. So you could say I have mental scarring in the form of a repressed memory with regards to that image.

Repressed memories are bullshit in case you hadn't kept up.
You can make people create memories from whole cloth. There was an entire episode of "bullshit" on it actually..wasn't there?
Anyway they're not the first and not the last to point it out.

Not to say that I don't consciously know what tubgirl is, but I can't easily put a mental picture to it right now.

The question was: how did it destroy your life?
And is that a typical result of seeing tubgirl?

So far all I think happens is people get grossed out for 2 seconds and move on. Yes, let's outlaw that! Being grossed out from time to time? I don't want to live in that kind of society!

So you think you ought to have the right to randomly swear on tv and not have people offended by it?

They can be offended, but they can't come in and fire me or fine me.

NOT to use them

You are aware that so far, the ONLY reason you have is "cause it offends some people"?

At 9/29/09 09:08 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

despite the fact that swearing is not considered socially-acceptable in schools, courts, congress, restaurants, hotel lobbies, retail stores...

Yes so are women without head scarves in Muslim countries.
You can't base what's normal and abnormal behavior of a human on laws and customs.

basically anywhere people are expected to act in a civil manner.

Civility is subjective. The LAST thing you want to do is base laws on subjective and cultural things.
Give me the science. Give me the studies.

So, I'd say that not being able to refrain from swearing or not being able to distinguish when it is or isn't appropriate IS in fact a behavioral problem in and of itself.

Do you realize how insane this sounds?
You'd brand anyone who doesn't have proper etiquette as having "behavioral problems". Behavioral problems that warrant censorship laws to prevent!

for concrete evidence that foul language is unacceptable in a wide variety of social environments... then sorry, I cannot supply the desired proof for such as asinine pair of requests as that.

I want evidence that foul language CAUSES ACTUAL PROBLEMS.
Physical, measurable problems in the child.

Good luck proving that. I'd say you'd be elligible for Jame Randi's million dollar challenge if you managed to because nothing about this would make any sense given the logic of the universe we live in.

who don't necessarily have the same sensibilities as you.

I understand that, but laws shouldn't be based on people's opinions, they should be based on science.
And this one clearly is NOT.

The point is that offending others because you don't give two shits about what they think is uncivil behavior

Being civil shouldn't be the law, especially given that what "being civil" means changes from place to place and time to time.

then people have just as much right to offend your face with a clenched fist as you have the right to offend their ears with a vulgar slur.

This is nuts. You're actively excusing violence as a response to being offended voluntarily or not.

just like it doesn't make it okay for someone to hit you with a left hook to the jaw just because they think they could eat the same punch with no problem.

Pain is not a social construct.

At 9/29/09 09:56 PM, poxpower wrote: You confuse what's the law and what's science.

You asked how it could be bad for people, I cited instances of very real situations in real life where potentially bad things could result from swearing. Your actions can have bad consequences. They may not be bad for your health, but your social standing will certainly be harmed.

Repressed memories are bullshit in case you hadn't kept up.

And yet, the image is blocked from my mind. HOW ODD. Why, that must be a subjective issue of psychology, and evidence that we are indeed all different individuals who react differently to the same thing.

The question was: how did it destroy your life?

No, the question was, and I quote; "List all the horrible scars you have from seeing this and explain to me how it damaged you as a person," and I answered you.

They can be offended, but they can't come in and fire me or fine me.

Why, because we would be existing in Pox-Reality instead of actual-Reality?

Because that's what you're arguments amount to, man. You're arguing for some hyper-surreal world where you are the supreme being and source of all knowledge, I'm arguing for what goes on in the real world that you and I actually live in. So yeah, so long as you're arguing from this viewpoint, you're always right... you can always be right in your own fantasy world.

You are aware that so far, the ONLY reason you have is "cause it offends some people"?

Welcome to reality.

You can't base what's normal and abnormal behavior of a human on laws and customs.

What would you use it on, then? Because if we base it on what is normal or abnormal to you, we'd be basing it on your human laws and customs.

Civility is subjective.

Human behavior is subjective to the standards that society prescribes to it.

Do you realize how insane this sounds?

What are you basing your definition of sane on?

Physical, measurable problems in the child.

Unless you've noticed, behavior is not something that can be quantified or measured with scale, it's a subjective issue. So by the guidelines of your own request, such results cannot exist and cannot be given. You just set up an argument you could easily defeat with no effort, otherwise known as Strawman.

I understand that, but laws shouldn't be based on people's opinions, they should be based on science.

You're arguing from Pox reality again.

Being civil shouldn't be the law, especially given that what "being civil" means changes from place to place and time to time.

So... you'd make a universal standard by which to judge the law? Do you know what kind of civil unrest that would cause?

This is nuts. You're actively excusing violence as a response to being offended voluntarily or not.

No, he's taking your logic and extending it to other people. If you have the right to do as you please without fear of recourse, so should other people. It's not fair to be the only one in the universe allowed to do what he pleases while everyone else doesn't.

At 9/29/09 09:56 PM, poxpower wrote: Pain is not a social construct.

No, it is a subjective measure of an intangible concept. What's painful for you may not be painful for somebody else. You might tear up and cry if somebody punched you in the nose... my brother would laugh it off and ask the other guy if that was the best he had.

My brother has an unusually high threshold of pain.

At 9/29/09 09:56 PM, poxpower wrote: You can't base what's normal and abnormal behavior of a human on laws and customs.

No... you see, it's the other way around.

Laws and customs are based on what's normal and abnormal human behavior.

Civility is subjective. The LAST thing you want to do is base laws on subjective and cultural things.

So, what you're saying is... human laws should not have anything to do with human behavior.

Interesting.

Give me the science. Give me the studies.

Give me a fucking break with this shit.

Do you realize how insane this sounds?
You'd brand anyone who doesn't have proper etiquette as having "behavioral problems".

Um, no. There's a difference between being ignorant of local laws and customs and being in blatant disregard of local laws and customs. If I invited you to a party and you showed up in cruddy boxers and a torn t-shirt then I'd throw you out for looking like such a sloppy douchebag. So, does that mean I've branded you as having a "behavioral problem"? That isn't even for me to judge -- all I'd know is that you were acting counter to how I'd want you to act (in this case, not conforming to "proper attire") in a social setting such as that. If you tried pulling the "but what is 'proper' is purely subjective! it's just a social construct! it isn't real! we should base clothing on SCIENCE!" card... then I'd probably send you off with a fucking foot up your smarmy ass, too.

I want evidence that foul language CAUSES ACTUAL PROBLEMS.
Physical, measurable problems in the child.

I want you to define what "physical, measurable [behavioral] problems" in a child you believe can exist. I want you to define what tests, what devices, and what metrics are to be used to quantify and measure behavioral problems. SHOW ME THE SCIENCE LOLOLOLOLOL.

laws shouldn't be based on people's opinions, they should be based on science.

Yeah, that's realistic.

Laws should have nothing to do with opinions, subjectivity, or "how people feel"... no, just science!

Because then, laws would be the same everywhere!
One standard for the entire globe! Based on science!
Perfect order! MUAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

That's a totally reasonable and realistic request to make.

But hey... you're not one to force your will on anyone else right? No... you just want to force the will of science(!!!) upon everyone else... never mind the fact that you've apparently deluded yourself into thinking that your perspective is equivalent to that of the scientific perspective.

Being civil shouldn't be the law, especially given that what "being civil" means changes from place to place and time to time.

It changes from place to place? Really!? Man, because I like totally thought that civilization was just one uniform, monolithic social construct and not really a whole bunch of different groups of people competing and/or co-operating with one-another.

This is nuts. You're actively excusing violence as a response to being offended voluntarily or not.

Give me the science and studies that prove a knee to the face is quantifiably worse than a lifetime of lost pride, self-respect, self-worth, etc. Where's your evidence? Hey, maybe you can qualify for Randi's million-dollar-challenge too!

Pain is not a social construct.

It is also not quantifiable in any objective scientific terms.

So if I were making the same type of moronic suggestions you're making, I'd say that we shouldn't judge whether one person hitting another person is "good" or "bad" based on their subjective opinion of what hurts and what doesn't. PFFF. Opinions! A dime a dozen. SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!

You'd think that with all the technology hospitals have, they'd have come up with something better than this by now huh. How does it make you feel to know that they use a completely unscientific, subjective, opinion-based chart in hospitals for patients to describe their level of pain? If this is how they measure physical trauma then by what means do you you propose we measure mental or emotional trauma?

At 9/29/09 09:08 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 9/29/09 08:32 PM, Warforger wrote: I agree, at High School no one gives a fuck about swearing, not even the administration, in my book I read a line that said "Napeloan I'm gonna fuck you like I fucked your wife"

Get your cellphone and record a video of you telling your math teacher to go fuck his/her faggot-self in front of the whole class. Come back here and show us all how that works out for you.

That would have nothing to do with swearing, but rather insulting the teacher.

Error - your post was 546 characters in length, 84.43% of which was taken up by quoted text. Please include only the quoted parts that are relevant in your post before trying to post your message again.

At 9/30/09 01:57 AM, Warforger wrote: That would have nothing to do with swearing, but rather insulting the teacher.

Because swearing and being insulting are entirely mutually-exclusive and don't overlap at all.

Fine. You could still say something like "Shit, I don't know the motherfucking answer to this fucking cunt of an equation. I mean Jesus goddamned Christ, how in the fucking hell are you supposed to solve this shit anyway?" or flagrantly swear in some other way that doesn't insinuate any sort of maliciousness towards the teacher.

You said the administrators don't care, so instead of making excuses why don't you man up and prove it.

I hate how you can't use bad words in school/work. like i understand like they don't want someone yelling fuck, but if mess up or drop something what the big deal with just simply saying damn or fuck. It just a word and i think people need to use it more to water it down so people don't look at it like such a big deal.

At 9/29/09 10:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

You asked how it could be bad for people, I cited instances of very real situations in real life

I didn't ask you how people react to swearing, I asked you evidence that the very act of swearing or hearing swear words, regardless of what other people think, is bad for someone.

No, the question was, and I quote; "List all the horrible scars you have from seeing this and explain to me how it damaged you as a person," and I answered you.

Yeah you answered by saying it bothered you so little that YOU FORGOT ABOUT IT.

You can't base what's normal and abnormal behavior of a human on laws and customs.

What would you use it on, then?

On what functional humans have in common maybe?
How come some really normal people swear a lot and some really normal people don't? Doesn't that hint that swearing is a non-factor in the development of a person? In which case, why the hell should it be regulated?

People bitch about cigarettes and alcohol being taxed when they're scientifically shown to KILL YOU SLOWLY but they let it slide when swearing, a completely benign habit, is censored?

At 9/30/09 01:43 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Laws and customs are based on what's normal and abnormal human behavior.

Every country has different laws.
That's weird, I thought all humans were the same species.

So, what you're saying is... human laws should not have anything to do with human behavior.

No, I'm saying laws should not be based on things that are cultural and have no scientific basis.

Give me the science. Give me the studies.

Give me a fucking break with this shit.

NOOOOOO, FACTS! ARRRR IT BURNS

Um, no. There's a difference between being ignorant of local laws and customs and being in blatant disregard of local laws and customs.

Yes, but you have to figure out whether I'm in the right for disregarding it or not.
If you simply take the stance that "if it's the custom/ law, just do it" then nothing will change and we'll still have crazy laws that make no sense.

That isn't even for me to judge -- all I'd know is that you were acting counter to how I'd want you to act (in this case, not conforming to "proper attire")

Now you're mixing what I'd do in a private building vs what I can and can't do as a citizen in public.
And my answer is still the same as when I was talking about the BBS: if you own something, it's your right to make up any rules you want and kick out the people who don't like it.

But I'd argue it's your responsibility to make those laws fair and logical. I'd say that responsibility wins on democracy the bigger your organization gets. For instance, if you have 10 000 employees, it's heavily frowned upon for you to make up rules like "no women". Because that's not fair. And when you're dealing with something the size of an entire country, I say your laws damn well better be based on studies and hard logic before you pass them.

I want you to define what "physical, measurable [behavioral] problems" in a child

It's not upon me to do this really since you're the one claiming it has an effect of some sort. I can't try and guess what effect you're trying to allude to.
A good benchmark would be: does it make the kid worse in school? Does it make the kid achieve less in life for reasons other than assholes reacting badly to his language? Does it make the kid prone to violent behavior? Self-destructing habits?

But hey... you're not one to force your will on anyone else right?

I don't even have the power to do it. All I can do is discuss it and hope people change.
Man I'm like Hitler, trying to force people into a discussion of what laws are best based on evidence rather than opinions!
Maybe I'm one of those evil "intellectuals" Glenn Beck warned us about.... NOOOOO

Give me the science and studies that prove a knee to the face is quantifiably worse than a lifetime of lost pride, self-respect, self-worth, etc.

Huh I don't claim any of this.
If you've been trained by your culture to react SO BADLY to insults and swearing not even directed at you that you have problems after, then IT'S ALL ON YOU. It is not my job to change my life so you stop being fucked up in the head.

No kid is born with a reaction to any particular word. Banning a word? Nonsense.
All kids are born ( well..almost) with the ability to sense physical pain and emotional pain caused by behavior that is NOT cultural. Picking on someone has nothing to do with the words you use, you can do it in any language and any culture.

Selecting specific words thinking it amounts to shit is worthless.

It is also not quantifiable in any objective scientific terms.

Eventually we'll be able to: http://www.howtocopewithpain.org/blog/11 83/using-mri-to-measure-pain/
And pretty soon actually.

The major difference between physical and mental pain is that physical pain cannot be prevented through culture or conditioning. Only through physical training or injury.
Mental pain however is heavily dependent on culture. So that means that we have to live in a world where you have to constantly walk on broken glass everywhere you go to not offend some dumbass who could just suck it up instead of being able to express yourself freely as you should be able to ANYWHERE, ANY TIME.

ffs, let the market sort it out.

If people have SUCH a problem with swearing, then they should boycott the channel.

At 9/30/09 02:40 AM, poxpower wrote: I didn't ask you how people react to swearing, I asked you evidence that the very act of swearing or hearing swear words, regardless of what other people think, is bad for someone.

You asked how it could be bad for people, I answered. You can't move the goal posts back 30 yards after the play has been completed, dude.

Yeah you answered by saying it bothered you so little that YOU FORGOT ABOUT IT.

That's your opinion, and just like any issue of human psychology, it's subjective.

How come some really normal people swear a lot and some really normal people don't? Doesn't that hint that swearing is a non-factor in the development of a person? In which case, why the hell should it be regulated?

Oh, so you would base it on their culture and societal norms then?

Yes, but you have to figure out whether I'm in the right for disregarding it or not.

No, the onus is on you to prove you are right. That's the way it works; you make a claim, you provide evidence to back up that claim, then you can claim you are right. Until such a time as you can show evidence to back up your claim, you can't claim to be right on anything... just that you have an opinion on something.

Now you're mixing what I'd do in a private building vs what I can and can't do as a citizen in public.

And? The point being that you can't act the way you want just because you put forth the whole "societal construct" argument. People don't biy that.

I say your laws damn well better be based on studies and hard logic before you pass them.

Welcome to reality, pox.

It's not upon me to do this really since you're the one claiming it has an effect of some sort. I can't try and guess what effect you're trying to allude to.

We're telling you that there is no quantifiable measure of psychological behavior based on any numerical scale, you're saying there is or there ought to be, so therefore you ought to know where such evidence exists.

Does it make the kid achieve less in life for reasons other than assholes reacting badly to his language?

Didn't I just argue that point earlier?

Man I'm like Hitler, trying to force people into a discussion of what laws are best based on evidence rather than opinions!

Opinions? I thought you were discussing the hard and fast truth of the way things SHOULD BE, not the way things OUGHT TO BE.

If you've been trained by your culture to react SO BADLY to insults and swearing not even directed at you that you have problems after, then IT'S ALL ON YOU. It is not my job to change my life so you stop being fucked up in the head.

And now we're back to what I said earlier... you're the only one in the world who can act and do as they please regardless of the consequences, and everyone else can't. That's a selfish and ethically egotisitical way of looking at things, man, especially in light of how your perfect world is supposed to be based on what's fair, what's socially acceptable, along with laws based on scientific and logical standards.

Picking on someone has nothing to do with the words you use, you can do it in any language and any culture.

But if you do it in their language, it causes pain.

Eventually we'll be able to: http://www.howtocopewithpain.org/blog/11 83/using-mri-to-measure-pain/
And pretty soon actually.

The only problem with that; pain is still subjective. If you have a higher tolerance for pain, then those neurons in the brain aren't going to fire telling you "Hey, this hurts!"

Case in point; Mick "Mankind" Foley versus Mark "The Undertaker" Callaway, Hell in a Cell match, Bad Blood PPV 1998. Despite the very fake nature of pro-wrestling, that's a very real steel cage, and Mick Foley suffered a concussion, bruised ribs and kidney, broken teeth, along with numerous puncture wounds and stitches for the various lacerations he suffered... and yet, he kept going, even smiling and laughing at one point despite the pain.

The major difference between physical and mental pain is that physical pain cannot be prevented through culture or conditioning. Only through physical training or injury.

And neither can mental pain, otherwise we wouldn't have soldiers who come back from war with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder despite the best of their military training.

At 9/30/09 11:23 AM, Proteas wrote:

You asked how it could be bad for people, I answered.

I can't believe you don't understand what's being asked.
If anyone's reading this, please tell him in your own words cause I'm done trying.

Yeah you answered by saying it bothered you so little that YOU FORGOT ABOUT IT.

That's your opinion

No, IT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

No, the onus is on you to prove you are right.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PROVING NEGATIVES.
You probably never will.

We're telling you that there is no quantifiable measure of psychological behavior based on any numerical scale

THEN STOP SAYING IT HAS AN EFFECT THAT WARRANTS CENSORSHIP.
What is this, a circus act?
"Yeah swearing is really bad. I won't prove it, I can't show you evidence and I admit there's no way to measure mental pain, but trust me, it's so bad that it should be regulated by the government".

Does it make the kid achieve less in life for reasons other than assholes reacting badly to his language?

Didn't I just argue that point earlier?

You don't understand the difference between the effects of swearing and the effect of other people's reaction to the swearing.
That's like saying being gay is bad because you will be excluded from jobs and the military.

GET IT YET?

you're the only one in the world who can act and do as they please regardless of the consequences,

Again, let me use that logic back at you:
"So you think you can be gay and talk about gayness on television even though it offends me and my religion? You think you're the only one who has the right to act how you want?".

You don't understand the difference between DOING SOMETHING and PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM DOING SOMETHING.

Whenever you want to prevent someone from doing something, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS THE REASON.

The only problem with that; pain is still subjective.

No, this is a machine that will be able to register how much pain you are feeling in objective terms.
What's subjective about pain is the mental reaction to it.

In which case, I'd say again: if you react too strongly to too little pain, then THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.
It wouldn't be so hard to measure the average tolerance for pain of humans regardless of culture. But good luck measuring the average tolerance to the word "fuck" and "cunt".

At 9/30/09 02:06 PM, poxpower wrote: I can't believe you don't understand what's being asked.
If anyone's reading this, please tell him in your own words cause I'm done trying.

You said, and I quote;

"Like right now. Where's the evidence that swearing is bad for anyone? I can't find it."

I cited you clearcut evidence that bad things can happen to you if you swear. End of argument. Don't believe me? Go to a Tim Horton's dressed as a hobo, start swearing profusely, and then try your little "social construct" argument when tehy kick you out and call the cops.

No, IT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

Forget =/= Blocked from my mind. I know what TubGirl is, I just can't put an image to it, remember?

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PROVING NEGATIVES.

Yes, I do, and it's not proving a negative given that I gave you prime evidence earlier of it. You're hiding behind "proving a negative" in this instance because you haven't and won't research the issue.

THEN STOP SAYING IT HAS AN EFFECT THAT WARRANTS CENSORSHIP.

You're looking for results that can be clear cut and quantifiable in a numerical manner, the problem with that is behavior is difficult to quantify numerically. As such, the result you are looking for in the guidlines you are looking for don't exist, and anything I could cite would easily bring us back to your stubborn "NO WAI!!!" methodology for considering any opinion that diverges from your own regardless of the background of the writer.

You don't understand the difference between the effects of swearing and the effect of other people's reaction to the swearing.

If I swear in a silent room where I am the lone occupant, then no one was offended and I am no better or worse for having done it. But I don't live in a vacuum, and as I clearly stated several times in this topic already, if somebody over hears me swearing the results are going to be bad for me.

"So you think you can be gay and talk about gayness on television even though it offends me and my religion? You think you're the only one who has the right to act how you want?".

Again, I ask; what does religion have to do with censorship? Show me a religious motivation bhind the FCC. Show me where Tipper Gore and the PMRC had a religious bent to their decision to put a PARENTAL WARNING: EXPLICIT LYRICS sticker on albums.

Do you think I'm arguing from a religious background, or from one of common sense and the realization/acknowledgement that my actions in the real world have real world consequences?

Whenever you want to prevent someone from doing something, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS THE REASON.

Reason; it's vulgar and contributes to the dumbing down of society. People wind up limiting their vocabulary because they are using 7 words as multipurpose words and word modifiers, which in turn limits their own intelligence and ability to effectively communicate their own ideas. It also contributes to the ever increasing nature of rudeness in our society, because it's much easier to tell someone to "fuck off" than it is to use your intellect and wit to tell someone where to go.

Now, I've presented my side of the argument, you argue against it.

No, this is a machine that will be able to register how much pain you are feeling in objective terms.
What's subjective about pain is the mental reaction to it.

CIPA is caused by a genetic mutation which prevents the formation of nerve cells which are responsible for transmitting signals of pain, heat, and cold to the brain. Overheating kills more than half of all children with CIPA before age 3. The genetic mutation is in the gene encoding the neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor (NTRK1 gene).

But good luck measuring the average tolerance to the word "fuck" and "cunt".

Again, this goes back to the whole quantifiable results you want but won't get. The only way you have to gauge these things is to go to a Tim Horton's (like I suggested) and carry out an experiment of your own.

You guys are having this lengthy back-and-forth, when really all it boils down to is this:

There is no law preventing that chick from saying whatever the fuck she wants, whenever the fuck she wants. However, there are government-mandated consequences enacted on the entity that employs her when she breaks protocol. As such, her employer reserves the right to fire her for being a liability, or costing them too much money, or whatever else.

Being employed isn't a right, it's a privilege afforded to you. And if you want to continue to enjoy that privilege, you've got to play by the rules your employer sets. Some rules are out of their hands.

Can you imagine what sort of world we would live in if things WEREN'T this way? Companies would go under simply by making the mistake of employing someone who delighted in running their mouth off at all sorts of high-stakes public appearances. Why? Because apparently the government has no right to censor speech. But people who are offended by said speech tend to boycott related products. So the company is stuck with a bad-attitude employee who can't be fired because they're well within their rights to run their mouth all the time, yet people aren't buying the product.

There are other limits to free speech. You can't go into a crowded building screaming "FIRE FIRE FIRE" if there's no fire. It's the same thing.

At 9/30/09 02:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

Again, I ask; what does religion have to do with censorship?

Yeah you just don't get it apparently.

contributes to the dumbing down of society.

There, you've made a measurable claim.
Dumbing down society? PROVE IT. Take kids with as many things as you can find in common except some swear and some don't and see if you're right!
Wait, what am I saying? You obviously saw the results of that study already since you're making the claims that it DOES dumb them down! Ok I'm waiting.

You've even made a hypothesis! Should be a breeze to test it now.

CIPA is caused by a genetic mutation which prevents the formation of nerve cells which are responsible for transmitting signals of pain, heat, and cold to the brain. Overheating kills more than half of all children with CIPA before age 3. The genetic mutation is in the gene encoding the neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor (NTRK1 gene).

What on earth does that have anything to do with a machine that can measure pain?
In fact, in their cases, it's pretty easy to measure pain: 0.