Quote:
Consider this: Have you ever worked around a person who tended to respond to a bad event in their morning by being difficult all day? Say they were driving into work and someone made them angry, and then they take out that anger on their co-workers the rest of the day. Have you ever witnessed that? If not, you will. There are many people like this in the world. What they are doing is getting you involved in their anger. That is one of the issues of anger, it compels the mind experiencing it to attempt to cause others to move into that state. Cursing is the same thing. People do not curse loudly unless there is the possibility of moving the mind of another person, unless there is someone to hear the cursing.


You speak of someone taking it out on other people all day. I do not believe in this situation the woman was cursing for an eight hour time period. The report doesn't give a timeframe, and I think we can reasonably assume that the situation was resolved before eight hours had passed.

I don't think it is fair to compare this situation (a toilet that continues to leak human waste while you are present) and that of someone getting cut infront of and/or flipped off on a drive to work.

That happens before you start interacting with your co-workers. The situation has passed, you have had time to settle down; to move on. Here the woman did not have that time it would appear. If her toilet had leaked and she had gone into work after the situation had passed and was cursing there, then this case would be more justified.

Also no I have not been victim nor experienced a co-worker being angry from something happened on the drive to work. I have however been the victim of angry staff members in a correctional boot camp in a different country. I assure you, you would welcome cursing next to that. You wouldn't even think twice.

Quote:
But it has been that way and the problem you suggest didnt happen. In fact, I submit that the further we move from a civil society the closer we get to the hypothetical you posited. In fact, to my knowledge, there is nothing historically that agrees with that which you and dergats are suggesting, that being that civil societies are dangerous.


I am not saying civil societies are dangerous, I am saying we have different views on how a civil society is defined.

I think civil society is being polite, courteous and mindful of your surroundings. I think a civil society is humanity realizing that it (humanity) is not perfect, and that it will slip. A civil society must be able to differentiate between intended hostile cursing (in this given scenario) and reactionary cursing.

We are becoming far too PC and bland in the world. All you have to do is look at how they change parties in schools. No more halloween parties, no more Thanksgiving parties. They're all Fall Harvest. No more Christmas parties.

No more Christmas trees in some airports. I'd hate to see what would happen if anyone decorated for Easter.

To fine someone 300 dollars for showing emotion (even one we may disagree with such as anger) in a situation like this where no harm appears to be intended is just another step. Eventually we could reach a point where we supress any emotion considered negative (a horrible idea) and spend our lives looking over our shoulders; incase there is one person watching us for when we slip up so we get puninshed.

I don't think supressing negative emotions (I'm not talking about killing people here, obviously that is on another level) is a good thing. For one supressing everything will just cause it to blow up all in one gigantic explosion one day. Two if you don't have negative emotions you don't learn how to deal with them. Other people don't learn how to deal with them.

Quote:
Ah, but what is letting off steam? That is a pretty general statement if you ask me. I think Ive been fairly specific in fact. Analyze, watch, observe, you will see that I am generally correct. Yes, an infant will cry when no one is around. And yes, a person in distress will scream out for help when no one is around. But a person cursing loudly is making a show.


Who are you to say cursing isn't screaming in distress? I think it is just what comes out first. Be it a wordless scream or a curse word drawn out.

Letting off steam is a general statement because it is a general act. It cannot be categorized into one thing humanity as a whole does. When I say you are generalizing it is because you don't put 'some' or 'most' or 'few' infront the word people. You just use people. When you just use people, it is referring to people as a whole. In hindsight I should have used the term broad generalization. My apologies.

Some people go hunting to let off steam. Some people play sports. Some people sing, dance, act, play charades. Some people yell. Some of that yelling probably includes cursing, for some people.

A lot of somes, because everyone is different. Everyone does something different to let off their steam, and everyone else reacts differently to how that one other person does it.

You think you are generally correct, because you think you are right. Just because you think differently doesn't make you right. It just means you have different views from some of us.

Quote:
If you want to challenge my theory on the subject, please, present a competing theory, in complexity and specificity.


But yours isn't a theory. It is your feelings and I would imagine part of your religious views. Your argument is a subjective one that I think we would all be hard pressed to 'challenge'. You are very rooted in your beliefs and in my opinion nothing short of God coming down and telling you that you're wrong would change it. That's fine.

And sadly, I am not God. He's sending me to hell one day, though. ;)


Quote:
People may or not find that to be the case. I dont think I am right all the time. I know for a fact that I am wrong all the time. I do think that I am less wrong than most people, but that is necessary for cogency and clarity of thought. Deceptive people waffle about on points. Everyone here knows exactly what I think.


Earlier in your post you said you are generally correct. Was that just pertaining to that part of the post, because if it wasn't it would seem quite a different statement than this one above.

Quote:
I have no idea where the 'talking down' comment comes from. Reflexively I want to assume that this is a debate tactic that is intended to shame the opponent into competing less vigorously. Perhaps that isnt the case. In any event, that isnt my intent. My objective is to make my case as strongly as I can. I believe in the things Ive learned in this life. I think those things deserve strong advocacy.


In my opinion you patronize people. You lecture them like a parent would do to a small child, for instance:

Quote:
I think you and Dergats should copy this thread in its entirety and take it to your priest/minister/preacher and let him read the whole thing and counsel you. I strongly suggest you do this.


I understand that in your mind this is perfectly acceptable. I ask that you understand that other people may see this as patronizing and rude. Otherwise known as talking down to, like a small child being punished.

Another example:

Quote:
Your priest was talking very specifically. If you say I have to go poop, or you use stronger language, then it isnt cursing specifically. However, if the word is offensive and you know it is you are still in error since we are commanded to not lead others to sin. Read the verses I gave. They are good instruction on how a Christian is to speak.


Again, some would take that as you instructing them like a small child.

Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by, ...turning your nose up... Im afraid that makes no sense to me at all, youll have to rephrase that.


When people give a link during discussions, sometimes, you tell them their link doesn't matter because of the source. I find you often do this when the source they give disagrees with your post and would find you in the wrong. It is like you are turning up your nose at their source, as if it stinks or is not worthy of you to bother with.

Quote:
Nope, not to any real extent at least. I am persistently insulted on these boards. Ad hominem attacks on me are the rule. I attack the idea and get attacked personally. That is what dergats is making a habit of doing in this thread. His ideas arent standing on their own merit so he is getting personal.

According to his last post Im an untouchable. I am so low that not even worth having a discussion with. These attacks get justified since Im securely pigeonholed and thus an icon of sorts. People have made up their minds that Im the bad guy and even if there is no evidence present, my general badness must have caused the attack.


How nice you think of yourself as an icon.

You persistently insult groups of people on these boards. You have done it to homosexuals many times. You have done it to liberals. You've done it to women and to men who do not meet your standards on how households should be run.

You just like to word it differently than a lot of people would so it looks subtle. But it isn't.

This is where you ask me for specific links, and this is where I tell you I can't give you any. Do you know why? Because those threads have been locked and deleted. Because you incite people, you incite anger. You make statements about whole groups of people. Oh, you did separate homosexuals into three categories though I believe.

Quote:
Ad hominem attacks on me are the rule. I attack the idea and get attacked personally.


I wanted to quote that again because I wanted to expand. You don't attack ideas all the time though, Joel. When you attack things you call ideas like homosexuality or gender roles, those are attached to people. Those people get offended.

Quote:
Or, demeaning people is a tactic that people with poor arguments use to quell the strong arguments that threaten their world-view.


Again, you do this when you tell people their links/sources aren't worthy. That is demeaning.


Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a bad habit of demonizing people who disagree with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cant be demonstrated, ad hominem.




A lot of things can't be demonstrated against you, because a lot of your threads get deleted, like I said. But many people remember them. A lot of us have good memories.

Quote:
Careless ad hominem pigeonholing. Now Im an untouchable?

I assert that the argument that people verbally assaulting others, by intent or indifference, is irrational in a civilized society. I attack the argument with specifics. And you think Im wrong for doing that? Considering the ad hominem junk that is fairly constantly thrown at me, I must admit that Im astonished when a bright young lady such as yourself accuses me of that which others get a free pass in doing to me.


They throw it at you because you throw it at them. The way you word things disguises it to your eyes, maybe, but not to a lot of other people. Does that make what we do right? No.

It is like screaming to let off steam mixed in with having a bad day and taking it out on you.

If you look back you will see degrats trying to hold a conversation with you. Trying to show you where he's coming from. Then you will see you responding with patronizing phrasing I noted earlier in this post.

There is only so much a person can try to do to hold an argument with you. You respond to in the same mindset each time it appears. This has been going on for at least seven years.

It basically boils down to this. For seven years you have posted the same way. People have tried to adjust and take what you say less offensively. They have tried to deal with you in a more patient manner. It would not appear you have adjusted at all in how you present yourself to be less abrasive or offensive.

I apologize if this post was jumbled and if I did not answer some of your questions. I am tired, my eyes burn and I probably should have waited to respond until later.