I'd have less of an issue if the argument was based on something more exact than "Avoid this because it offends some people".


People arguing that tend to ignore other words people deem offensive, choosing only those(in this case) that offend black people and gay people(obviously other races, maybe lesbians too). If they specified: "Do not say anything that offends asians, black people, gay people, etc. etc. etc." At least the argument would seem logical to me.

But saying "Don't say racial slurs." Why? "It offends people." What about other words that offend people? "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU"


That annoys me.


I like responding to u cuz u so cool - it maeks me haf fun responzing


Anyway, I don't necessarily mind limiting speech to an extent - But at least know WHY you're limiting it and FOLLOW that fucking logic it. Don't wimp out, don't ignore it, don't just say "because I said so".

Baudolino's argument just doesn't seem to do ANYTHING for me at all. "If you don't mean to step on any toes, it's easiest to just avoid slur- and swear words" - Why not other words people find offensive? I still don't get why we're picking boogers here. Hey look, at the end of his post, just after the previous line: ""My knob tastes funny." - Jeez, that sure can be taken badly, can't it. In fact, I'd imagine that many people might find this to be vulgar, how dare he present it on a "public forum" where "words have different meanings to different people" and "the correct context or nuance is sometimes hard to catch" meaning that, even if he doesn't find it offensive, someone might and it "doesn't mean it's meaningless" just because it's meaningless to him.

I just feel no consistency with anything he's been saying. Even if I were to agree that banning slurs/whatever were a good thing, I'd be annoyed that he's arguing it in such a shitty fashion, you know? It's frustrating. Honestly, one of the things that fucking slays me is that he's named after a book written by someone who is a fucking master of writing, yet he writes dribble like this :-C. I almost find it offensive(Hint hint - Ban him).

Heck, we learned from Battlecharmed that "The use of racial slurs in some countries will see you in prison for a short term". That's a good argument, yeah? I mean, if we know something is illegal/dangerous SOMEWHERE - We should obviously apply those rules here too. Being a woman and dressing like a slut in Saudi Arabia could get you killed - Don't dress like a slut anywhere, duh. Can't eat pork in a Jewish community - Don't eat it here. It's perfect, infallible logic.

Heck, why not just follow Baudolino in agreeing that "They're meant to be harmful, so it's better to just avoid them" - Sure. Better to avoid anything like that. Heck, criticizing someone's log is also meant to be harmful. Probly should avoid that. I even think Baudolino's argument is shit(heck, that was harmful - I even meant it maliciously, dang! Better ban me again!).

"Also, it's like using fuck to enhance your argument. If you need it, it's cause you don't have an argument.
Same thing with slurs. "
Damn right. Same thing with a lot of words. Not all of them are insulting or offensive - But hey, we're focusing on things not needed in arguments/language, right? I'll make sure to include a list of words at the bottom of the post that shouldn't be needed in any argument, that way we can be more efficient in our posts. The words are used to enhance in your argument, but YOU DON'T NEED IT IF ONLY THE CONTENT MATTERS.


"Also, all this you're gay stuff makes you look extremely homophobic, even while not intended as such."
His posts make him look extremely retarded, even while not intended as such.(This is humor, I'm not saying he's mentally deficient but I now need to make sure I apologize to anyone who knows anybody with mental problems, as they could take that offensively - remember guys, "Just because everyone says it, doesn't mean it's meaningless").


Overall, I'm not necessarily annoyed at someone saying "Hey, don't say nigger anymore". I can get over that. Do I like it? Fuck no I don't. It's stupid. My issue is the reasons behind it. I dislike how flimsy the "because some people get butthurt over it :-<". I don't find that valid reasoning at all. This post is too long.


------------
able (is able to, was able to = can / could)
actually
alike
along with (= with)
as to
as well as (= and)
attempt (try)
both
clearly
comprise (correct: a zoo comprises animals)
does/do (eg., does show, do have = shows, have)
different (be different, is different = differ, differs)
either/or (= or)
especially
essentially
even [more]
ever [more]
(the) existence of
extremely
fact that
foremost [first and]
for instance
hence
her own, his own (= her, his)
honestly
however
importantly
in addition
in any event
in fact
in order to ( = to)
in other words
in part
in particular
in so doing
in terms of
in turn
in which (e.g., ways in which)
indeed
interesting / interestingly
involved
it is […] that
it is important to, it is interesting to
itself
just
make a decision (decide)
make sure
make use of (= use) (the use of = using?)
manner (in a blank manner)
more (e.g., more and more, more importantly, more specifically)
namely
need to (= must)
not only / but also (= and)
note (it should be noted that, it is interesting to note that)
(a, the) number of
on the other hand
on the part of (by)
one of the (= a)
only
only in so doing
outside of/ inside of
own personal (= own, although see above; his own =his, her own = hers, their own = theirs)
particular
regarding
sends out (= sends), sent out (=sent)
serve to
simply
some
some of the
specifically
that
therefore
those
thus
upon
a variety of (=various, many)
very
well
whether (or not)
yet
j



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 09:01AM by Batman.