quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

My real name and picture can be found in my profile.

I'm an 18-year-old Australian university student who's about six months away from graduating with a degree in biomedical science.

My IQ places me in the top 0.00003% of the world's population.

I said my first words at the age of five months and was speaking in complete sentences by one year.

I am an accomplished scholar of all the natural sciences, and also of psychology.

My favourite book throughout my early childhood was a 1400-page catalogue of common human diseases, which I began reading at the age of 3 and stopped only once I had memorised it. This had a number of interesting effects on my development, including causing me to use the phrase "pain in the groin or lower abdomen" at inappropriate times.

I know a vast assortment of quotations, anecdotes, jokes and other miscellaneous bons mots for every conceivable social occasion.

I am a distinguished public speaker.

My picture has appeared on the front page of a popular magazine.

Women find me irresistible. So do a surprising number of men.

Some people have accused me of being slightly arrogant at times.

---

Big deal.

Were you shearing sheep at the age of ten?

No?

Have you ever been given gifts by fans?

No?

Held a live, vicious, poisonous snake in your bare hands?

No?

Has a date with you ever been given away as a prize on a radio station?

No?

Then it's settled. I'm cooler.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by secondwind:

OOC:

Does anyone have a rough sketch of Ermania? Aizo? I'm not sure what to call my locations... whatever is near the northern polar cap.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

We left Afghanistan because Iraq was becoming more of a priority with the threat of WMDs (which may or may not have existed; Saddam wouldn't tell people if he had them and certainly wouldn't leave them out in the open for everyone to see.

---

quote:

---

You must understand that we still need to keep soldiers in Iraq because the country is still largely unstable. Since we've already gone in, took down Saddam's regime, and had elections, we may as well finish what we started and give the new democracy a strong foothold in stability as the insurgents are cleared out. You'll have to agree that Iraq is both a better place to live and less of a threat to other countries without someone like Saddam Hussein ruling.

---

quote:

---

Finally, I'd just like to say that Bush bases much of what he does on religion because that's what he believes is right. If you choose not to follow his religion (I'd encouage following it though), I can't really stop you and neither can he. But since he finds confort and leadership in God, he bases his Presidency on that. That's all I'll say there.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by I'll Steal Your Toast:

Thinking about boats-- I was wondering if a mage would make a flying ship or blimp in Avernum. It would be the kind of thing which X from the tower of the magi would do on a whim.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by cfgauss:

You can't represent both sides at once, you know! The point of a leader is to make decisions, and if you can't make a decision without second guessing yourself, or subverting yourself later, you have no place in charge of anything. If you do that, even if you make the right decisions, you end up changing your mind later and screwing them up. And look at all the great leaders in history, they were all able to make their decision and stand by it.

---

quote:

---

And really, it's insane when people talk about "destroying" Iraq. People complain that Americans don't know anything about other countries, but the lack of knowledge people all over the world show about Iraq is disgusting. In Iraq, the government had a habit of, when people left the country, were suspected of wanting to leave the country, were suspected of talking to people in other countries, got to much power in the Iraqi gov't/army, someone didn't like you, etc, etc, taking their family, and starting with the youngest (i.e., CHILDREN) raping, and then killing them in front of the other family, one by one, until they were all dead. Boys and girls, children and adults. And in Iraq, as in many other countries like it, people often live with their extended families in one house--parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces, nephews, grandkids. I hardly call overthrowing that government "destroying" a nation.
And that's not even the worst things they've done. I'll leave it to you to research the rest. And this was all stuff that had been going on for some 20 years, there.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by N00BEN:

quote:

---

Originally written by Custer XVI:

listening to music full of words with crude and obscene connotations will, inarguably, fill your mind with crudity and obscenity.

See, here's the problem: I'd dispute your impact (a) logically following from your warrant and (b) actually outweighing the cost of removing invective from society. In other words, I find the blanket claim that dirty words engender dirty thoughts spurious, and compared to suppressing the power of language...

This is not to say that these words should be taken out of our language; I know people will continue to use them, but frequent use of such strong words as those in a vulgar way is not very appealing to all that have to listen to it every day.

---

So? I'm arguing that even in *personal* cases, marginalizing swearing has no non-external positive (e.g. yes, there's social conventions, but that's assuming society is right to believe 'screw you' is worse than 'you have five fathers, and not a one is human') and a real negative (suppressing linguistic flexibility).

quote:

---

In the vast majority of cases, even should you not personally view such words in such a manner, your knowledge and experience, through a lifetime of interacting with those who do view them in such a manner, does, to at least a very small extent, plant within your mind a hint of such connotations.

I am reminded of a famous work of Donne here - Not My Will, But Thine. Every time I've had a discussion over it, those who should agree with its message most consider it an illegitimate expression of faith because Donne speaks of being ravaged by the Deity (this is 16th-century, mind - it's not new or anything). When confronted with the idea that there exists divinity in even the carnal act, they bandy about words like 'vulgar' and 'inappropriate'.

Which are words commonly used to describe cuss words. And in most cases, they are vulgar and inappropriate.

---

Yes, and?

quote:

---

I do not understand the contempt for the crude, vulgar, and obscene. It's as much a part of life as anything, and removing your ability to express it - condemn it, invoke it, paeanize it, whatever - is hideously stultifying to diction and spirit.

Eh, there's always other ways to express your emotions at the moment than cussing.

---

They exist, but are they necessarily better? Since I dislike giving questions like this without giving an example: a married couple gets into a fight over something trivial. Assume there is no particular grievance except a particular, irreconcilable incident. Now, assume they have two alternatives: they can pointedly state their negative opinions Gallant-style or they can swear at each other like freaks Goofus-style. (To adopt the same paradigm you used for that, uh, intriguing example of yours.)
The Gallant-style couple is expressing nothing that either partner doesn't already know, in a deadly serious, measured, and precise tone.
The Goofus-style couple is just yelling profanities at each other.
Now, when the two wake up in the morning - after having calmed down, one sleeping on the couch, whatever - the Goofuses talk it over over coffee, chalk up their shouting to nerves, and live happily ever after.
The Gallants, on the other hand, have much more likely said bitter, hurtful things that will drive a severe wedge into their marriage; and even if BOTH do so, the Gallants have less ability to call it temporary anger and therefore less ability to deal with those wounds.
In this case, use of profanity creates a tone which, while more explosive in the short term, will probably be better for reconciliation in the long run; a lack thereof both removes that tone - turning that argument into a pointed exchange likely to permanently hurt feelings - and makes the bulk of the conversation focus more on actual grievances, which can't be smoothed out easily (as opposed to swear words, which are just swear words).

Food for thought.

quote:

---

---

Now, I buy the argument that listening to cursing leads one to curse more freely, because it makes sense. However, there seems to be a general presumption on the behalf of those who are pointing it out (i.e. ben) that cursing is, in and of itself, a bad thing. I mean, an analogy to smoking is made, but we don't smoke because Smoking is Bad(TM); we avoid it because it causes physical damage.

And cussing can cause mental damage. I think that just the fact that someone is cussing therefore implies some level of mental damage. Then when they cuss, other people's heads get filled with cuss words, and they start to include cuss words into the way they think and eventually the way they talk. Cussing can be kind of contagious in the same way as things like smoking and drugs are stereotyped as "cool" in the minds of a few young people.

Oh, and just because I'm saying it doesn't mean it's totally wrong and not worth believing. :P

---

Interesting claim. Interesting evidence?

[quote]
But then again, I suppose that's what happens when your moral complex relies on an outside locus of control - i.e. what you DO and DO NOT do basically boils down to a cosmic rolled-up newspaper, and there exists no internal authority.

Right, and personal beliefs ie. Christianity can have a lot to do with it too.

---

quote:

---

---

I'm sure you see an obvious difference. Though this is a rather extreme example, it demonstrates the point. Not only does the first person just seem like a better person, but you can tell that he's obviously less likely to go to jail, get in trouble at school, and upset people. Furthermore, these people can be interpreted as good, God-fearing people also. Truly, Christians are often stereotyped as good and gentle people, that is to say, just by talking to someone, you can generally tell if they're a Christian or not. But I know this is religion again, so you may not believe me there.

Hmm. Wrong:
a) 'Good, god-fearing' are an oxymoron. Those who fear God are more inclined to hate His creation and consider it evil.

God-fearing is a common synonym in the Christian world for worshipping and revering God. It does not mean to be afraid of him.

---

quote:

---

b) What's preventing someone who curses like a sailor from being godly? I mean, God never actually prohibits it (except for taking His name in vain, of course - so no shouting the secret name of God to the cosmos) in any way.

It never says in the Bible that you can't use cuss words, and it certainly doesn't list any words one should never use, unless maybe using God in an ungodly context. Most Christians just see that cussing is a vulgar and a bad habit to have and it just generally goes against their life's standard of being a Christian person. Just because the Bible doesn't say doing some such thing is wrong, if it still seems wrong, true Christians will try to avoid doing it.

---

quote:

---

c) You could make the case, I guess, that the swearing party is non-godly (based on what scripture, I have to wonder?), but that doesn't mean, conversely, that the non-swearing party is. Removing curse words from Hitler's private vocabulary wouldn't have solved much from a moral perspective.

I agree that just because you don't cuss, you are not necessarily a Christian, and just because you cuss doesn't mean you're non-Christian. It's just general that a Christian doesn't usually cuss and a non-Christian is more likely to pick it up.

---

quote:

---

d) I suppose by what you consider Christian, you could tell from talking to someone - but that's because your brand of Christianity has a particular and pervasive pushiness to it that I find absurdly unpleasant.

It's in our religion to spread the good news (that Christ died for our sins), and we should strive to set an example for all non-Christians and be as much like Christ as we can. Not to say that Christians are perfect - no one is - but we try to get closer to perfect.

Being told about Christianity or just being excessively nice to by someone else can be rather uncomforting, especially on your conscience, but you know almost by instinct if what you're doing is right or wrong. One question is just whether or not to believe your instincts (or conscience, if you will) or beleive something else, maybe because other people believe it, it's easier, or something.

---

quote:

---

e) I'd hardly think Christians are stereotyped as good and gentle; we're hardly qualified to stereotype ourselves, and in communities where we are not in the absurd majority (some immigrants, Jews, etc.) we're actually stereotyped as obnoxious, pushy, viciously exclusionary, and sometimes just outright mean-spirited.

How do you stereotype Christians, then? ben-like Republicans? You'd have to agree that most Christians are not perverse or mean. In fact, the better you get to know God, the more your actions tend to take this direction.

---

quote:

---

Really, I think your problem here is twofold:
a) You associate 'good' strongly with 'Christian'. I do not hesitate to remind you that plenty of Christians have been true SOBs, and plenty of icons of righteousness have been non-Christians (Torquemada; Gandhi).

Many people who claim to be Christians are just "believe in God just enough to get to heaven" people. They try to set a balance between drinking and other activities but believe in God just so they can go to heaven when they die. Needless to say, these people are not devoted Christians and don't have much backup for their claim. True Christians always strive to become better Christians.

---

quote:

---

b) Your definition of good action and bad action is defined exclusively by an authoritarian schema. You believe God tells you cursing is wrong, therefore it's anti-Christian and being anti-Christian is punishment enough for you, so you refrain from swearing.

Though God does not directly say, "Swearing is bad! Don't ever do it or else!" as I said, people see that swearing isn't a good thing to practice and refrain from it.

---

quote:

---

c) Amusingly enough, you believe God has - in Christianity, at least - had anything to say about profanity, outside of the big no-no of profaning God Himself. Perhaps it would suit you to read your Bible sometime; you sure do put an awful lot of stock for someome who gets their knowledge of it from hearsay.

I have already touched on this in earlier responses, so I don't feel the need to repeat myself too much here.

---

quote:

---

[b]
I would agree that Christianity should be a search for goodness, and its ultimate aim should be ultimate good, but you don't auto-magically achieve that by quivering before the cosmic rolled-up newspaper (man, I like that one - I'm going to write it down). There has to be an active search. I'm not convinced cursing is part of that.

There is an active search - life. Refraining from profanity is one of the things that can help with this search, making your mind clearer and your motives better.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

If nobody minds, I'm going to seize upon an opportunity to make this topic into something more worthwhile.

quote:

---

Some music is good; other music is very degrading to someone's life. Especially if it's chalk full of cuss words.

---

Okay, so tell me, how do you define a "cuss word"? It can't relate to the subject matter; for if that were so, why could one word be worse than another with an identical meaning? Euphemisms would be of no use in such a case; some topics could simply not be discussed. But as euphemisms do exist and are widely used, clearly obscenity can have nothing to do with the semantic content of the words. Is it the sound of the words that offends you, then? The spelling, perhaps? Do the words "funk" and "shift" make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end?

---