Children and F*CKING language.

[Scouse]

Ah Toht, if you just didn't jump at all the bait

 

[Calaen]

How? Apart from posting in a thread Toht started?

Cal really would hit someone for bad language!

Wrong, Cal would hit someone who used an aggressive tone towards him and his family.

And you're someone who swears because he can, and he does not care what others think...... Oh no wait now your someone who does take others into consideration. Had toh stolen your account?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nothing to bite sadly, just morons

Wrong, Cal would hit someone who used an aggressive tone towards him and his family.

And you're someone who swears because he can, and he does not care what others think...... Oh no wait now your someone who does take others into consideration. Had toh stolen your account?

Hah, from "if someone told me to f*ck off, i'd hit them" to "If someone was agressive in the presence of my family, i'd defend them!". Lovely to have such backpeddling powers

We take you family folk into consideration by standing your kids already. You don't take any consideration towards others though.

Your child will grow up to be a people punching internet trolling wonder for sure!

 

[Calaen]

I wouldn't dare go drinking with someone like Cal, would have to watch every word incase the Cal dicktionary stated it's a punchable offense

based on your internet persona, the phrase never get bored of hitting it, would ring true.

 

[old.Tohtori]

based on your internet persona, the phrase never get bored of hitting it, would ring true.

Careful there, might cross a line you can't get away with

But it's nice to know that you'd start with your punching right away, not like those barbarians with no manners who don't hit people

Here's to hoping your kid never tells you to f*ck off.

 

[Calaen]

Careful there, might cross a line you can't get away with
But it's nice to know that you'd start with your punching right away, not like those barbarians with no manners who don't hit people

Here's to hoping your kid never tells you to f*ck off.

seriously do you actually think I care? I'd give more attention to a burning turd if given the choice.

Clearly you've got semen on your face spoiling your vision. My stance on this thread had ALWAYS been based on the parent asking POLITELY for the language to be toned down, yet being responded to with an aggressive response, infront of said family.

Buy a clue.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, it's clear, if someone tells you to f*ck off, or as you put it "Puts me down infront of my family", you'll start a fight.

It's quite clear, there's no confusion over it, and yet it's just the problem i stated; you're the kind of people you were ranting about

Oh and, you should care, forum has rules and such.

Need a quote to remember?

I would get pissed off mate, I would politelly ask for them to try and keep it down to a minimum. If I was then greeted with a you can fuck off as well. There'd be a fight.

F*ck off = punchy time in Cal land.

 

[Bugz]

It's a topic I am on neither side for but the arguments made by both sides have been absolutely trodden with personal emotions.

To start with, excessive 'insulting words or behaviour' within the hearing/sight of a person likely to take harm is a public offence. The conditions on defence are that 'they didn't know people would be offended' but this obviously does not apply to Scouse because he is aware it is offensive, he just doesn't care:

Also, queue my bird's sister going "watch it - there's kids behind you".

I said to her, "they can fuck off too"...

To be honest, I'm sure you can see similair elements in the OP though they aren't as direct as Scouses.

Secondly, noise is a pollutant. In the same way you'd probably object to excess noise pollution from a group of chavs outside of your house as it's your 'personal home,' the same courteousy should come in public places where it is not your 'personal dwelling' and so it is being used by others. I would argue the social norm dictates not to swear in public, the parent-example is a mere 'extension' to that norm. Swear words create distress, as well as offence. It is a possible signal to others that this personal may be trouble, may be aggressive.

What of signals and possibility? Well being nude in a public place is a criminal offence too. If a man walks outside a school and exposes himself, surely, in Scouse's words...

Can I ask - do you not think the correct intellectual stance to take would be to understand that there are people in this world who don't think and act like you yourself do, and that the best course of action would be to understand that fact - rather than get pissed off when they don't act the way you want them to?

...we should not give a fuck because that person should act as he likes. Yet we do give a fuck because that behaviour is a) distressing and b) is a signal about other possibilities [which we will not go into].

The link between sexuality and offensive words is very much there. Both are personal acts that have social externalities that are widely debated. Scouse vs Calean. Naturists vs x and y religions (or whoever). But to be honest, and rightly so, we need a protect those who can get distressed or offended [within reason].

What if Scouse hurled a lot of offensive words and a child heard, held onto it, gets angry at school and hurls abuse at his teacher. The social externalities have spread to his school, his peer-mates & guess who gets the fallout: the parents.

I agree completely with dysfunction: it is sad, really sad, that we can't be courteous to other people. The marginal utility loss of not being able to swear in public is so small compred to the social externalities that can arise from it. Until society as a whole finds no fault socially with offensive words, it will stay like that. But this is not a debate about the psychological impact of swearing [well Toht intended it to be but it's gone severly off course] and Gohan's comments in page 1 encapsulate a big aspect of this. Smoking in public was banned in much the same way: private benefit vs social benefit. Both swearing and smoking you can do in your own home AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE.

That is what arguing with your emotions doesn't make clear: at it's economic heart, this is a question about externalities and our government is limiting the negative externalities by limiting universal private benefit. I can understand immensely why that sucks and I understand immensely that to some, swearing doesn't hold the same mpact as it does with others. But at it's heart, it's your decision to say a couple of words that make little bearing on a conversation that you cannot subsitute for extra expression, tone or character versus the possible externalities for others' who hear it.

Not agreeing with this does not make you selfish as such or an idiot but to me, it says volumes about your desire for an inch more of private benefit as compared to the social implications. It's not the attitude we need in society. I mean come on - you are effectively using the same argument and logic as that what was used when smoking was banned in public - but the personal benefit of smoking will [for most] always exceed that of letting our swear words.

I dare not do a count of how many times I have said externalities there.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Secondly, noise is a pollutant. In the same way you'd probably object to excess noise pollution from a group of chavs outside of your house as it's your 'personal home,' the same courteousy should come in public places where it is not your 'personal dwelling' and so it is being used by others.

On that note, crying children are noise pollution too. Would you be willing to say that a family should take the kid outside, or even home, to be considerate and not harm others with said noise pollution?

There is no problem in being polite here, but the problem lies in double-standards.

 

[Cerb]

Adrian Mole.....is that you?

Seriously though well made point.

 

[Bugz]

On that note, crying children are noise pollution too. Would you be willing to say that a family should take the kid outside, or even home, to be considerate and not harm others with said noise pollution?

There is no problem in being polite here, but the problem lies in double-standards.

Children crying is a noise pollutant too and I do agree - which is why it was not the angle I was arguing towards in my post. Both parties have a social responsibility as both swearing and being unable to keep your children under wraps [individual circumstances removed] have externalities.

I'd be lieing if I didn't get severly annoyed when I see a child crying and a mum who does not give a damn, especially on the bus when I am forced to be in 'noise pollutant range.' But at the same time, I do not rack up my MP3 power to full noise and pass on noise pollution myself to the poor sods behind me who can't stand Bon Jovi [which let's face it, makes them morons]. Using one wrong to justify another wrong (in society's eyes) does two things: a) it probably increases your marginal benefit (i.e. I drown out the baby noise via Bon Jovi - I am happier) and b) it just annoys other people that little bit more.

Life is full of shit parents, back-seat dwellers who play Dizzee fuckin Rascal to the whole bus & even litterers, who convey the same social externality through their own private benefit of 'not having to find a bin.' But I'd really hope there are enough considerate people out there to go 'you know what, his a tosser but I'm not.'

Maybe I'm become mellow in my older age but I, probably too much, care about what other people feel when I'm in a social environment. I will roll my eyes [discretly] if a mother is being a shit mother and I will curse her in my head but at the same time, I know the other poor sods don't need another person having the same social disregard.

 

[Calaen]

Two very good posts, bugz. Said far better, than I could have.

 

[Scouse]

Wrong, Cal would hit someone who used an aggressive tone towards him and his family.

Lol! Backpedal-o-matic.

The facts are Cal - you're the punchy type, I'm not. You fight. I don't.

I'll leave it to others to decide which action makes which of us the bigger antisocial wanker


Edit: Bugz, I stopped reading your post (which I had many things to disagree with, purely intellectually) when you used the age-old fail tactic of using an extreme case as if it was a pertinent argument. Comparing swearing in a public place to a paedo flashing children in the schoolyard. Shame on you m8. I daresay Cal'll love the post tho...

 

[Scouse]

On that note, crying children are noise pollution too. Would you be willing to say that a family should take the kid outside, or even home, to be considerate and not harm others with said noise pollution?

There is no problem in being polite here, but the problem lies in double-standards.

It's worse than that Toht.

Talking is the noise pollution in Bugz's definition. However, it only becomes a problem when we start using words that some people take offence at.

The argument is shite. Period.

 

[Bugz]

Edit: Bugz, I stopped reading your post (which I had many things to disagree with, purely intellectually) when you used the age-old fail tactic of using an extreme case as if it was a pertinent argument. Comparing swearing in a public place to a paedo flashing children in the schoolyard. Shame on you m8. I daresay Cal'll love the post tho...

The amusing thing is Scouse you are just reinforcing my point.

Exposing yourself in front of a school is basically another thing that society has declared as 'unacceptable.' The immediate social harm is only decided by society's psychological approach to nudity: that is wrong in public - much the same as swearing. The only convergence come into place when you consider possibilities offshooting from this action and when we apply probabilistic beliefs on these possibilities to form some idea of the overall 'social damage.'

Hence why I state that they are widely debated. That immediate social harm will change from nothing to someone who may be very pro-Neudist (Naturist - whatever) to huge for someone who is very religious [again, only an example]. Getting into the other possibilties and assigning a probability distribution to them is a psychologists' job, not mine.

The prominent point here is that judging by your response, you deem that example as an extreme case because society's norm is to see is an extreme case. In the exact same way I see it as something that should not be done.

But what this shows is you are suspectible to calculating social externalities, either the immediate effect, the possibilities or indeed both. Which is why, and I thought as much, using that case against you would be perfect because it'll show to us and yourself the emotional attitude you take to this subject, as opposed to a fully rational one.

So the answer to this whole scenario must either be that you don't know the social externalities of swearing [in which case, some people on here as parents and upstanding members of society could tell you] or you just value your own benefit way above societys - which is pretty tragic given the sheer 'lack of importance' swearing has to an average persons' lifetime utility.

Now come on - stop feeding me fodder that affirms my point.

 

[Calaen]

Lol! Backpedal-o-matic.

The facts are Cal - you're the punchy type, I'm not. You fight. I don't.

I'll leave it to others to decide which action makes which of us the bigger antisocial wanker


Edit: Bugz, I stopped reading your post (which I had many things to disagree with, purely intellectually) when you used the age-old fail tactic of using an extreme case as if it was a pertinent argument. Comparing swearing in a public place to a paedo flashing children in the schoolyard. Shame on you m8. I daresay Cal'll love the post tho...

Go back and read my posts, the quote the whole thing. Far from being a punchy type, im just someone that wont stand for shit, from people who run around provoking people.

Its called standing up for myself, my reaction is based purely on you deliberatley being an arsehole to my face after a valid request for most parents. Go back and read it, befire crying on about punchy punchy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Children crying is a noise pollutant too and I do agree - which is why it was not the angle I was arguing towards in my post. Both parties have a social responsibility as both swearing and being unable to keep your children under wraps [individual circumstances removed] have externalities.

I'd be lieing if I didn't get severly annoyed when I see a child crying and a mum who does not give a damn, especially on the bus when I am forced to be in 'noise pollutant range.' But at the same time, I do not rack up my MP3 power to full noise and pass on noise pollution myself to the poor sods behind me who can't stand Bon Jovi [which let's face it, makes them morons]. Using one wrong to justify another wrong (in society's eyes) does two things: a) it probably increases your marginal benefit (i.e. I drown out the baby noise via Bon Jovi - I am happier) and b) it just annoys other people that little bit more.

Life is full of shit parents, back-seat dwellers who play Dizzee fuckin Rascal to the whole bus & even litterers, who convey the same social externality through their own private benefit of 'not having to find a bin.' But I'd really hope there are enough considerate people out there to go 'you know what, his a tosser but I'm not.'

Maybe I'm become mellow in my older age but I, probably too much, care about what other people feel when I'm in a social environment. I will roll my eyes [discretly] if a mother is being a shit mother and I will curse her in my head but at the same time, I know the other poor sods don't need another person having the same social disregard.

Quite true and i wasn't trying to convey a point that it is acceptable to fight fire with fire. Ignoring is the key, be it a screaming child, or someone telling you to f*ck off, or telling you to mind your language, or any situation really.

Let a-holes be a-holes and try to ignore them.

But it's good to find a common ground on it, shame that many others use the "this is socially acceptable in comparison to X"(crying kid vs swearing as an example) excuse to be dicks.

Calaen; the quote is clear and not out of context, you're in the wrong here and by saying Bugz is right, you're contradicting your own previous statement.

It can be solved with one simple question; if you asked someone politely to stop cursing loudly because of your kids and the person said "Mind your own and f*ck off", would you start a fight? Or how about "F*ck off with your kids".

Verbal NEVER excuses physical. No matter if the guy calls you a wanker waste of space infront of the queen, the moment you get physical, you're to blame 100%.

 

[Zenith.UK]

As many have already said here, different parents have different ideas of what they consider acceptable or not. I personally make an effort to NOT swear in earshot of kids. ANY kids. I have no idea how their parents might react so I avoid provocation.

My eldest (12) knows all the swear words and has the sense to not use them in front of her younger siblings. She also knows that I don't like any swearing in my house as a general rule.
My middle one (5) knows some of the words because she's heard them from other kids on the street. We tell her there are some words that are "naughty" and she shouldn't use them until she's older and knows more words. She seems to accept that.
Everyone swears at some point, even someone like me who tries to avoid it where possible. The rule in my house is that if you swear, you have the back of your hand gently slapped. It's just a way of getting across that certain words have a meaning that shouldn't be thrown around in everyday conversation.

Coming back to my eldest, I've started making a point of deliberately letting the occasional mild swearing slide. Not because I'm being "hands-off" but because she's going to start using swearing in proper context.


Now compare with my wife's friend and kids down the road. The 13 year old swears like a trooper and the 6 year old has quite a potty mouth at times. I try not to be judgemental about it because I know the background of the family. The elder one asked me once "How come I never hear you swearing?"
I replied, "I do swear at times. Just not in front of kids young enough to be in school."


In reply to the posts about kids and noise in public places, it is an unfortunate fact of life that kids want to try things out, including their voices. Hell, I find my youngest annoying at times when he screeches. If it's any consolation, it's usually a 2-3 year window where they're like that.

I approve of this advert.
YouTube - ‪Banned Commercial - Condoms‬‏

My response: They don't work. #3 proves the point.

 

[gohan]

Yuh AWWWWWW




NUH











(thats yawn BTW incase ur retarded xD)

 

[Calaen]

Calaen; the quote is clear and not out of context, you're in the wrong here and by saying Bugz is right, you're contradicting your own previous statement.

It can be solved with one simple question; if you asked someone politely to stop cursing loudly because of your kids and the person said "Mind your own and f*ck off", would you start a fight? Or how about "F*ck off with your kids".

the point you keep missing out on, is the fact it is my business, which is why I would have politely asked for it to be toned down. Its my child lustening to as you put an a-hole. There used to be respect for people in this country, fot your elders, your neighbours and for the law. Nowadays people run about taunting all of the above, without any consequence.

Me walking away from the situation you desribe would letting them win, as they continue to do on a daily basid and while you don't agree with the violence,(which I understand) I belibe tnese people need to be brought down to earth with a bang. i've been batted for being lippy myself when I was a lad, and it taught me a lesson. I? 13 stone wet through, but I will defend my beliefs,because I always have respect for others as I was brought upto.

 

[Scouse]

The amusing thing is Scouse you are just reinforcing my point.

Disagree. And the rest of your argument is incredibly conformist in it's overarching approach.

History is supposed to have taught us not to pander to conformists.


Anyway. Zen's obviously a sensible parent:

...different parents have different ideas of what they consider acceptable or not. I personally make an effort to NOT swear in earshot of kids. ANY kids....

We tell her there are some words that are "naughty" ...certain words have a meaning that shouldn't be thrown around in everyday conversation...

I don't have a problem with his approach. Not one bit. I would support him in his approach if someone told him he was wrong to do that.

However, I personally disagree. If I ever have kids I won't be telling them that there are "naughty" words and I'm of the opinion that swearing is fine to be thrown around in everyday conversation.

I would teach my kids not to swear tho.

Phreaky eh? Possibly hypocritical? Maybe. Fits in with a top-down conformist system? Nope.

Wrong?

Coming back to my eldest, I've started making a point of deliberately letting the occasional mild swearing slide. Not because I'm being "hands-off" but because she's going to start using swearing in proper context

Y'see. Age-based naughty! Wrong when you're younger, not quite so wrong when you're older. Sometimes even funny. We pay money to hear people that swear make us laugh.

But not when the kids are about.

However, I'm in support of Zenith's total hypocrasy here.

Life's more complex than Bug's economic approach to some bullshit common "morality".



Edit: Yes Cal. We know you think it's OK to hit people. It doesn't matter what reasons you think you have to justify yourself - 'cause it still makes you a "punchy tit".

 

[pez]

I wouldn't let my kids swear because kids that swear are from a lower socio-economic background than my kids.

 

[Calaen]

Disagree. And the rest of your argument is incredibly conformist in it's overarching approach.

History is supposed to have taught us not to pander to conformists.


Anyway. Zen's obviously a sensible parent:



I don't have a problem with his approach. Not one bit. I would support him in his approach if someone told him he was wrong to do that.

However, I personally disagree. If I ever have kids I won't be telling them that there are "naughty" words and I'm of the opinion that swearing is fine to be thrown around in everyday conversation.

I would teach my kids not to swear tho.

Phreaky eh? Possibly hypocritical? Maybe. Fits in with a top-down conformist system? Nope.

Wrong?




Y'see. Age-based naughty! Wrong when you're younger, not quite so wrong when you're older. Sometimes even funny. We pay money to hear people that swear make us laugh.

But not when the kids are about.

However, I'm in support of Zenith's total hypocrasy here.

Life's more complex than Bug's economic approach to some bullshit common "morality".



Edit: Yes Cal. We know you think it's OK to hit people. It doesn't matter what reasons you think you have to justify yourself - 'cause it still makes you a "punchy tit".

Rather be that than a gobby bastard

 

[old.Tohtori]

the point you keep missing out on, is the fact it is my business, which is why I would have politely asked for it to be toned down. Its my child lustening to as you put an a-hole. There used to be respect for people in this country, fot your elders, your neighbours and for the law. Nowadays people run about taunting all of the above, without any consequence.

Me walking away from the situation you desribe would letting them win, as they continue to do on a daily basid and while you don't agree with the violence,(which I understand) I belibe tnese people need to be brought down to earth with a bang. i've been batted for being lippy myself when I was a lad, and it taught me a lesson. I? 13 stone wet through, but I will defend my beliefs,because I always have respect for others as I was brought upto.

I'm not missing on it, i get it, i get why where and when. I jsut don't agree to the behaviour and find it in the category you described; tits doing whatever they want. Now i'm not calling you a tit doing what he wants, just that you could do without the fighting as easily, thus contributing to the problem instead of the solution.

I can take someone calling me names, but sticks and stones, not so much.

The "letting them win" is a moot point though, a bit of a pride issue more then "them winning". There is no win/loose, only loosing parties when a fight gets on the way.

If you left them alone(as they clearly won't stop), they'd be gobby bastards as it's their nature. On the other hand, if you punch them, there will be a fight(your kids might even take away that fighting is a solution), yet they will STILL be gobby bastards after it.

Here's a "someone once told me" thing people can quote me on; it might be good to stand against assholes and not walk away...then again it might be you'll never walk again.

 

[Scouse]

Rather be that than a gobby bastard

i.e. rather be violent than mouthy.


Top stuff there! No really.

/wub punchy

 

[Bugz]

Disagree. And the rest of your argument is incredibly conformist in it's overarching approach.

Maybe you'd like to explain to me why without pulling one liners and ignoring it? Because I don't see anything wrong with my theory - it pretty much echos the argument for smoking and can be applied directly to the issue of swearing.

Life's more complex than Bug's economic approach to some bullshit common "morality".

Oh dear. I'll spell it out for you: government [ideally] works on maximising social benefit. Individuals who are truly selfish work on maximising private benefit. Most of us are somewhere in between, we want to make sure we're well off without necessairily fucking society in the arse. Swearing is fuckin society in the arse a lot more than it is making your own life better [exceptions excluded]: swearing achieves fuck all.

You think that's bullshit? You provide me some fuckin' good arguments to prove otherwise. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to have full knowledge on everything and to know the specialist jargon for everything but as you seemingly feel very strongly on the topic, your one liners just make you seem like your full of hot air.

 

[Huntingtons]

swearing achieves fuck all.

i read an article some time ago on swearing which showed that swearing can help people withstand more pain. so in a sense it can achieve something for society.

 

[dysfunction]

I've met Calaen...His punch would be like being hit by Mr Burns from the Simpsons...




And Scouses arguments flip flop this way and that so you can never tell which side of the fence he is sitting...more like the fence post is up his arse.

 

[old.Tohtori]

swearing achieves fuck all.

You think that's bullshit? You provide me some fuckin' good arguments to prove otherwise.

That why did you swear just now?

Has to be asked really.

I don't necessarily agree that true selfish(sounds like D&D alignments) means maximising private benefit alone. The best way would be to act social, gain personal. You can gain a lot more when you got the social backing up to it, then you could at a 100% self loving manner.

Besides the point really and in theory you're right, in reality most of us fall in the whole spectrum of things, which is something people have a hard time accepting; there's no one way to live, no social "norm". There might have been, when it was needed, but a social "norm" is pretty much as dead as a nation filled with blond haired blue eyes. Live and let live rules these days, or would if people noticed the let part.

 

[noblok]

Oh dear. I'll spell it out for you: government [ideally] works on maximising social benefit.

That's not a fact, though. It's your opinion. Some people think there are certain values which governments should respect, even though it may not be in the interest of the 'social benefit'. (For an elaborate argument against consequentialism, see: Consequentialism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Another point (more on topic): I'm not convinced swearing around kids causes more social harm than it does good. Your best argument seemed to be that a kid could hear them and insult his teacher with them, who would then blame the parents. I don't really see this as a huge problem which makes it perfectly acceptable to curb peoples freedom to express themselves how they like.
If the kid threw abuse at the teacher, he obviously isn't happy with the teacher and would have found some other way to vent this hadn't he heard the swearwords (maybe even punching or biting - you see: I can create a hypothetical situation, to show there's a social benefit to swearing as well). Either way the teacher would speak to the parents about it, I don't think the swearing makes a huge difference (then again, this may be a cultural thing and the UK may just be a much more uptight place than Belgium).

I also don't really have a problem with nudism. I'll probably be surprised and give them a weird look if I passed one on the street. I might even think that it's wrong for them to do that, but I would never think this is a moral rule, rather than a social one. As such I also think laws prohibiting nudity should be abolished (I don't care strongly about this, but I'd support it if it were to happen).