Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/30/09 11:28 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah you just don't get it apparently.

I got what you were saying, I'm just asking why you immediately jumped to a comparison of my argument to those postulated by people of a religious bent.

Dumbing down society? PROVE IT.

John Stossel's "Stupid in America", We're ruder than ever. Kids aren't in a strict disciplined environment where they can benefit most from the education they are getting, they are allowed to do as they please, parents won't do their jobs and actually be responsible for their child's upbringing, and our society is going to suffer greatly in the coming future because of it.

Now, the ugly truth; the FCC is the status quo. They operate within the reasonable limits of the law, they aren't censoring ideas or media ala 1984, and there is no grassroots effort to strike them down. BUT... if people would take an active responsibility in raising their kids or do a better job controlling their own behavior, maybe... just maybe... we wouldn't need a governing body to decide what we can or cannot hear or see on TV.

Now, if you can't argue against it beyond your bizarre "pox-world reality" arguments that ignore what goes on in the real world, this topic has nowhere left to go.

What on earth does that have anything to do with a machine that can measure pain?

I thought it was pretty obvious; if you don't have the neurons to transmit pain, that machine won't measure anything. And by extension, if you have a higher tolerance for pain, it could be because you have fewer neurons firing to transmit pain, and therefore, that machine won't give you accurate results. You also wouldn't be able to make an accurate baseline for it, either, because what one person considers painful another person might laugh off.

At 10/1/09 12:31 AM, Warforger wrote: I do not understand why people like you insist everyone should talk like there writing a grade A college paper, there's a reason people don't do that and really I doubt ever have.

The point being that you can effectively communicate ideas better from having a larger vocabulary, along with the knowledge of how to use it. However, if you like your small vocabulary, here's a few words that will take you far in life...

Would you like fries with that?

At 10/1/09 01:08 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/30/09 11:28 PM, poxpower wrote:

John Stossel's "Stupid in America", We're ruder than ever.

Neither of these are studies, scientific or link swearing to kids being dumb.
The first one doesn't even MENTION swearing or cursing.

I thought it was pretty obvious; if you don't have the neurons to transmit pain, that machine won't measure anything.

If they can't feel pain at all, you know exactly how much pain they're feeling: 0.

And by extension, if you have a higher tolerance for pain, it could be because you have fewer neurons firing to transmit pain,

I'm not an expert in this technology or in medicine so I can't tell you if that is the case or not, but from what I understand, it would probably be easy enough to gauge how much brain damage someone has to their pain receptors. There's probably a direct link between how active your neurons are and how much activity is in a designated area in your brain when you're in pain.

At any rate, it would be easy enough to put the vast majority of people on an equal footing as healthy humans with a normally functioning brain.

There's no biological.... "normal tolerance" for swearing.
You can certainly gauge the reaction TO the swearing, but since you can substitute the words for ANY OTHER or even elicit the same "outrage" reactions by discussing any random subject the person considers taboo, it's pointless to try and regulate it. There will always be something that offends someone else.
Always. Shit like the FCC are a step in the wrong direction.

At 10/1/09 03:30 AM, poxpower wrote: Neither of these are studies, scientific or link swearing to kids being dumb.
The first one doesn't even MENTION swearing or cursing.

Because you can't quantify human behavior, which brings us back to my earlier point; there's not any evidence I could find that would suit you. You set up a staw-man argument in this case and have been arguing against it this whole time.

And by the way? If somebody is walking into a school smoking a joint, or dancing in front of a teacher with their shirt off, do you really think they aren't sweating at some point during the course of their daily activities? It's kind of like the whole "violent media" thing I was linking to earlier; if you're killing people in video games, watching violent imagery on tv, or watching sexually explicit content, there's going to be swearing involved in any one of those things because it just goes with the territory.

There's probably a direct link between how active your neurons are and how much activity is in a designated area in your brain when you're in pain.

*sigh*

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. That's what your pain gauging machine is based on. But even then, if your brain is not functioning right, it won't matter.

There will always be something that offends someone else.

So that's it? That's what your whole argument boils down to; there's no point in doing ANYTHING?
What happened to your perfect society based on science and logic?

Always. Shit like the FCC are a step in the wrong direction.

" How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:4-5

The FCC only censor words, not ideas, just like the CBSC does in Canada.

Is there any law against swearing to children (or at least saying really bad words like the f-word)? I'm asking because I saw an episode of Penn & Teller's Bulls*it (heh) and it showed him swearing to a little kid. I'm all for freedom of speech, but isn't that just in bad taste?

At 10/1/09 09:54 AM, Proteas wrote:

Because you can't quantify human behavior,

You can establish pretty good benchmarks. You can compare IQ, school achievement, career, health, disruptive behavior in general, time spent doing homework and so on. On a large enough sample size, you start seeing significant differences if something has an effect.

which brings us back to my earlier point; there's not any evidence I could find that would suit you.

Well that means YOU'RE FUCKED since your entire logic relies on the fact that you claim there exists a causal link between kids doing worse ( being dumb ) and swearing that warrants swearing being regulated by the government.

Again: no proof? No laws.

if you're killing people in video games, watching violent imagery on tv, or watching sexually explicit content, there's going to be swearing involved in any one of those things because it just goes with the territory.

Man you're barking up the wrong tree with the violent media because that is an issue that is notorious for having 0 causal link to anything. Dipshits like Jack Thompson have been at it for decades with nothing to show for it.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. That's what your pain gauging machine is based on. But even then, if your brain is not functioning right, it won't matter.

We can know if your brain is functioning correctly or not. That's the point.

At 10/1/09 12:44 PM, Ericho wrote: but isn't that just in bad taste?

"bad taste" is a completely subjective call that has no business dictating laws anywhere, ever.

At 10/1/09 02:31 PM, poxpower wrote: You can establish pretty good benchmarks. You can compare IQ, school achievement, career, health, disruptive behavior in general, time spent doing homework and so on. On a large enough sample size, you start seeing significant differences if something has an effect.

John Stossel's Stupid in America. It summarizes all those things, backing it up with statistics showing our performance as a nation compared to other nations.

Again: no proof? No laws.

Except... the laws are already there. My idea about why we should censor swear words may not neccesarily be the reason behind the letter of the law, it's just my opinion. The reality could just be as simple as the law being based on the normative cultural standards of the United States. (as I'm sure the CBSC is in Canada). And in order for those laws to be struck down, you as their opponent have to come up with valid reasons and proof to support your ideas beyond the way things should be in pox-world, or pox-reality or whatever alternate dimension you hail from.

"bad taste" is a completely subjective call that has no business dictating laws anywhere, ever.

Are you basing that on opinion, or scientific evidence?

Because if you're basing it on your opinion, you're a hypocrite; your arguments thus far have been based on how laws should have a scientific reason for existing, and your opinion is far from scientific. If you have a scientific basis for your argument, let's see it.

At 10/1/09 03:27 PM, Proteas wrote:

John Stossel's Stupid in America. It summarizes all those things, backing it up with statistics showing our performance as a nation compared to other nations.

Where is swearing mentioned anywhere in this thing?

Again: no proof? No laws.

Except... the laws are already there.

Do I need to kick your ass now?
?

The reality could just be as simple as the law being based on the normative cultural standards of the United States.

You want a stupid system or you want a good system?
If you want the stupid system, base your laws on the soupe du jour and try to hang on to them as long as you can, slowing down social progress as much as the universe will let you.

Are you basing that on opinion, or scientific evidence?

Your preferences don't dictate reality.
You can love ice cream all you want, it doesn't make it healthy and you can hate violent video games until the day you die, it still won't warp kid's minds and turn them into killers.

At 10/1/09 04:07 PM, poxpower wrote: Where is swearing mentioned anywhere in this thing?

You honestly think they aren't swearing in those schools with everything else that's going on?

Children who swear, or act up in general, only do so because of bad parenting. There's all SORT of evidence of bad parenting in that video, in addition to failure on the part of the teacher's union to ensure disciplined behavior in Students. Swearing isn't the main problem, it's just a symptom of something much worse.

Do I need to kick your ass now?

For what, pointing out simple fact? You argue from a standpoint the seems to believe everything in the universe needs your express permission in order to exist, and if they can't justify their existence to you, *poof* they can't exist. However, such a viewpoint does not reflect reality. The FCC and CBSC exist, therefore, it's your job to put together a concise argument against them if you wish to see them gone.

You want a stupid system or you want a good system?

I want you to give me the scientific evidence that backs up your opinions. If you can't supply that, then your opinions are just that, opinions, and not the universally true scientific fact by which you can base laws off of in your own reality, making you the WORST kind of hypocrite.

Your preferences don't dictate reality.

My preferences are reality.

At 10/1/09 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

You honestly think they aren't swearing in those schools with everything else that's going on?

That was never the point.
I keep asking you for a causal link between swearing and other things and you keep coming back at me with things that don't even mention swearing.
Or that simply say swearing is on the rise without concluding anything about it.

Here's an easy way to make swearing rise: make the word "darn" a swear word. WOW 13% INCREASE! Did kids get 13% stupider or even 1% stupider all of a sudden? It seems pretty clear to me that for swearing to cause any sort of problem is purely nonsensical since a swear word is not anything other than a word that si consdered by X people to be vulgar.
It can change at any time. Tomorrow, 10 new words can be added to that list, or 10 words can be taken out. Even depending on the city you're in or the person you're talking to it changes.

How can something so impossible to define and easy to change be blamed for anything? It's REDONCULUS!

Where's the study that shows kid's grades drop suddenly as they start using swear words?
That would be a GREAT study to back up your claim. Take X kids who don't swear, take half and make them swear, take the other half and don't make them swear and then send them to school, instructing everyone else to act normal.
Let it go on for a month, a week, a year or whatever and see what happens!

At 10/1/09 05:25 PM, poxpower wrote: I keep asking you for a causal link between swearing and other things and you keep coming back at me with things that don't even mention swearing.

Because swearing is a behavioral issue. And bad behavior can significantly impact your future.

And now, you're changing subject to avoid the simple fact that you've argued yourself into a corner; You demand scientific evidence to back up the opinions of your opponents, yet you can't and won't supply it to back up your own. Without evidence to back up your obviously non-scientific-opinions, you can't make the laws based on scientific evidence that your perfect society would require in order to function, much less give yourself the authority to call bullshit on those of whom who don't base the laws on scientific evidence.

At 10/1/09 05:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

Because swearing is a behavioral issue. And bad behavior can significantly impact your future.

Nothing in there makes any mention of swearing or hearing swearing and they make it quite clear they are talking about bad behavior that is NOT cultural such as defying authority, throwing tantrums and being unruly, lazy dicks.

You want to know where the opposition to swearing began?
http://www.andrewgray.com/essays/swearin g.htm

Look no further than religion. That should be your first clue as to how much bullshit you're dealing with when you talk about what is a "curse / profane" word.

Swear words have started out as religious offenses. Now they're social offenses. They're shifting to racial offenses ( look no further than this forum, where I can say "fuck all the cunts" but not the n-word ).

They do nothing until you react to them. You're the one perpetuating the power and social problems caused by these words because of your uptightness and your wild belief that swearing translates into bad behavior and a terrible society.

/// this is not a repeat from 1850 ////

At 10/1/09 06:10 PM, poxpower wrote: You want to know where the opposition to swearing began?
http://www.andrewgray.com/essays/swearin g.htm

Look no further than religion. That should be your first clue as to how much bullshit you're dealing with when you talk about what is a "curse / profane" word.

As a Christian, I would like to formally apologize for our past attempts (and any that may regrettably arise in the future) to censor others.

At 10/1/09 09:54 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/1/09 03:30 AM, poxpower wrote: Neither of these are studies, scientific or link swearing to kids being dumb.
The first one doesn't even MENTION swearing or cursing.

Because you can't quantify human behavior, which brings us back to my earlier point; there's not any evidence I could find that would suit you. You set up a staw-man argument in this case and have been arguing against it this whole time.

Of course there isn't, because for you there's only a biased point of view and take a even sightly pro-you piece of evidence and put it out as solid proof, when niether of those links you posted said that people are getting dumber because at all that there swearing, all they said was that people weren't obliging to manners and that there are more class clowns. Nowhere did it say that kids who did swear scored lower on tests then kinds who didn't, nor did either of them say that those who swore get in trouble more then those who don't

At 10/1/09 07:23 PM, ohbombuh wrote: As a Christian, I would like to formally apologize for our past attempts (and any that may regrettably arise in the future) to censor others.

Don't bother, dude, it gets better.

At 10/1/09 06:10 PM, poxpower wrote: You want to know where the opposition to swearing began?
http://www.andrewgray.com/essays/swearin g.htm

Look no further than religion. That should be your first clue as to how much bullshit you're dealing with when you talk about what is a "curse / profane" word.

Yet researchers who study the evolution of language and the psychology of swearing say that they have no idea what mystic model of linguistic gentility the critics might have in mind. Cursing, they say, is a human universal. Every language, dialect or patois ever studied, living or dead, spoken by millions or by a small tribe, turns out to have its share of forbidden speech, some variant on comedian George Carlin's famous list of the seven dirty words that are not supposed to be uttered on radio or television.

Click.

Swearing predates modern religion, which means that there have always been taboo words in a language, and there have always been people who have been offended by them. Religion has nothing to do with it.

You're the one perpetuating the power and social problems caused by these words because of your uptightness and your wild belief that swearing translates into bad behavior and a terrible society.

Swearing is bad behavior, and you know it. You can play coy with me all day long, but the simple fact that you won't go out and do that Tim Horton's experiment along with the fact that you keep arguing that it shouldn't be considered bad behavior shows this fact.

But then again, you did argue earlier on this topic that you would use social norms to determine the letter of the law, didn't you? Which kind of runs counter to the whole Scientific laws thing you were putting forth, doesn't it?

Does it feel like your little fantasy universe is imploding in on itself, yet?

At 10/1/09 07:26 PM, Warforger wrote: when niether of those links you posted said that people are getting dumber because at all that there swearing, all they said was that people weren't obliging to manners and that there are more class clowns.

And I will keep saying it until this topic drops off into the oblivion; swearing and behavioral issues in children are inseparable, and as such, any study that makes a significant conclusion about child behavior would by extension include swearing. It's like me saying that texting contributes to car accidents and using a study that shows how cell phone usage contributes to car accidents, and then you calling me out on that.

At 10/1/09 08:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

Swearing predates modern religion

Who said "modern"?
Swearing is a way to release emotions that all humans feel. Just because you change the word "fuck" to "darn" or "slippery muffincakes!" doesn't make a difference. Everyone does it, you don't get to make up special magic rules that state you can say "darn" but not "fuck".

N
O
N
S
E
N
S
E

But then again, you did argue earlier on this topic that you would use social norms to determine the letter of the law, didn't you?

I've said the opposite about 50 times so far.

At 10/1/09 09:04 PM, poxpower wrote: Everyone does it, you don't get to make up special magic rules that state you can say "darn" but not "fuck".

Why? Because you said so? Based on WHAT?

At 10/1/09 09:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/1/09 09:04 PM, poxpower wrote: Everyone does it, you don't get to make up special magic rules that state you can say "darn" but not "fuck".

Why? Because you said so? Based on WHAT?

Based on 2 pages of things that went straight over your head like Liu Kang bicycle kicking in a village of midgets.

At 10/1/09 09:39 PM, poxpower wrote: Based on 2 pages of things that went straight over your head like Liu Kang bicycle kicking in a village of midgets.

I understood every bit of it, the problem is that you don't understand the errors in your own logic, or are in the very least to proud to admit to them, namely the whole "logic based laws." You want laws based on science and logic because laws based on human feelings or social/cultural norms are bullshit, yet you cannot supply any science to back up your claim... which in turn makes your whole argument one based on human feeling and what you consider to be a social/cultural norm to you, thereby invalidating your own argument and rendering yourself a hypocrite.

You want to argue against the FCC, yet you won't say a word about the CBSC, which is the candian equivalent of the FCC which you could easily argue and lobby against being that you are a Canadian citizen, also making you a hypocrite.

You argue that I as a supporter of the FCC have to have a reason to take away someone's right to swear, despite the fact that (1) the fcc is already in charge, they don't need your permission as a Canadian citizen to continue operating, which I would dare say makes you delusional, (2) the onus is on you to argue against them and show how they're bullshit, which you won't do for no other reason than sheer laziness, and (3) you as good as admitted to the fact that you ban people who swear, also making you a hypocrite.

At 10/1/09 10:01 PM, Chaz wrote:

At 9/28/09 12:26 PM, poxpower wrote: Yep this is the society you live in. Saying "fuck" on national tv in that network could have cost her her job.

Fuck that.

Oh yeah, and you also over-dramatize things, as the actress in question was never at risk of losing her job for saying the word "fuck," and the network was never at risk for being fined because the incident took place well after midnight, which really makes this a non-issue at best.

Am I forgetting anything?

My only objection to the widespread acceptance of profanity (not that I'm advocating any action, mind) is that it has lead to the almost total loss of the art of the insult in modern society.

1930s Person: You, sir, suffer from delusions of adequacy.
Today Person: Hey, fuck you!

See the difference?

At 10/1/09 09:04 PM, poxpower wrote: Who said "modern"?
Swearing is a way to release emotions that all humans feel. Just because you change the word "fuck" to "darn" or "slippery muffincakes!" doesn't make a difference.

You make some good points and I think I heard about a study where it was actually shown that using bad language when being hurt actually helped you relax and adjust better to the pain.

In the older days, "damn" was the same as "fuck" because we were more motivated by religion in profanity, but now as fewer people become religious it's more about bodily functions.

At 10/2/09 01:07 AM, HorseloverFrost wrote: it has lead to the almost total loss of the art of the insult in modern society.

I think we'll manage to live anyway...

At 10/2/09 12:12 PM, Ericho wrote:

In the older days, "damn" was the same as "fuck" because we were more motivated by religion in profanity, but now as fewer people become religious it's more about bodily functions.

Ericho, every time you've posted recently, you have made more and more sense.
So good job on becoming less crazy every week.

*gold star*

Yeah, I kind of wish we got past all of that. I think I can say what I like...