Philosophy Forum  
Home Register Forums Blogs Videos FAQ Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Philosophy Forum > Philosophy Forums > Branches of Philosophy > Aesthetics


Aesthetics Thread, Profanity: Ethics and Ethnocentricity in Branches of Philosophy; Greetings to all... There is a very interesting thread - http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...censuring.html - about the use of profanity and it being ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:46 PM
Inactive or Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 174
Thanks: 154
Thanked 57 Times in 47 Posts
Rep Power: 0
IntoTheLight will become famous soon enough
Profanity: Ethics and Ethnocentricity

Greetings to all...

There is a very interesting thread - http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...censuring.html

- about the use of profanity and it being censored on this forum. The thread is now closed but it brought up some interesting points that I'd like to address.

[NOTE: Before I continue, let me stress that I am NOT trying to challenge the rules of this forum pertaining to the general use of profanity; I am merely bringing up the topic as a matter of Aesthetic / Ethical discussion.]

It's been often stated that: "People who use profanity do so because they lack a proper vocabulary."

Indeed, one of the users, Zetherin, made this comment:

And besides, as a philosopher (assumedly semi-intelligent), you should be able to find more clever, if not more subtle, ways to insult others if need be. Blatantly, liberally, and obnoxiously throwing around curse words isn't testament to one's intellectual prowess.

After thinking about this statement, I have no conclude that: if it's 'ok' to insult people using so-called intellectual terms, then what difference does it make if one uses profanity? -- The point being that an insult is an insult, regardless of what form it takes.

Criticising those who use profanity seems to me to be form of snobbery and elitism: a ethnocentric class-distinction that states that some words are 'acceptable' and others are not.

Having been a long-time participant on many online forums which censor profanity, I have learned many ways to be dreadfully insulting to people without using a drop of profanity, or using more technical versions of profane words to mean the same thing.

For example, I've told someone:

"You're just like the Stymphalian Birds and you're a sycophantic hierodule on this forum."

That's a pretty serious insult if you know what it means.

More examples:

"I'd like to invite the original poster to copulate with themselves."

"Please do try to extricate your cranium from your rectum before posting again, thank you."

"Not being like the original poster, who possess a male organ roughly the size and shape of an anemic peanut, I cannot answer this question."

Language aside, we all know what these phrases mean; any one of them could've been expressed using profanity.

I assert that making the claim that it's somehow ethically / intellectually superior to refrain from using profanity is absurd when the language means the exact same thing.

Moreover, I assert that the claim "Use of profanity is evidence of a lack of intellect" is unfounded and amounts to nothing more than intellectual classism.

Finally, I assert that profanity certainly does have its uses. Language, like art, is fluid and we use words as an artist uses a brush. Sometimes a sharp or bold word is used for emphasis or specific description. To eliminate profanity from our language would be like eliminating the color red from the pallet.

Your thoughts?

-ITL-
Reply With Quote
The following users say: THANK YOU - IntoTheLight for the above post!

  #2  
Old 11-26-2009, 03:11 AM
Reconstructo's Avatar
Smart As
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Louisville
Posts: 1,629
Thanks: 326
Thanked 214 Times in 185 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Rep Power: 4
Reconstructo has a spectacular aura aboutReconstructo has a spectacular aura aboutReconstructo has a spectacular aura about
Re: Profanity: Ethics and Ethnocentricity

You make some good points. A ban on rudeness in general might be more ideal. But it's a tricky game, for it's a matter of interpretation. If rules are to be enforced, a text must be interpreted as to its intent. But a simple ban on profanity is efficiently enforceable.

I totally agree that profanity in no way indicates a lack of intelligence. But one could argue that personal attacks indicate a lack of emotional maturity, and profanity is strongly associated with aggression. To profane.

I'm new to this board and am not seeking to take sides in any sort of conflict but merely to respond to an interesting post.

S.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Reconstructo For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old 11-26-2009, 08:13 AM
Senior Member

 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 6,363
Thanks: 120
Thanked 716 Times in 610 Posts
Rep Power: 16
kennethamy is a splendid one to beholdkennethamy is a splendid one to beholdkennethamy is a splendid one to beholdkennethamy is a splendid one to beholdkennethamy is a splendid one to beholdkennethamy is a splendid one to beholdkennethamy is a splendid one to behold
Re: Profanity: Ethics and Ethnocentricity

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntoTheLight View Post
Greetings to all...

There is a very interesting thread - http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...censuring.html

- about the use of profanity and it being censored on this forum. The thread is now closed but it brought up some interesting points that I'd like to address.

[NOTE: Before I continue, let me stress that I am NOT trying to challenge the rules of this forum pertaining to the general use of profanity; I am merely bringing up the topic as a matter of Aesthetic / Ethical discussion.]

It's been often stated that: "People who use profanity do so because they lack a proper vocabulary."

Indeed, one of the users, Zetherin, made this comment:

And besides, as a philosopher (assumedly semi-intelligent), you should be able to find more clever, if not more subtle, ways to insult others if need be. Blatantly, liberally, and obnoxiously throwing around curse words isn't testament to one's intellectual prowess.

After thinking about this statement, I have no conclude that: if it's 'ok' to insult people using so-called intellectual terms, then what difference does it make if one uses profanity? -- The point being that an insult is an insult, regardless of what form it takes.

Criticising those who use profanity seems to me to be form of snobbery and elitism: a ethnocentric class-distinction that states that some words are 'acceptable' and others are not.

Having been a long-time participant on many online forums which censor profanity, I have learned many ways to be dreadfully insulting to people without using a drop of profanity, or using more technical versions of profane words to mean the same thing.

For example, I've told someone:

"You're just like the Stymphalian Birds and you're a sycophantic hierodule on this forum."

That's a pretty serious insult if you know what it means.

More examples:

"I'd like to invite the original poster to copulate with themselves."

"Please do try to extricate your cranium from your rectum before posting again, thank you."

"Not being like the original poster, who possess a male organ roughly the size and shape of an anemic peanut, I cannot answer this question."

Language aside, we all know what these phrases mean; any one of them could've been expressed using profanity.

I assert that making the claim that it's somehow ethically / intellectually superior to refrain from using profanity is absurd when the language means the exact same thing.

Moreover, I assert that the claim "Use of profanity is evidence of a lack of intellect" is unfounded and amounts to nothing more than intellectual classism.

Finally, I assert that profanity certainly does have its uses. Language, like art, is fluid and we use words as an artist uses a brush. Sometimes a sharp or bold word is used for emphasis or specific description. To eliminate profanity from our language would be like eliminating the color red from the pallet.

Your thoughts?

-ITL-
People do not always use profanity because they cannot think of a better term, but they often do. From the fact that two words are synonymous, it does not follow that it is not better to use one than the other. Context and good taste matter too. But, in fact, extremely profane words do not mean anything much, and are simply expostulations of feeling and frustration. And, in many conversations they are just used while the speaker thinks of other things to say. They are fillers like, "um", or "you know", or "like" in "He is like, you know, nice". "Like" and "you know", could be omitted from that sentence with no loss of meaning.
Reply With Quote
The following users say: THANK YOU - kennethamy for the above post!
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do you believe ethics are? captpicard12 Ethics 25 10-13-2009 04:18 AM
Ethics in Family Guy Henrik Television 11 09-04-2009 12:31 PM
Ethics in a nutshell... dawoel Ethics 18 07-14-2009 12:28 PM
Ethics of Transgenics Khethil Ethics 18 01-20-2009 10:38 AM
foundation of ethics? dpmartin Ethics 41 03-22-2008 12:29 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:25 AM.


vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.1
Copyright 2006-2010 PhilosophyForum.com