Swearing. Eh?

[AThousandLies]

 

 

actually "swearing" isnt bad because good and bad dont exist its all a mater of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto that!^

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral relativism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes - thats why its ok!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure in some cases it is, but there is of course the grey area. Things like abortion, euthenasia, same-sex marriage; they all fall into the grey area, where moral relatism is applied.

[dusqi]

It amused me when I used to be a mod here, that we'd try to censor certain words, such as "newb" (which isn't censored any more). We changed it to the phrase "fellow player". In a fairly short space of time, people were calling each other "fellow players" ingame, as if the phrase was a bad one. Then, the Runescape homepage had the phrase "fellow players" on it, in its correct context - to do with 'having fun with your fellow players', and there was a thread here on tip.it laughing about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that this actively illustrates that "bad words" can easily be formed from previously innocuous phrases.

[runesmithie]

It amused me when I used to be a mod here, that we'd try to censor certain words, such as "newb" (which isn't censored any more). We changed it to the phrase "fellow player". In a fairly short space of time, people were calling each other "fellow players" ingame, as if the phrase was a bad one. Then, the Runescape homepage had the phrase "fellow players" on it, in its correct context - to do with 'having fun with your fellow players', and there was a thread here on tip.it laughing about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that this actively illustrates that "bad words" can easily be formed from previously innocuous phrases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a load of cabbage :P

[ice_ring]

Chuck Norris invented swear words so that he would have another way to express his anger that wouldnt involve roundhouse kicking people to the face therefore saving the human race....he will soon be receiving a nobel prize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on a more serious note, I dont really mind swear words. I see it as a way for people to let you know that they are serious in most circumstances. Like say I fell on the ground and broke my arm, if i say "dang" then people won't think that anything is wrong, but if i exclaim the "f" word then they make take it a little more seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's all about where you use it. Random cursing to act "tough" is stupid.

[Devilsdragon]

 

 

 

The middle finger in America became bad because during some war, can't remember which, the Americans (I think, maybe not) would cut off the middle finger of their captured enemies. When they were then charging at the rest of the enemy, they would wave their middle finger at them as sort of mocking them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was the British doing it to the French archers/gunners?(and I think during the 100 years war) so that they couldn't fire their weapons. In turn the French told the Brits to shove it by showing them that they could still fire weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it's all society that makes things good/bad. IMO society corrupts everything and anything, but can't be stopped because you can't stop people from talking and congregating together :roll: .

[Death_By_Pod]

 

actually "swearing" isnt bad because good and bad dont exist its all a mater of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actually "swearing" isnt bad because good and bad dont exist its all a mater of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto that!^

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral relativism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes - thats why its ok!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral absolutism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ God (oh wait, the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâmoral designerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢) said it was Ok!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral relativism is all about taking responsibility since you have nothing to fall back upon; all your actions are done according to your personal opinion and if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong in the eyes of everyone else, you can only blame yourself. Moral absolutism on the other hand is all about shifting responsibility away from the person and on to the person who created the morals (god, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâunspoken lawÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, teapot orbiting the sun etc.); how on earth is that taking responsibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who created the moral designer and why did it make the choices we live by or more simply why did the moral designer exist in the first place, there is no reason to place moral codes upon us. Moral absolutism is relativismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s equivalent of intelligent design (compared to Evolution). Moral absolutism seems like a throw back to days when things where deterministic and everything was made for a reason, when clearly a lot of things we see in the universe are not made for a specific reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it really that hard to see that morals are shaped by your parents and the environment? How about cases where children who were abandoned in the wild and took up animal behaviors or German youth that were brought up to believe that Jewish people were sub-human. They never got the chance to learn what was ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtruly rightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; to them they are only mimicking the right thing to do from others. Where do absolute morals factor into cases like these, would someone who was only brought up in a prison cell understand anything other then the approximate time food enters their cell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can the notion of moral absolutism are put forth when there are as many grey scenarios then black/white scenarios. To put it plainly, it insufficiently describes reality (the world is full of grey scenarios) so it canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t possibly be the correct model for human morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swear words are a good example of relativism since words are neither intrinsically good nor bad but are shaped by their context. The S swear word wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have been bad if it werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an acronym associated with slavery, the slang for black people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be bad either if it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t originally a derogatory word for black people, and so forth. These words werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t good from the dawn of time and they neither were bad from the dawn of time, they were shaped through the social consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If enough people took offense to a certain word and told their kids to take offense to that word (effectively spreading the undesirability of the word), eventually you have words that are offensive only because your parents told you they were offensive. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty hard to shake off words from being offensive when they have such momentum behind them. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a real shame when people only take offense to things because that what there were taught, rather then thinking about why they take offense to it.

[____]

 

 

actually "swearing" isnt bad because good and bad dont exist its all a mater of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actually "swearing" isnt bad because good and bad dont exist its all a mater of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto that!^

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral relativism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes - thats why its ok!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral absolutism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ God (oh wait, the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâmoral designerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢) said it was Ok!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral relativism is all about taking responsibility since you have nothing to fall back upon; all your actions are done according to your personal opinion and if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong in the eyes of everyone else, you can only blame yourself. Moral absolutism on the other hand is all about shifting responsibility away from the person and on to the person who created the morals (god, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâunspoken lawÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, teapot orbiting the sun etc.); how on earth is that taking responsibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who created the moral designer and why did it make the choices we live by or more simply why did the moral designer exist in the first place, there is no reason to place moral codes upon us. Moral absolutism is relativismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s equivalent of intelligent design (compared to Evolution). Moral absolutism seems like a throw back to days when things where deterministic and everything was made for a reason, when clearly a lot of things we see in the universe are not made for a specific reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it really that hard to see that morals are shaped by your parents and the environment? How about cases where children who were abandoned in the wild and took up animal behaviors or German youth that were brought up to believe that Jewish people were sub-human. They never got the chance to learn what was ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtruly rightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; to them they are only mimicking the right thing to do from others. Where do absolute morals factor into cases like these, would someone who was only brought up in a prison cell understand anything other then the approximate time food enters their cell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can the notion of moral absolutism are put forth when there are as many grey scenarios then black/white scenarios. To put it plainly, it insufficiently describes reality (the world is full of grey scenarios) so it canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t possibly be the correct model for human morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swear words are a good example of relativism since words are neither intrinsically good nor bad but are shaped by their context. The S swear word wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have been bad if it werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an acronym associated with slavery, the slang for black people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be bad either if it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t originally a derogatory word for black people, and so forth. These words werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t good from the dawn of time and they neither were bad from the dawn of time, they were shaped through the social consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If enough people took offense to a certain word and told their kids to take offense to that word (effectively spreading the undesirability of the word), eventually you have words that are offensive only because your parents told you they were offensive. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty hard to shake off words from being offensive when they have such momentum behind them. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a real shame when people only take offense to things because that what there were taught, rather then thinking about why they take offense to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QFT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

 

 

When you play by your own rules, you have to take the fall.

[Sunli]

Lol, I disagree on all counts. But I will settle by saying this; I dont know any parents that have kids agreeing with them on all aspects of life. I am raised in a big family, and I can vouch for the fact that my sisters kids (she has 5 "grown" kids, I have a teen daughter, my brothers all have teens. I have 4 siblings. Neither of us have the exact same moral standard as our parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate smoking, my daughter think its ok. My brother dont drink and dont like to see his kids drink, and have throughout their whole childhood tryed to raise them to not drink. Guess what? All of his kids drinks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to see a parent come forth here and say; "Oh all my kids agree 100% with me in my moral and ethical standards! Yes - they have even adapted them into their lifes"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it really that hard to see that morals are shaped by your parents and the environment? How about cases where children who were abandoned in the wild and took up animal behaviors or German youth that were brought up to believe that Jewish people were sub-human.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then explaine the numerous interviews of earlier german soldiers claiming they had bad concience and knew it was wrong but they didnt dare to protest? And the only reason children left out in the wild/locked in a basement all their lifes took up "animal behaviour" was because they was mentally damaged by it. As soon as they got treatment, food and clean clothes and loving care they started healing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read your reply and can only say Im a bit worryed about the way you simplify human nature. We do have a brain which is capable of abstract thinking. The scientists all agree in one thing; whats separates us from animals is that we do have complex moral standards,wheter you like it or not.

[insane]

Moral relativism is all about taking responsibility since you have nothing to fall back upon; all your actions are done according to your personal opinion and if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong in the eyes of everyone else, you can only blame yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hardly. Moral relativism is all about taking responsibility out of the picture entirely. Even if it's wrong in the eyes of everyone else, it's right in your eyes, so there's no blame at all for anyone. As soon as you take responsiblity for your actions because others think it's wrong, it's not moral relativism anymore is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral absolutism on the other hand is all about shifting responsibility away from the person and on to the person who created the morals (god, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâunspoken lawÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, teapot orbiting the sun etc.); how on earth is that taking responsibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's taking responsibility because those morals are absolute. If God says something is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone - so if you do something wrong, it's wrong because God said it's wrong, and because God said it's wrong, then it's wrong - it's keeping the right/wrong off of people entirely and putting it on actions instead - it universalizes responsibility, whereas relativism personalizes responsibility - you're arguing against absolutism from relativism, that doesn't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it really that hard to see that morals are shaped by your parents and the environment? How about cases where children who were abandoned in the wild and took up animal behaviors or German youth that were brought up to believe that Jewish people were sub-human. They never got the chance to learn what was ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtruly rightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; to them they are only mimicking the right thing to do from others. Where do absolute morals factor into cases like these, would someone who was only brought up in a prison cell understand anything other then the approximate time food enters their cell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're arguing from relativism again. Just becuase people have different beliefs/knowledge doesn't change the absolute moral code. Absolute morality just says that there *are* some absolute morals, it says nothign about people knowing them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for hte children - their beliefs are shaped by their parents... but they believe those beliefs to be absolutely true. You don't see some playground fight where some kid yells "my dad says that's wrong!" and some other kid says "well your dad is right for you, and my dad's beliefs are right for me so let's call it even!". No, it's "my dad is right!"... "NO! MY dad is right!"... etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first moral experience anyone ever has is absolute. Children believe moral absolutism - from this moral "data" we get the theory of moral absolutism. As for relativism - we came up with the theory, and then acted on it. Kind of opposite to the scientific method, don't you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can the notion of moral absolutism are put forth when there are as many grey scenarios then black/white scenarios. To put it plainly, it insufficiently describes reality (the world is full of grey scenarios) so it canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t possibly be the correct model for human morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral absolutism just says that there are *some* absolute morals, not every moral is absolute. Relativism denies the existence of any absolutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swear words are a good example of relativism since words are neither intrinsically good nor bad but are shaped by their context. The S swear word wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have been bad if it werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an acronym associated with slavery, the slang for black people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be bad either if it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t originally a derogatory word for black people, and so forth. These words werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t good from the dawn of time and they neither were bad from the dawn of time, they were shaped through the social consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're misunderstanding the principle of absolutism. Absolutism here wouldn't say that "certain words are bad", absolutism would say "speaking badly to one another is wrong", so swearing at someone out of anger is wrong, because you're speaking badly to someone, but using a "profanity" to compliment someone (if it is possible), would not be wrong, so you are being encouragin with your words.

[AThousandLies]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral absolutism just says that there are *some* absolute morals, not every moral is absolute. Relativism denies the existence of any absolutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what do we have then? Pseudo-relatism? Pseudo-absolutism?

[Mercifull]

I found this article on the BBC. seems quite relevant

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3460123.stm

[insane]

I found this article on the BBC. seems quite relevant

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3460123.stm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mm yea, that first, second, and third generation swearing categories is quite interesting.

[Nathaninch]

I heard that Eff you came from somewhere in the middle ages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France and England were fighting. The french were really good with bows, so the English came along and cut a bunch of their middle fingers off so they couldn't use their bows anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then at some other battle, the English taunted them by yelling 'Pluck Yew' (plucking the yew meaning to fire arrows) and raising their middle fingers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I most likely butchered the story a bit, so if you did some research Im sure you'd find a more accurate depiction.

[Anesthesia]

The middle finger in America became bad because during some war, can't remember which, the Americans (I think, maybe not) would cut off the middle finger of their captured enemies. When they were then charging at the rest of the enemy, they would wave their middle finger at them as sort of mocking them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the two fingers, and it was the English and French as mentioned before. The middle finger is obvious because of where they are suggesting you stick it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.H.I.T. is an acronym used during the Columbian Exchange. It stood for Slaves Held In Transit. Basically, slaves were being shipped to America to work on the plantations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry but that's COMPLETE tripe. The word starting with S and ending with hit is derived from the anglo-saxon for feces, just as the word starting with P and ending with iss is from the anglo-saxon for urine.

[Anesthesia]

France and England were fighting. The french were really good with bows, so the English came along and cut a bunch of their middle fingers off so they couldn't use their bows anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe it was their first two fingers, as they are what you draw a bow with. This was the origin of the v's-up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then at some other battle, the English taunted them by yelling 'Pluck Yew' (plucking the yew meaning to fire arrows) and raising their middle fingers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that is also incorrect, that is one word which has been around an incredibly long time - long enough that no one knows the true etymology of it. It was seen in writing from before 1500 in a poem composed in both latin and english reading:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flen, flyys, and freris, // Fleas, flies and friars,

 

 

 

Non sunt in coeli, quia, // They are not in heaven, since

 

 

 

gxddbov xxkxzt pg ifmk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last line is in code because it's considered offensive even then, it is put through a rotation of 1. When decoded it yields:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fvccant vvivys of heli // They f-word wives of Ely (a nearby town) - note that 'V' was used for both U and V, and 'VV' was used for W in those dayes of yore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wiktionary is excellent for etymology.

[dempeople15]

(Try to follow the language)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A swear word is a word made to stand for something, take the f-word for an example, which is a "bad word" in our society today (indicating violation of someone without consent). These words are made up/transfered from other words and used in conversation. Take the popular term in online chat "LOL". This means "laugh out loud" by most normal definitions. The meaning of this word is a connotation created by the general public to represent the meaning of the word. Say the original f-word was supposed to mean "to have fun". By the public using the term to inject it's negative connotation, the word becomes known as this and then after enough time the word becomes a denotation. Once the transformation is made parents will recognize the word as having the one and only definition. But after a while the words change in connotation as the public and younger generation becomes desenthetized to the words. Such as an example with the word "sucks" meaning in its' effective connotation "to be bad" unlike its' previous connotation indicating the sexual reference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your time :D

[uk_swat]

My thought is why do people with Tourette's Syndrome always shout out swear words? As stevester said, swear words are not natural, they are socially constructed, so why do they go hand in hand with a medical illness like tourettes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because thats what tourettes is,when you shout out swaer words.

[Anesthesia]

That is untrue. Tourette's isn't exclusively where you shout out swear words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It can manifest itself in many other forms, as was shown on a recent programme on ITV by a name similar to "Teenagers with Tourettes". Most of them were swearers, but the 'tick' of one of them was just inhaling suddenly. They went to a camp which was run by someone with tourettes and the owner's 'tick' was inhaling sharply through the nose.

[moopymitchell182]

 

It amused me when I used to be a mod here, that we'd try to censor certain words, such as "newb" (which isn't censored any more). We changed it to the phrase "fellow player". In a fairly short space of time, people were calling each other "fellow players" ingame, as if the phrase was a bad one. Then, the Runescape homepage had the phrase "fellow players" on it, in its correct context - to do with 'having fun with your fellow players', and there was a thread here on tip.it laughing about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that this actively illustrates that "bad words" can easily be formed from previously innocuous phrases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a load of cabbage :P

:lol:

[adthegreat-]

 

My thought is why do people with Tourette's Syndrome always shout out swear words? As stevester said, swear words are not natural, they are socially constructed, so why do they go hand in hand with a medical illness like tourettes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because thats what tourettes is,when you shout out swaer words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, it's been said that I'm wrong, I went with the common mis-conception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But in any case what i was getting at was the link between biology and sociology. As has been covered, swear words are moral-relative. They are not natural, The first people on the earth didn't have swear words. So where does biology and sociology cross over?