Quote:
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 point isnt the tiny details of the analogy, the point is the appropriateness of involving unwilling participants in your anger as a matter of personal entertainment.

Quote:
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.


For the most part here we agree on what a civil society is. However, your reactionary argument seems to me to break a rule of exception. It comes in the form of: A civil society is X and it is Y. That doesnt make a great deal of sense to me. In other words, being mindful of your surroundings and violating innocent bystanders are exclusive conditions.

Quote:
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.


I agree with you here and am not surprised to see you make this comment. You are often quite insightful. The effect of political correctness is a bleaching of society. But, there is another effect. It is the effect of legalism. The result is the creation of super citizens and super positions. People who are allowed to do things that others are legally prevented from doing. An example is that people are allowed to curse loudly in their bathroom and being above the law are allowed to do so unmindful of whom they accost.

Quote:
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.


Allow me to posit an opposing theory: Allowing people to offend others leads to further practicing of these actions. After a period of time, and once critical mass is reached, the citizenry demands legal repression of this action. The effect of the legal action criminalizes in a broad swath diverse actions by creating idiotic laws, like laws against cursing. Money is generated by the state in fining people this way and the State becomes addicted to that money. Any opportunity for the State to punish people is taken and the people become repressed, even if its in a small way. The State cannot monitor everyone for lack of resources. The State then monitors only those who are outcasts. Smokers are a good example of this in the present.

The law that was made about cursing in that town was as likely as not made because profane people kept pushing their weight around. I think that it is best that the social environment deals with such matters. But if you have a profane person that insists on pushing the envelope you get a reaction. That reaction, when done by too many people takes the form of stupid laws.

But, the law is the law. And until repealed, the law is to be obeyed.

Quote:
I don't think suppressing negative emotions (I'm not talking about killing people here, obviously that is on another level) is a good thing. For one suppressing 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.


I think that it is normal to have negative emotions. However, I think that it is pathological to feed upon them. Also, there are violent people out there. They come in different forms and express their violence differently. From everything I know, loud cursing is an act of violence. It is an attempt to offend a individual or to offend anyone within hearing range. The people Ive known who curse loudly and indiscriminently have other brutish behaviors. For them, the occasion is the excuse, not the cause.

Quote:
Who are you to say cursing isn't screaming in distress?


Well, if we go deeper into the psychology of it, it is a scream of distress. However, there are many negative and even dangerous behaviors that are screams of distress in this sense. In any event, cursing isnt the type of scream that I used as an example. Equating the two is breaking the rule of context.

Quote:
When I say you are generalizing it is because you don't put 'some' or 'most' or 'few' infront the word people.


By not saying all it is implied that I mean some. Were I to offer a sweeping generalization I would say something to the effect of, All left handed people are not to be trusted. If I were to say, People cant be trusted. you of course could read it to mean all, but without the all, in my opinion it is best to assume that it is to be read as being with exclusions. Consider it a matter of respect for the audience. Getting unnecessarily specific insults the intelligence of the reader.

Quote:
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.


And some people beat their wives. Most of what you listed is in some way constructive. It is specifically this destructive form of entertainment that is at question.

Yelling and cursing at a sports event is pretty much appropriate. But yelling and cursing at a piano recital is grossly inappropriate. Im arguing that yelling and cursing through an open window and sending your voice into the calm street is inappropriate. You dont know who you are effecting. It could be someones child.

Quote:
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.


Sorry, but that isnt the way my head works. Ive worked the problems and found a set of solutions that work well over a broad series of events. My solutions arent perfect, but they work well and predict results well. My system isnt necessarily scientific, though I strive for it to be as best I can.

In a world of lies, what system is to be trusted? Too many people have agendas. Some of those people are quite willing to generate truths to validate those agendas. Sadly, it is impossible to tell. Thus I develop my own system and rely upon it. I suggest you and others do the same. A defended mind is a free mind.

Quote:
But yours isn't a theory. It is your feelings and I would imagine part of your religious views.


I shall reiterate: People curse because they want to get others involved in their anger. They want to get others involved in their anger because it satisfies them somehow (entertains). Their pursuit of satisfaction hostilely acquires the attention of other people and in so doing offends other people. The curser usually will have an excuse that operates like a substrate upon which they build a rationale for a motion that is entirely self-stimulating. I think that is a theory, though not terrible elaborate (and trust me, I can get more elaborate).

As a rule my religion confirms my findings, it doesnt generate them. My religion is a rational religion, it demands the questioning of both itself and of other things. Forget the movie definitions and the PTL stuff. If you want to learn about my religion access some of the foremost apologists, Ravi Zacharias is a good start, or R. C. Sproul.

Quote:
Your argument is a subjective one that I think we would all be hard pressed to 'challenge'.


Youll have to elaborate upon this. I consider myself to be objective. For instance, you are assuming Im talking about how I feel. I am not. I dont have a particular personal problem with it beyond minor offense and I certainly wouldnt complain to the police about it. I have a logical problem with it. It is inappropriate social conduct.

Quote:
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.


Not true. I modify my findings all the time. I shall do so till I die. Even my religious beliefs are subject to modification. For instance, a few years back, during the Gay Marriage debate (in which I sealed my doom as a member of this community for daring to suggest that it was a bad idea) I argued that homosexuality was unnatural. Someone, I want to say Dune, but that may be wrong, gave an example of swans. That and other arguments led me to reexamine my conclusions and to modify them. The result was my discovery of the natural side of homosexuality. I still hold to the premise that sexuality is a process of reproduction and uses otherwise are abuses of body organs, but, Ive concluded that, like the consciousness, there must be variance engineered into the system or you get a monolith of reality perception, ergo a computer being, not an living organism capable of adapting to changing environments.

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


You dont know this. Being the reasonable person I know you to be, and being young, you have a world of discoveries ahead of you. Much of what you now think you shall one day discard. We all do, that is the nature of the developmental process of a human being. Who knows where and who you will be in ten or twenty years. You have great potential.

Quote:
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.


It meant that my conclusions bear out as well or better than those of anyone else Ive read or heard (excluding a few notable exceptions).

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


This is a failing of mine. Some people talk fast, some people talk loud, and so on. They dont do so for any particular reason, it is just the way they speak. I tend to be didactic. A young man pointed this out to me years ago. Hes the brightest kid Ive ever met. I inspired him towards an interest in quantum physics. Hes now a research physicists with a PhD. From Yale. Apparently in his case my technique wasnt so bad.

Now as far as patronizing, I dont think so. Treating people like they are stupid, in my opinion, is best done by talking slow to them and using small words. I challenge people. If the challenge is too stiff then feelings can get hurt. But Im one of those people who believes that score should be kept in little league and that scrapes and scars are badges of accomplishment.

As far as your example goes I fear that you drew that conclusion as a consequence of a lack of understanding of Christianity. dergats was telling people it was okay to do things that the bible specifically warns against. The sin in this is that of leading others to sin. I rebuked him as I am instructed in the bible to do, with one exception: I did not first rebuke him in private. But, we arent members of the same church and that would have been the only part of the instruction I could have kept. Instead, I decided to rebuke him in public that others see how Christians respond to each other. Unfortunately dergats didnt know how to respond. Im guessing he is a baby Christian and doesnt know the bible very well. If that is the case I perhaps should have been more restrained. I assure you that it is regretted.

It remains that my suggestion that the entirety of this thread be taken to his minister is a valid one. If I am wrong I want his minister to tell him so. But, if I am right, for the sake of dergats exaltation and for the sake of the exaltation of the Body of Christ, and for Christ himself, dergats should know, in detail, in a one on one, person to person, discussion, exactly where he has erred. That was for his benefit, not for his embarrassment.

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


Perhaps Im wrong, but I dont think any reasonable person should take it that way. Again, if one Christian offers corrective advice to another it should include scripture. If you are wrong and your error is pointed out to you, do you not accept it as a positive event that is necessary to your growth as a human being?

Quote:
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.


Did you mean like this (Posted by Dune in a response to data provided about news bias)?

"I purposely didn't respond on the link you listed as data as it was produced by a self proclaimed conservative think tank who's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news."

Or this (provided to Cerian in response to an article about congresss attempt to make a law that journalists can legally withhold the witnessing of a crime)?

"I had to stop at the first sentence. The majority of the American public have been called upon to do exactly what? This war has touched such a small percentage of the population. The rest remain unaffected.

When an article starts with such a premise, I'll just have to judge the rest as BS."

That one really tweaked me since a kid who is practically my nephew (I taught him his first word) is headed to Iraq for his third tour and he is a line fighter, not some radar operator or other support staff. He is a Marine and is a man of honor and integrity. As well, my step-kid is planning on joining the Marines (Im pushing him toward the Navy).

But I think you are referring to a website Audun offered about contradictions in the bible. To be clear, that site was the equivalent of him sending me a coloring book. If someone wants to make an argument then make it. If someone wants to use a website then use one that has some substance to it. Using a trifle such as that site was grossly insulting. It was lazy and unworthy of the discussion at hand (you could find about five copies of the same list on different sites on the web).

I dont know what other incident you are referring too. If you mean I consider such organizations as CNN to be unreliable, then yes, I do. I consider any news source that takes raw feed from Left wing web sites and uses it as news to be invalid.

Oh yea, what about the scientists that I produced quotes from in the Global Warming debate. Interestingly they were all found unworthy since the scientists who oppose global warming are obviously in the pockets of big oil (hyperbole to be amusing, and no, there is a long list of scientists who oppose global warming who arent beholding to anyone, conversely, on the IPCC roster there is a long list of advocates appointed by their respective states who have no background in science at all).

It seems that even if I do have a habit of doing this that I am justified in doing so by the fact that it is done to me.

Quote:
How nice you think of yourself as an icon.


Naw, just didnt have a better word at the time.

Quote:
You persistently insult groups of people on these boards. You have done it to homosexuals many times.


I dare say that I dont recall ever having done this.

Quote:
You have done it to liberals.


Guilty as charged. But, in my defense I would like to point out the incredibly hostility of the Left. Often I will do a thing to help people see what it feels like to have it done to them. I do this to evolutionists who try to pretend that Christians are stupid since they dont believe in magic. Oops, did it again.

Quote:
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.


Are you playing catch with yourself now (meant as a joke)? You cant find the links since they never existed beyond perception and group agreement. I dont think Ive had more than five posts removed and half of those were about a post I found on another board that I thought was praising Dgate (when in fact, when taken with the posts I didnt see, it was slamming Dgate. I threw a fit and was rightly chastised for it). Just do a search for my SN.

Quote:
Because you incite people, you incite anger.


Anger is as often as not a matter of self-generation. It is the cool head that prevails. As to inciting people, I certainly hope so. I hope I incite people to go beyond the restraints of popular convention and exceed their boundaries. I hope I incite people to think critically, to question authorities, to demand explanations, to think for themselves. I hope I incite people to put a little more effort into life than rote memorization and jingoistic mantras.

Quote:
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.


When people attack Christians I get offended. But, I dont take it personal. I make my case and let it stand at that. Yes, I have become peeved at people in the past. And I have acted out of anger. But I think I do a good job of restraining myself. My flaws are my flaws. It is odd that Im expected to make allowances for the flaws of others but to myself be flawless.

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


It shouldnt be. Ideas are open game. To restrict comments on ideas is real censorship. A link is essentially an idea. You cannot throw stuff like that out there and be unchallenged. You are making that a variation of the unassailable witness (you know, where some political hack grabs a kid off the street and tries to change the law based on the so-called needs of said kid).

Quote:
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.


I have a pretty good memory myself. The ad hominem issue has been a persistent complaint by me. Surely you remember that. I attack an idea, someone whines that I hurt their feelings for challenging their argument, then they try to make it personal, (Joel is stupid, mean, hostile, ignorant, a zealot, a nut, an egomaniac, talks down to people, insults people, is rude, is a sesquipedalian, ad nauseam). It aint personal to me. If you put an idea out there and you expect only those who agree with you to comment, then what? Is that okay with you? I prefer a world where ideas are exchanged in an adversarial environment. That is why I dont get the news told to me by monopolistic networks but instead listen to debates by both sides on Fox.

Quote:
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.


You accuse me of greater subtlety than I posses. In fact, Im not a subtle person at all. I find it strange that as direct as I speak anyone at all could accuse me of being subtle. Look, here is the deal (puts on his didactic hat), and this is the real deal, it is well worth thinking through and ruminating over: The mind isnt an infallible device. It is in many ways a slave to the emotions. The consciousness doesnt have absolute contact with reality. It in fact only works as well as the discipline of the individual operating it. The emotions want to be right. They see an impediment to that desire. The consciousness then attempts to solve the impediment. Some solutions are objective, they analyze the information available and discover whether or not the desire of the emotion is valid. Some solutions are subjective, they define the impediment as wrong, bad, evil, etc. and justify anger against the impediment. If I attack someones idea, it isnt personal. If someone takes it personal it is because they lack discipline. If a hundred people agree with the person it makes no difference whatsoever (that is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, if a hundred million people believe the earth is flat, it matters not).

Quote:
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.


Some would call that consistency. Look, I attack the myth. I hate the myth. The myth, in its myriad permutations, across all cultures, serves to delude the masses into one variation of slavery or another. If there is a theme or a meaning in my life, if there is a mission to it, that mission is to oppose slavery. I oppose the slavery of the body and the slavery of the mind and I willingly and eagerly stand up to do battle with the myth and the acolytes serving it. I love and respect all of the people I come in contact with, even if they are cruel to me. In that love I am willing to elicit their anger and in fact expect it since after years of doing this I have come to know it as the norm. Like the guy who attempts to de-program a victim of cult brain washing I attempt to lead the minds of others back to reality. And I have succeeded at this several times. Unfortunately these posts arent a good place for doing this. But it is my nature. The world is bright, America is the greatest nation ever, white Europeans freed the slaves, war is sometimes necessary, when attacked either fight back or genuflect, or submit, genocide is evil, the global warming elites are just like the DDT elites, they will if allowed commit mass world genocide, you are being lied to by the media, the politicians, and government school systems.

There are people who benefit from the delusions of others, even people on these boards. I oppose those people and their ideas. I think that sedation is a bad thing and that the things done to the sedated are bad things (please, I obviously was wasnt referring to doctors). The open mind, the free mind, knows a world of hope and expectations, both for and of the world and for and of the self. The deluded mind knows only fear and the ecstasies of caused fear and survived fear.

There are some real thinkers who challenge me on these boards. I love interacting with them and disagree with them on most points. A partial list includes, Dgatepugh, Dune, Audun, Skylar, Humble Cleric, Lthewain (the only person here who intimidates me), and so on. There are actually people who support me, though doing so is perilous and can lead to banishment. There are people who dont care about anything but the social/gaming part of the community. There are people who go one way at one time and another way another time, the people who are in the middle. And there is the cacophony of monkeys in the background who at best can but parrot popular slogans. They are the people who mock anyone they feel is out in the open and unsupported. If I am rude to such people from time to time, so be it. No one is perfect and I particularly dislike mockers. They are like termites who aspire to chaos for no reason greater than their bellies.

You may disagree with me, feel free to do so. I love to be proven wrong since that is the only way I can become more right. I however wont allow popular myth to be substituted for reality. I will not accept jingoism to be substituted for arguments. And, I will not acknowledge as valid techniques of argument that are nothing more than legalistic fiction building devices (non-logical, system arguments, meant not to work the problem but instead to diffuse any attempt to solve a problem, the existence of which the user feels beneficial on a personal level.

Look, laws that prohibit such things as cursing can be viewed in a way different than any discussed so far. When I look at a culture I look for such laws. They are an indication of the level of advancement the culture has acquired. The more laws such as this, the more likely the culture is chaotic and primitive, the more likely you are looking at some form of despotism. The only reason laws like this get made is because you have people doing this kind of thing in a self-indulgent way. The presence of violent people in a society (including thieves, vulgarians, bullies, anarchists, and so on) are demonstrated by the presence of laws to prevent the doing of such things. It isnt a perfect method by any stretch, I will admit, but if used correctly it yields information. For instance, when I hear of a law against spitting on the sidewalk I envision a sidewalk covered with mucus. More pertinent to my experience, when I see littering laws I envision a world covered in trash (the world I saw in my youth). Capisce?

Joel.