Should we stop using certain words?

[Woodruff]

i refute that assumption how very authoritarian of you.

I don't make the rules on this site.

Do you understand the difference between the words "can" and "should"? I ask because they're critical to the disagreement we're having, and it doesn't seem as though you're willing to recognize the difference between the two.

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

[john9blue]

i refute that assumption how very authoritarian of you.

I don't make the rules on this site.

Do you understand the difference between the words "can" and "should"? I ask because they're critical to the disagreement we're having, and it doesn't seem as though you're willing to recognize the difference between the two.

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

let me get this straight... you think i'm obligated to accept the CC mods' moral standards instead of my own?

[Juan_Bottom]

Here, yes.

If you didn't accept them then wouldn't you be morally obligated to quit?

[Phatscotty]

We can stop using certain words as soon as we stop having freedom of speech. Not to worry, Progressives are hard at work weakening the 1st amendment. Patience....

As for here, Certain people can say certain words and break certain rules that others cannot. It's impossible to have (credible) rules when they are only enforced based on people's political beliefs, cultural beliefs, or even skin color. The double standards so prevalent in our society today are constantly reinforced.

[Phatscotty]

i refute that assumption how very authoritarian of you.

I don't make the rules on this site.

Do you understand the difference between the words "can" and "should"? I ask because they're critical to the disagreement we're having, and it doesn't seem as though you're willing to recognize the difference between the two.

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

let me get this straight... you think i'm obligated to accept the CC mods' moral standards instead of my own?

He abuses their standards far too often to be in any position to lecture another about them. I wouldn't take him seriously on this one

[Phatscotty]

Well.. Technically, you can use any word you want, as long as it isn't being used in an offensive manner.

that could be true, except for I could easily find myself constantly offended, and they would just laugh at me if I told them I am offended (since I deserve it), so I do not believe that is true. with certain wussy people, yes it's true, but not for everyone. It seems that in certain cases, the offender has the power to decide if one has been offended or not, and it's becoming normal to say "well, he's white/Conservative/Christian, so it's a joke, not an offense". But if the EXACT same thing were said to another person of another religion/belief system/skin color, THEN watch out! serious offense has been committed!

It's the same thing as reverse racism. Racism and bigotry is not allowed, unless it's against White males or Christians. then it's okay/freedom of speech. (in general, not just here)

It's hard for people to be objective, understandably. as long as they try their best I am content. but when new rules are created, and one gets banned for double posting and then for necrobumping, and then those rules are removed shortly after, we obviously have a constant rotation/traps of what is acceptable and what isn't, so it's hard for anyone to know what the rules are, and sometimes that it exactly what the powers that be intended.

[Woodruff]

i refute that assumption how very authoritarian of you.

I don't make the rules on this site.

Do you understand the difference between the words "can" and "should"? I ask because they're critical to the disagreement we're having, and it doesn't seem as though you're willing to recognize the difference between the two.

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

let me get this straight... you think i'm obligated to accept the CC mods' moral standards instead of my own?

Is there a problem with your understanding of basic English? In the English I'm familiar with, the term "should" does not require obligation. Where did you get the stupid idea that I was saying you were obligated to accept their standards? What I AM saying is that they DO set the standards for what you SHOULD say on this site. Again, this isn't a difficult concept.

[Woodruff]

We can stop using certain words as soon as we stop having freedom of speech. Not to worry, Progressives are hard at work weakening the 1st amendment. Patience....

Is this where you whine at my making everything about the left-right again? Because it seems like you do that every time you make it about the left-right.

[Woodruff]

i refute that assumption how very authoritarian of you.

I don't make the rules on this site.

Do you understand the difference between the words "can" and "should"? I ask because they're critical to the disagreement we're having, and it doesn't seem as though you're willing to recognize the difference between the two.

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

let me get this straight... you think i'm obligated to accept the CC mods' moral standards instead of my own?

He abuses their standards far too often to be in any position to lecture another about them. I wouldn't take him seriously on this one

Says the eminent forum troll.

So basically, neither one of you understands basic English. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised by that.

[Woodruff]

Well.. Technically, you can use any word you want, as long as it isn't being used in an offensive manner.

that could be true, except for I could easily find myself constantly offended, and they would just laugh at me if I told them I am offended (since I deserve it), so I do not believe that is true. with certain wussy people, yes it's true, but not for everyone. It seems that in certain cases, the offender has the power to decide if one has been offended or not, and it's becoming normal to say "well, he's white/Conservative/Christian, so it's a joke, not an offense". But if the EXACT same thing were said to another person of another religion/belief system/skin color, THEN watch out! serious offense has been committed!

Yeah, the white Christians are so persecuted.

It's the same thing as reverse racism.

There is no such thing as reverse racism. The whole idea of "reverse racism" is laughable, and people who use such terms are simply trying to play the pity card without looking like it. Stop being pitiful, Phatscotty...either something is racism or it isn't.

Racism and bigotry is not allowed, unless it's against White males or Christians. then it's okay/freedom of speech. (in general, not just here)

Those poor white Christian males. So picked on.

[john9blue]

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

let me get this straight... you think i'm obligated to accept the CC mods' moral standards instead of my own?

Is there a problem with your understanding of basic English? In the English I'm familiar with, the term "should" does not require obligation. Where did you get the stupid idea that I was saying you were obligated to accept their standards? What I AM saying is that they DO set the standards for what you SHOULD say on this site. Again, this isn't a difficult concept.

i've noticed that you get madder and madder the more you are backed into a corner in an argument, like a cornered dog.

for starters: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should

1. Used to express obligation or duty

so, you're wrong there.

all the CC rules set the standards for is what language on this site can get you warned/banned from here. the rules aren't there to try and change our opinion of what is right (i.e. what we believe we SHOULD do), as we are free to disagree with them. they ARE there to let us know what the people in charge of this site think is right, and give us an idea of what happens when we go against their wishes. we can participate in this site and follow the rules even if we think we SHOULD be acting differently than we have to act to avoid being banned. i know i certainly don't tell people like you how stupid they are as often as i SHOULD, because i'm aware of some of the mods' distaste for me, even if it means letting idiots like you walk away thinking they still know what they are talking about.

you seem to be conflating the ideas of "trying to change someone's opinion" and "threatening to take action against someone if they don't follow your opinion", which is certainly weird behavior for someone who CLAIMS to be an advocate of personal liberty... this is known as the "is/ought" problem in philosophy. the CC rules tell us what IS the consequence for a given action, but each person's moral standards tell them what they OUGHT to do in a given situation. you're getting the two confused, and even if the odds of you ever admit to me that english confuses you are basically zero, i hope you personally realize it and will try to account for your linguistic failures in the future.

[Phatscotty]

We can stop using certain words as soon as we stop having freedom of speech. Not to worry, Progressives are hard at work weakening the 1st amendment. Patience....

Is this where you whine at my making everything about the left-right again? Because it seems like you do that every time you make it about the left-right.

Only an Idiot would think the word Progressive means "left". If you had even a basic clue, you would know that Progressivism transcends left-right paradigm, dipshit. Like I always say and then show right to your face, you are the one who sees everything as left vs. right.

You come into these conversations with thoughts similar to the way a bird thinks about airplanes.

[Phatscotty]

Racism and bigotry is not allowed, unless it's against White males or Christians. then it's okay/freedom of speech. (in general, not just here)

Those poor white Christian males. So picked on.

I rest my case

[Phatscotty]

So basically, neither one of you understands basic English. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised by that.

Yup, that's it. We don't understand basic English.

So now the question is, why do you keep talking to people who cannot even understand basic English, and who you are aware do not understand basic English?? Either you are a complete amateur troll, or a complete dummy. either way...

[Woodruff]

the words one "should" use are dictated by morality. whatever moral system you follow will tell you what words you believe "should" be used. my moral system is not "whatever the CC mods say is right" and therefore i don't think they can tell me what words i "should" use.
simple enough?

Yet the CC moderators DO IN FACT tell you what words you "should" use. In fact, it's their job to do so (by way of telling you what words you "should not" use.

This isn't a difficult concept, John.

let me get this straight... you think i'm obligated to accept the CC mods' moral standards instead of my own?

Is there a problem with your understanding of basic English? In the English I'm familiar with, the term "should" does not require obligation. Where did you get the stupid idea that I was saying you were obligated to accept their standards? What I AM saying is that they DO set the standards for what you SHOULD say on this site. Again, this isn't a difficult concept.

i've noticed that you get madder and madder the more you are backed into a corner in an argument, like a cornered dog.

It's not anger, it's frustration at idiocy.

for starters: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should

1. Used to express obligation or duty

so, you're wrong there.[/quote]

Wrong? Did you EVEN READ THE DAMN DEFINITION THAT YOU PROVIDED? Nice of you to only include the very limited portion that supports your position...it's like you just want to argue with me for some personal vendetta or something, and to hell with all reason. Pretty dishonest on your part, too, those that's becoming less and less surprising.

all the CC rules set the standards for is what language on this site can get you warned/banned from here. the rules aren't there to try and change our opinion of what is right (i.e. what we believe we SHOULD do), as we are free to disagree with them. they ARE there to let us know what the people in charge of this site think is right, and give us an idea of what happens when we go against their wishes. we can participate in this site and follow the rules even if we think we SHOULD be acting differently than we have to act to avoid being banned. i know i certainly don't tell people like you how stupid they are as often as i SHOULD, because i'm aware of some of the mods' distaste for me, even if it means letting idiots like you walk away thinking they still know what they are talking about.

you seem to be conflating the ideas of "trying to change someone's opinion" and "threatening to take action against someone if they don't follow your opinion", which is certainly weird behavior for someone who CLAIMS to be an advocate of personal liberty... this is known as the "is/ought" problem in philosophy. the CC rules tell us what IS the consequence for a given action, but each person's moral standards tell them what they OUGHT to do in a given situation. you're getting the two confused, and even if the odds of you ever admit to me that english confuses you are basically zero, i hope you personally realize it and will try to account for your linguistic failures in the future.

I'm conflating nothing of the sort. What I AM telling you is that the moderators do not tell you what you CAN do, but they certainly tell you what you SHOULD do. I do hope you'll someday grow up and get past this weird fascination with being intentionally obtuse.

[Woodruff]

We can stop using certain words as soon as we stop having freedom of speech. Not to worry, Progressives are hard at work weakening the 1st amendment. Patience....

Is this where you whine at my making everything about the left-right again? Because it seems like you do that every time you make it about the left-right.

Only an Idiot would think the word Progressive means "left". If you had even a basic clue, you would know that Progressivism transcends left-right paradigm, dipshit. Like I always say and then show right to your face, you are the one who sees everything as left vs. right.

You come into these conversations with thoughts similar to the way a bird thinks about airplanes.

You're not a very honest individual, are you? Serious question.

[Woodruff]

Racism and bigotry is not allowed, unless it's against White males or Christians. then it's okay/freedom of speech. (in general, not just here)

Those poor white Christian males. So picked on.

I rest my case

What...that you're a hypocrite? That was done long ago.

[john9blue]

ur stupid, ur dictionary doesn't mean anything, u can't read, ur wrong, *forgets what he said earlier and restates position while ignoring counterpoints*

can't say i'm surprised. after i destroyed your argument so thoroughly, there wasn't a whole lot more you could do other than stick with what you knew best.

i hope you can prove me wrong and give an actual meaningful counterargument without personal attacks, but i don't have much hope for that because a. you can't refute an obviously correct argument and b. that's not your style.

[/]

So apparently the most controversial word to use is "should"? I didn't see that one coming.
Just to be clear, I meant to imply the original question as being a matter of etiquette, not censorship.

[Army of GOD]

So apparently the most controversial word to use is "should"? I didn't see that one coming..

Welcome to the internet.



































fuckface

[mordigan]

'should' implies a correct answer. there are no 'correct' answers in life, just different paths.

[oVo]

John destroyed nothing, as he expressed his stubborn, narrow minded and block headed opinion as a rebuttal to a problem that doesn't even exist. Logic and common sense "should" prevail with the language used on this site as in a conversation anywhere. Typically it's the context and intent of language that cause a user problems. In most cases of vocabulary abuse here --that might warrant the user a forum vacation-- there were other choices available to the speaker. Just because you think Phattscotty is behaving like a cunt doesn't mean you have to call him one. Obviously many people are uncomfortable with such a term and the word selection is your choice. If and when you bump heads with the moderators of this site it is usually your own fault by creating a situation --intentionally-- that could have been avoided.

back to the original subject about CERTAIN WORDS

"As humans, we waste the shit out of our words. It’s sad. We use words like “awesome” and “wonderful” like they’re candy. It was awesome? Really? It inspired awe? It was wonderful? Are you serious? It was full of wonder? You use the word “amazing” to describe a goddamn sandwich at Wendy’s. What’s going to happen on your wedding day, or when your first child is born? How will you describe it? You already wasted “amazing” on a fucking sandwich."

I agree with Louis C.K.'s observation that verbal accolades are too often
expressed in situations and about things that do not warrant it. The first
example that comes to mind is FaceBook responses to almost any little BS
as that's amazing or AWESOME!

[john9blue]

John destroyed nothing, as he expressed his stubborn, narrow minded and block headed opinion as a rebuttal to a problem that doesn't even exist. Logic and common sense "should" prevail with the language used on this site as in a conversation anywhere. Typically it's the context and intent of language that cause a user problems. In most cases of vocabulary abuse here --that might warrant the user a forum vacation-- there were other choices available to the speaker. Just because you think Phattscotty is behaving like a cunt doesn't mean you have to call him one. Obviously many people are uncomfortable with such a term and the word selection is your choice. If and when you bump heads with the moderators of this site it is usually your own fault by creating a situation --intentionally-- that could have been avoided.

is this supposed to refute anything i said? all i see is a bunch of irrelevant bullshit, with some ad-hominems thrown in because you don't like me.

[oVo]

You claimed to have "destroyed" Woody's argument with your
rebuttal and I basically disagreed.

I have no negative opinion of you and simply responded directly
to what you said to Woodruff about words used here and the
moderation of this site.

To make it simpler, this site has established standards for posting
on this forum they consider reasonable and decent. By using this
forum you've agreed to abide by these standards. People "should"
easily stay within the established parameters here, but many feel
almost obligated to push it beyond the line drawn in the sand, and
when that occurs moderators deal with it.

[BigBallinStalin]

You claimed to have "destroyed" Woody's argument with your
rebuttal and I basically disagreed.

I have no negative opinion of you and simply responded directly
to what you said to Woodruff about words used here and the
moderation of this site.

To make it simpler, this site has established standards for posting
on this forum they consider reasonable and decent. By using this
forum you've agreed to abide by these standards. People "should"
easily stay within the established parameters here, but many feel
almost obligated to push it beyond the line drawn in the sand, and
when that occurs moderators deal with it.

Since the underlined can allow users to bend the obligations imposed by the mods,
then we must conclude that the following isn't necessarily true:

"People "should" easily stay within the established parameters here."

Unless of course one merely wishes to keep moving the goal posts, then they declare one "should" do X. But that would be a meaningless standpoint. Moral obligations and their enforcement are flexible because humans are flexible. It depends mainly on what one CAN do.