Do You Use The F Word In Real Life?

[HeLiXe]

yep. and i use "like" like all the time.

 

[thegreenlaser]

Where is the use of curse words banned in the Bible? Considering it was written in a language with a different set up to English.

As a philosophy lecturer explained to me some time ago even using the "lords name in vain" does not refer to using it as an expletive, it refers to claiming God is responsible for your successes.

I never said that the use of curse words in general is banned in the Bible...

By the way, just because someone says "if you read the original language" doesn't mean they're right (doesn't mean they're wrong either, of course). The people who translated into English read the original language, did they not? (and a lot of other people have too) What makes your philosophy prof's interpretation automatically correct, compared with other people who have made interpretations from the original text? (I'm not saying it's incorrect, or even that I disagree with it, I just see no reason from your post to take it as correct) Now, I don't think there's really a way to continue this discussion much beyond that without breaking forum rules (which is my reasoning for so conveniently ignoring the actual argument). Regardless, I think it's clear that the purpose of this thread is not to determine whether or not swearing is condemned in the Bible and, if so, what specifically is condemned. I was simply saying that a lot of people do have reason to feel offended by the words Evo mentioned. Whether they're right or not is an entirely different matter.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I never said that the use of curse words in general is banned in the Bible...

By the way, just because someone says "if you read the original language" doesn't mean they're right (doesn't mean they're wrong either, of course). The people who translated into English read the original language, did they not? (and a lot of other people have too) What makes your philosophy prof's interpretation automatically correct, compared with other people who have made interpretations from the original text? (I'm not saying it's incorrect, or even that I disagree with it, I just see no reason from your post to take it as correct) Now, I don't think there's really a way to continue this discussion much beyond that without breaking forum rules (which is my reasoning for so conveniently ignoring the actual argument). Regardless, I think it's clear that the purpose of this thread is not to determine whether or not swearing is condemned in the Bible and, if so, what specifically is condemned. I was simply saying that a lot of people do have reason to feel offended by the words Evo mentioned. Whether they're right or not is an entirely different matter.

Eh? you're the one that bought it up onto other things though

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where is the use of curse words banned in the Bible? Considering it was written in a language with a different set up to English.

As a philosophy lecturer explained to me some time ago even using the "lords name in vain" does not refer to using it as an expletive, it refers to claiming God is responsible for your successes.

The problem is the "in vain" part. It has nothing to do with successes. It refers to using these words [God, Lord, Christ] only in the proper context. Also, to "damn" someone is to pass judgement or to wish evil upon another, which is considered sinful. It can all be argued as a matter of context.

For example, to call upon God to damn your car because it won't start is considered irreverant and a violation of the 3rd commandment.

 

[EntropicLove]

I say who cares. Sometimes I do, if I'm around a tight a** then I wont.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I was shocked at the language at first, but eventually I understood it to be a sort of local dialect.

Bingo!

Heavy use of the word communicates to others that you're from their neck of the woods, socio-economically speaking. The same dialect might also mean that you are, or have been, in the military. It's the dialect of thick-skinned, calloused people who do dirty, hard jobs. Saying "F***!" doesn't just express anger, it helps you stay angry, which is a poor man's motivator. And it keeps the callouses thick.

Use of the word by people who aren't blue collar, especially teenagers, communicates a whole host of things as well: you're not under the thumb of "the man" and are therefore likely to drink, smoke pot, not be uptight about rules and regulations.

 

[khemist]

I use it when other words don't suffice.

 

[SpringCreek]

Saying "F***!" doesn't just express anger, it helps you stay angry, which is a poor man's motivator. And it keeps the callouses thick.

That's an excellent point.

Langauge can also be a shield. While working that blue collar job, I occasionally used profanity deliberately when dealing with in-house white collar 'customers' who had an attitude. I would moderate my tone so as not to sound too threatening. The profanity itself conveyed the message that I couldn't be pushed and it's best not to try.

 

[BobG]

Almost never.

About the only exception is "WTF?", which is slightly different in meaning than "WTH?".

But, it's not very common for me to use any curse words, so f- isn't that special.

 

[KingNothing]

It's the dialect of thick-skinned, calloused people who do dirty, hard jobs.

At first, I thought this said "hand jobs". I was appalled!

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's an excellent point.

Langauge can also be a shield. While working that blue collar job, I occasionally used profanity deliberately when dealing with in-house white collar 'customers' who had an attitude. I would moderate my tone so as not to sound too threatening. The profanity itself conveyed the message that I couldn't be pushed and it's best not to try.

Exactly what I meant when I referred to it as "effective" in my OP. The strategic use of it causes a shift in people's perspective of you, and always suggests you are a more aggressive person than they pegged you for.

 

[pergradus]

It depends on the people I'm around.

In some groups, I probably use it every other sentence. In others I use it only in moderation and when emphasis is needed, in others I wouldn't dare even think of using it.

 

[EntropicLove]

Bingo!

Heavy use of the word communicates to others that you're from their neck of the woods, socio-economically speaking. The same dialect might also mean that you are, or have been, in the military. It's the dialect of thick-skinned, calloused people who do dirty, hard jobs. Saying "F***!" doesn't just express anger, it helps you stay angry, which is a poor man's motivator. And it keeps the callouses thick.

Use of the word by people who aren't blue collar, especially teenagers, communicates a whole host of things as well: you're not under the thumb of "the man" and are therefore likely to drink, smoke pot, not be uptight about rules and regulations.

Well said, I never knew cussing was common place in the military. The impression I have gotten is that it is about obedience to authority/hierarchy and being tough--How valid that is I don't really know.

Additionally, I (maybe falsely) have always seen cussing as something that only could have negative results regarding people respecting me and me surviving in the world. After hearing several comments it seems that it can be beneficially used.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well said, I never knew cussing was common place in the military. The impression I have gotten is that it is about obedience to authority/hierarchy and being tough--How valid that is I don't really know.

Al kinds of profanity is thrown at people in boot camp by drill instructors. The point being to toughen them up emotionally. See the movie Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick used a real drill instructor, R. Lee Ermy, to play the one in the film. Also the movie Jarhead accurately depicts language in the military. I live in San Diego which is crawling with sailors and marines, and they all cuss profusely.

Additionally, I (maybe falsely) have always seen cussing as something that only could have negative results regarding people respecting me and me surviving in the world. After hearing several comments it seems that it can be beneficially used.

I wouldn't phrase it "beneficially used" so much as "strategically used."

 

[ideasrule]

Heavy use of the word communicates to others that you're from their neck of the woods, socio-economically speaking. The same dialect might also mean that you are, or have been, in the military. It's the dialect of thick-skinned, calloused people who do dirty, hard jobs. Saying "F***!" doesn't just express anger, it helps you stay angry, which is a poor man's motivator. And it keeps the callouses thick.

Use of the word by people who aren't blue collar, especially teenagers, communicates a whole host of things as well: you're not under the thumb of "the man" and are therefore likely to drink, smoke pot, not be uptight about rules and regulations.

I hope you're joking, or else you're jumping to conclusions without any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. "It helps you stay angry?" "you're not under the thumb of 'the man'"?? Have you considered the possibility that people use the word to vent their own frustration, without making some kind of grandiose statement on society? I use the word all the time with my friends, and my only purpose is to express dissatisfaction. It's not my "dialect", and when I use it because I just spilled acid on myself, it means I'm in pain and would appreciate help. It doesn't mean I want to drink, smoke pot, or not be uptight about rules or regulations.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I use the word in real life. But I'm really not interested in what they has to say about me. I'd rather not be pushed into a group of people using the word, and then have claimed I have such and such traits. Get to know me, don't rely on some research and assume everyone fits under the same umbrella.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I hope you're joking, or else you're jumping to conclusions without any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. "It helps you stay angry?" "you're not under the thumb of 'the man'"?? Have you considered the possibility that people use the word to vent their own frustration, without making some kind of grandiose statement on society? I use the word all the time with my friends, and my only purpose is to express dissatisfaction. It's not my "dialect", and when I use it because I just spilled acid on myself, it means I'm in pain and would appreciate help. It doesn't mean I want to drink, smoke pot, or not be uptight about rules or regulations.

Wow. Would I be jumping to a conclusion with no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to characterize your reaction to my observations as emotionally charged?

Yes, saying "F***" helps you stay angry, and I characterized that as a "poor man's motivator" in reference to hard, dirty blue collar jobs. It's easier to lift the end of a heavy propeller shaft and mount it on the big lathe, for example, if you're ticked off at its weight and awkwardness than if you're depressed about the job. So, you say to someone "Grab the other end of this Fu**er and help me get it up there."

The kind of language a person uses not only expresses their mood and attitude, it also acts to create it. That's the whole reason behind the recent campaign to discourage the word "retard", for example, with that campaign's reiteration of all the other words it's not acceptable to use. If you call people by a certain term, you start thinking of them that way. Using racial slurs helps create racism: it depersonalizes the object of the slur in the mind of the person using the word.

Likewise, use of the word "f***" doesn't just express anger, it also perpetuates and generates anger.

Yeah, I said "not under the thumb of the man". The F word is prohibited by all kinds of authorities seeking to control the behavior of teenagers where ever teenage behavior needs controlling. To resort to using it as soon as you're out of earshot of authority says you're not under the thumb of "the man", because those who are won't use it even when the authority is absent.

And, yeah, the same kids who resort are also the ones most likely to smoke pot, drink, etc.

Have you considered the possibility that people use the word to vent their own frustration, without making some kind of grandiose statement on society? I use the word all the time with my friends, and my only purpose is to express dissatisfaction. It's not my "dialect", and when I use it because I just spilled acid on myself, it means I'm in pain and would appreciate help. It doesn't mean I want to drink, smoke pot, or not be uptight about rules or regulations.

All this is strawman logical fallacies. I'm sure you know what a strawman is.

Your main objection seems to be that you think I would be drawing erroneous conclusions about you based on the fact you use the F word all the time, by your own admission. I don't think I would. If I heard you enough in real life I could peg you as an exception (if you are an exception). The fact you might be an exception, if you are an exception, doesn't render my observations about people who use heavy profanity without basis or reasoning.

What did SpringCreek mean when characterizing blue collar profanity as "a sort of local dialect"? It was clear to me exactly what he was saying, and I thought it was an apt way of putting it. I was agreeing and expanding on that to let him know I understood his experience at the blue collar job.

In any event I think it would be foolish of you to suppose, which you seem to be doing, people aren't always paying attention to the kind of language others are using and how that choice of language sends messages about their socio-economic status, status in general, educational background, attitudes and moods, or to suppose it's erroneous for them to pay attention to those messages. So, no, I wasn't joking.

 

[ideasrule]

Wow. Would I be jumping to a conclusion with no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to characterize your reaction to my observations as emotionally charged?

I suppose that's accurate, but it's also hard to judge somebody else's emotions over the Internet. I think I came across as more emotionally charged than I intended.

My reaction was based on the fact that I had no idea where your conclusions came from. Where did your observations come from? Did you talk with blue-collar workers and teenagers, who then told you why they use F***? Did you talk with them, then make your own deduction based on what they did tell you? Did you get your observations from scientific research? Were you just speculating? This is GD, and I don't expect everything to be backed up by published papers. However, if it's only backed by your observations, "My observations are different" would be a perfectly valid counterargument.

Likewise, use of the word "f***" doesn't just express anger, it also perpetuates and generates anger.

I don't know many blue-collar workers. If you have friends who are blue-collar workers and they agree that using F*** let's them stay angry, I'll accept your judgement and agree with you on this.

Yeah, I said "not under the thumb of the man". The F word is prohibited by all kinds of authorities seeking to control the behavior of teenagers where ever teenage behavior needs controlling. To resort to using it as soon as you're out of earshot of authority says you're not under the thumb of "the man", because those who are won't use it even when the authority is absent.

And, yeah, the same kids who resort are also the ones most likely to smoke pot, drink, etc.

My observations are different, and I suspect you don't have much experience with teenagers. The word is a generic way of expressing frustration/bewilderment, and even teenagers who are perfectly happy to conform to the rules use it in this way. When someone uses the word just after falling off their bike or burning their hand on the stove, "the man" (whoever that is) is probably very low on their list of priorities.

Your main objection seems to be that you think I would be drawing erroneous conclusions about you based on the fact you use the F word all the time, by your own admission.

That was a weak objection, and I'm not saying that it applies to everyone.

What did SpringCreek mean when characterizing blue collar profanity as "a sort of local dialect"? It was clear to me exactly what he was saying, and I thought it was an apt way of putting it. I was agreeing and expanding on that to let him know I understood his experience at the blue collar job.

I agree with SpringCreek's comments more than I agree with yours. It's true that different socioeconomic groups use language in different ways, just as it's true that different occasions call for different language. You wouldn't speak the same way in Congress as you would in a strip club, and I'm not doubting that in any way. What I'm doubting is your assumption that people are constantly thinking about how the way they speak reflects their inner psyche. In all likelihood, they're simply following the convention set by their peers without thinking too hard about it.

 

[Ouabache]

I don't use this word in conversation. However I do realize it is contextual,
commonly accepted in some settings, blue collar (e.g plumbing, carpentry, construction work), and
military settings. In college, I recall some student journalists began using f* word and others in our
school newspaper (because of common usage amoung peers). They were eventually censored,
though these young writers believed their freedom of speech was compromised.

I was tracing the history of the English language and note many vulgar, what we
consider profane words, are of Germanic origin via O.E. & M.E. (old and middle English)
Many examples may be found in the http://www.etymonline.com/index.php" ).
What we consider polite vocabulary for the very same nouns & verbs, come to us, mostly by way of Latin.
Point to Ponder: So why are some words profane while their synonyms are quite acceptable?

 

[VikFloyd]

I never really curse. I try not to. I don't mind when people curse. However, it does annoy me when people use the F-word for no reason. It especially annoys me when they add emphasis to it...

 

[zoobyshoe]

...it's also hard to judge somebody else's emotions over the Internet.

Where did this observation come from? Did you talk to internet users and ask them if they were feeling what it seemed like they were feeling? Did you make your own deduction based on what they told you? Did you get this observation from scientific research? Are you just speculating?

Don't answer: Obviously I'm just throwing your own pointless questions back at you. I know what your statement meant. Yes, it's unrigorous, inaccurate, unsupported, and could be pecked at a thousand different ways, but there's no point, really, is there, because I know what you meant to convey. Unfortunately, you're not treating me with the same logical charity.

My reaction was based on the fact that I had no idea where your conclusions came from.

I don't think so. If I'd said something you already agreed with, you wouldn't stop and peck at it based on not knowing how I came to the conclusion. Your reaction was based on something more potent, not that I know what it was.

Where did your observations come from? Did you talk with blue-collar workers and teenagers, who then told you why they use F***? Did you talk with them, then make your own deduction based on what they did tell you? Did you get your observations from scientific research? Were you just speculating?

This is all ad hominem logical fallacies. The accuracy of an observation is independent of where or who it came from:

Did you talk with blue-collar workers and teenagers, who then told you why they use F***?

If I had, would their self reporting automatically be reliable?

Did you talk with them, then make your own deduction based on what they did tell you?

If I had, would it automatically be unreliable?

Did you get your observations from scientific research?

If I had would that automatically make it reliable?

Were you just speculating?

If I had been, would that automatically make it inaccurate?

Why are you bothering to ask these questions? You don't seem to be aware of the pitfalls of informal polls, scientific papers (particularly in a soft science like sociology), or the myopia that might result from immersion. Ask someone why they do a certain thing and you might get an accurate answer, but you might also get obfuscation, rationalization, political correctitude, or "Who gives a F***?" Ask a sociologist, you might get someone whose research you consider beautiful, or you might get someone who hacked an idea together to publish least they perish. No source is automatically reliable. What you're down to is your personal ability to assess whether or not I'm an accurate observer. You'll need some reading comprehension for that. My remarks are coming back to me from you distorted in queer ways.

This is GD, and I don't expect everything to be backed up by published papers. However, if it's only backed by your observations, "My observations are different" would be a perfectly valid counterargument.

It would be, yes. However, that isn't what you offered. Instead you started right off declaring my observations must be either a joke, or conclusion-jumping devoid of evidence or reasoning. An utterance on your part high in emotion, low in logic. Yet, despite the rigor you're apparently demanding of me, your objections to what I said are based on 1.) you jumping to completely erroneous conclusions about my history with blue collar workers and teenagers, and, 2.) lo and behold, nothing better than your personal experience with your friends. So, instead of saying, "My observations are different, " you reacted with an unwarranted confidence that mine were inaccurate and yours were spot on. All without the polls and scientific research, etc. you claim would convince you about mine. How can I take you seriously?

So, I'm not persuaded I should rethink my assessments in favor of yours. You're offering unappetizing logical fallacies, poor reading comprehension, emotional reasoning, jumped-to conclusions, and self contradictory logic.

Here's an example:

What I'm doubting is your assumption that people are constantly thinking about how the way they speak reflects their inner psyche. In all likelihood, they're simply following the convention set by their peers without thinking too hard about it.

This demonstrates both poor reading comprehension and a strawman fallacy. I did not say or imply people are doing this. You read my remarks too quickly or sloppily, or did something that amounted to poor reading comprehension, leading to the strawman where you hold up something I didn't say and then correct it.

Here's another:

The word is a generic way of expressing frustration/bewilderment, and even teenagers who are perfectly happy to conform to the rules use it in this way.

This makes no sense whatever. The rule is: do not use profanity. If kids are "perfectly happy to conform to the rules" they won't use it even when authority is absent. You can't describe someone who breaks the rule as "perfectly happy to conform to the rules" can you? I hope you can see my logic in characterizing use of the word as signaling to others that you're not under the thumb of the man. Second time I've explained it. Those who are under the thumb of the man don't use profanity even when the man is absent. If the profanity comes out as soon as the adults are gone, it's clearly garden variety, low grade, teenage rebelliousness. Unless you all are spilling acid on yourselves and falling off your bikes non-stop.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In college, I recall some student journalists began using f* word and others in our school newspaper (because of common usage amoung peers). They were eventually censored, though these young writers believed their freedom of speech was compromised.

Each new generation seems less bothered by profanity. Still, if it ever got to the point where the President was using it in the State of the Union speech, I'd be disappointed.

 

[HeLiXe]

I never really curse. I try not to. I don't mind when people curse. However, it does annoy me when people use the F-word for no reason. It especially annoys me when they add emphasis to it...

Don't watch Ronnie Johns' impersonation of the Copper then...especially "Haaaden the @#$% up!"

 

[ideasrule]

Where did this observation come from? Did you talk to internet users and ask them if they were feeling what it seemed like they were feeling? Did you make your own deduction based on what they told you? Did you get this observation from scientific research? Are you just speculating?

Don't answer: Obviously I'm just throwing your own pointless questions back at you. I know what your statement meant. Yes, it's unrigorous, inaccurate, unsupported, and could be pecked at a thousand different ways, but there's no point, really, is there, because I know what you meant to convey. Unfortunately, you're not treating me with the same logical charity.

If you honestly doubt that statement I made, I'll be happy to back it up. My point is that I honestly doubt your conclusions, and asked you to back them up. Instead of doing that, you responded with:

This is all ad hominem logical fallacies. The accuracy of an observation is independent of where or who it came from:

If I had, would their self reporting automatically be reliable?

If I had, would it automatically be unreliable?

If I had would that automatically make it reliable?

If I had been, would that automatically make it inaccurate?

Could you please simply say where you got your conclusions from? That's all I'm asking--for you to say what your observations are, and how you arrived at your conclusions from your observations.

Why are you bothering to ask these questions? You don't seem to be aware of the pitfalls of informal polls, scientific papers (particularly in a soft science like sociology), or the myopia that might result from immersion. Ask someone why they do a certain thing and you might get an accurate answer, but you might also get obfuscation, rationalization, political correctitude, or "Who gives a F***?" Ask a sociologist, you might get someone whose research you consider beautiful, or you might get someone who hacked an idea together to publish least they perish. No source is automatically reliable. What you're down to is your personal ability to assess whether or not I'm an accurate observer. You'll need some reading comprehension for that. My remarks are coming back to me from you distorted in queer ways.

You misinterpreted my response as well. I don't see how those pitfalls are relevant when I'm honestly asking you for your observations. I think you might have assumed my "pointless questions" were rhetorical, but they weren't.

It would be, yes. However, that isn't what you offered. Instead you started right off declaring my observations must be either a joke, or conclusion-jumping devoid of evidence or reasoning. An utterance on your part high in emotion, low in logic.

That was my fault, and I apologize for calling your observations a joke. However, you made a claim--namely, that blue-collar workers are trying to stay angry by using the F word--that's insulting to a large group of people. I'm not a blue-collar worker, but I think an emotional response to an insulting claim is to be expected.

So, instead of saying, "My observations are different, " you reacted with an unwarranted confidence that mine were inaccurate and yours were spot on. All without the polls and scientific research, etc. you claim would convince you about mine. How can I take you seriously?

Note that in your initial post, you never once mentioned the word "observations". You never even gave anecdotal evidence, not even in your later posts. I was under the impression that you were just making assumptions, but if that's incorrect, I'll gladly retract my confidence and listen to your evidenceSo, I'm not persuaded I should rethink my assessments in favor of yours. You're offering unappetizing logical fallacies, poor reading comprehension, emotional reasoning, jumped-to conclusions, and self contradictory logic.

Here's an example:

This demonstrates both poor reading comprehension and a strawman fallacy. I did not say or imply people are doing this. You read my remarks too quickly or sloppily, or did something that amounted to poor reading comprehension, leading to the strawman where you hold up something I didn't say and then correct it.

Actually, I may have just expressed myself poorly. You claimed that blue-collar workers were trying to stay angry, and teenagers were consciously expressing their disobedience, by using the F word. That's what I mean when I said that the way they speak reflects their inner psyche.

This makes no sense whatever. The rule is: do not use profanity. If kids are "perfectly happy to conform to the rules" they won't use it even when authority is absent. You can't describe someone who breaks the rule as "perfectly happy to conform to the rules" can you?

So you would consider a rule-breaking kid to be anyone who uses profanity at all? In that case, a criminal would be anybody who ever drove over the speed limit in their entire lives. I don't think that's a useful definition.

If the profanity comes out as soon as the adults are gone, it's clearly garden variety, low grade, teenage rebelliousness. Unless you all are spilling acid on yourselves and falling off your bikes non-stop.

If I don't speak the same way to a CEO as I do to zoobyshoe on PF, does that mean I'm expressing my disrespect for the CEO? Or does that simply mean different settings call for different ways of speaking? Why do you claim that the kids are even thinking about "the man", and are not simply following societal convention? (Note that this is a serious question. I'm not trying to be condescending; I honestly want to hear your justification.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you honestly doubt that statement I made, I'll be happy to back it up. My point is that I honestly doubt your conclusions, and asked you to back them up. Instead of doing that, you responded with:



Could you please simply say where you got your conclusions from? That's all I'm asking--for you to say what your observations are, and how you arrived at your conclusions from your observations.



You misinterpreted my response as well. I don't see how those pitfalls are relevant when I'm honestly asking you for your observations. I think you might have assumed my "pointless questions" were rhetorical, but they weren't.



That was my fault, and I apologize for calling your observations a joke. However, you made a claim--namely, that blue-collar workers are trying to stay angry by using the F word--that's insulting to a large group of people. I'm not a blue-collar worker, but I think an emotional response to an insulting claim is to be expected.



Note that in your initial post, you never once mentioned the word "observations". You never even gave anecdotal evidence, not even in your later posts. I was under the impression that you were just making assumptions, but if that's incorrect, I'll gladly retract my confidence and listen to your evidence


So, I'm not persuaded I should rethink my assessments in favor of yours. You're offering unappetizing logical fallacies, poor reading comprehension, emotional reasoning, jumped-to conclusions, and self contradictory logic.

Here's an example:



Actually, I may have just expressed myself poorly. You claimed that blue-collar workers were trying to stay angry, and teenagers were consciously expressing their disobedience, by using the F word. That's what I mean when I said that the way they speak reflects their inner psyche.



So you would consider a rule-breaking kid to be anyone who uses profanity at all? In that case, a criminal would be anybody who ever drove over the speed limit in their entire lives. I don't think that's a useful definition.



If I don't speak the same way to a CEO as I do to zoobyshoe on PF, does that mean I'm expressing my disrespect for the CEO? Or does that simply mean different settings call for different ways of speaking? Why do you claim that the kids are even thinking about "the man", and are not simply following societal convention? (Note that this is a serious question. I'm not trying to be condescending; I honestly want to hear your justification.)

I think you'll make it as a blue collar worker.

 

[ideasrule]

I think you'll make it as a blue collar worker.

Interesting. This is a personal attack from the person who said:

This is all ad hominem logical fallacies.

when I asked for evidence, even though I never made a single personal attack against anybody.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Interesting. This is a personal attack...

Not a personal attack. It was intended to express resigned sadness: you seem to me to be very angry and to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. I've heard there are people in Mensa who are stuck in menial jobs due to their lack of people skills, which is sad, and what prompted me to express my sadness the way I did.

 

[ideasrule]

Not a personal attack. It was intended to express resigned sadness: you seem to me to be very angry and to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. I've heard there are people in Mensa who are stuck in menial jobs due to their lack of people skills, which is sad, and what prompted me to express my sadness the way I did.

Let me just say that to me, you seem to be the one who's extremely angry. As I said, and as you've agreed, it's hard to judge emotions over the Internet. I don't let intellectual debates affect my personal relationships, and try not to judge others by the positions they take in these debates. You seem incapable of doing the same.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Interesting. This is a personal attack from the person who said:

This is all ad hominem logical fallacies.

when I asked for evidence, even though I never made a single personal attack against anybody.

A personal attack, incidentally, is not an ad hominem fallacy.

A personal attack, when it is used to try and discredit someone's position on an issue, though is an ad hominem fallacy.

So, had that been some kind of personal attack, which it wasn't, it would not have been an ad hominem fallacy, since it wouldn't have been aimed at discrediting your position.

There are several kinds of ad hominem fallacies. These are described somewhat differently at different sites. But the thing they all share is the attempt to discredit a claim, position, statement, etc, based on the source, and not on the merit of the claim.

The observation "Most dogs have four legs," is either accurate or inaccurate. It has merit or not. Who made the observation and how has no bearing on it's accuracy. "F=ma" is valid or not (most accept it is, of course) whether it comes from the mouth of Newton himself, or from a degraded wino who read it on a bathroom wall and has no idea what it means. It does not cease to have merit when the wino utters it. It's validity is inherent.

I believe you understand this in principle already, and believe it, because I happened across a post of yours from about a month ago, in which you assert somewhat analagous ideas:

My philosophy is that if you know the answer, you should get the point. It shouldn't matter whether you know it because you're naturally good at studying or because you used Adderall to help you study--either way, you have the knowledge. It also shouldn't matter whether you got your information from the textbook, from professors, from old exams, or from /b/, or from an alien artifact.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3333883&postcount=8

So, between what I've written in this post and your quote, the idea my observations have to have been gathered in a certain way before they're acceptable to you should be discarded. It would be quite possible for them to have been gathered in that way and still have no merit.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I use the word fairly frequently I suppose. My manner of speech tends to change somewhat depending on who I am around. Perhaps soap in the mouth during the developing years does create some sort of oral filter of vocabulary. I rarely cuss around my parents even though they now cuss around me fairly often. I definitely don't cuss on purpose in front of my grandparents. I don't think my mom does either, a few months ago she reflexively told me not to cuss when we were at my grandma's even though my grandma wasn't about.

Profanity does not bother me at all. Robert Anton Wilson illustrated the issue quite well in the Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy. He took the story to an alternate reality where people used different dirty words. He changed them to the names of some supreme court justices and politicians who had been rather outspoken regarding "obscenity". He then proceeded to describe some rather tawdry sex acts between a man and an underage male prostitute, among other things, using these different words. It was rather amusing.