Why do people get so fucking offended if i fucking say fuck?

[Cæilon]

I don't care if people are offended by a bit of cussin' for the most part, provided they don't use it as an excuse to dismiss the content of a message. I wrote the following elsewhere earlier in the year:

"Six times three equals eighteen" and "six times three equals eighteen, dickhead" are mathematically equivalent. 'Dickhead' is not a mathematical variable invalidating or altering the math. At worst it is extraneous. In terms of rational argument, the later statement is no less repugnant than "six times three equals eighteen, and I love what you've done with your hair."

Just saying, you can dislike how someone coveys their position all you want, but that's not a free pass to reject their arguments along with. Sometimes we have to put rationality first, and if you disagree with that, you're a dickhead... but I love what you've done with your hair.

This is retarded nonsense.

If you spoke to me like that, I'd simply ignore the majority of what you said irrespective of whether you're right or not, or whether I'm offended or not.

This is because I deem persistent cussing to be childish (but not in a good way). You're point may be sound, but I'd be less likely to acknowledge it. Funnily enough, this would in turn create a feedback loop that could only be ended by both partes parting ways.

 

[OrLevitate]

I think pretty much (every?) possible offense is liable to any number of (every?) possible miscontrued motivations.

 

[kris]

This is retarded.

I think it takes a lot of brass to throw the word 'childish' about in the same breath you say you'd largely disregard a sound argument on the basis of your personal, emotional response.

But I think before you go about calling things retarded, it's best to make sure the rest of your response is coherent. I've flatly acknowledged that people may find the way certain ideas are presented distasteful, yet the distasteful presentation does not invalidate the ideas themselves. You can obviously choose to disengage if you like, but you cannot invalidate arguments this way. If these are arguments you need to hear, you are at fault for letting emotion override reason. Despite calling my post 'retarded' you actually reaffirm that position yourself.

 

[k9b4]

If you spoke to me like that, I'd simply ignore the majority of what you said irrespective of whether you're right or not, or whether I'm offended or not.

You ignore it because you're offended. Don't lie to yourself.

There is no rational reason to be offended by swear words, only emotional reason.

I am extremely entertained when I say swear words to people and watch their irrational reactions.

 

[Cæilon]

You ignore it because you're offended. Don't lie to yourself.

There is no rational reason to be offended by swear words, only emotional reason.

I'm not offended by people using swear words. I use them myself...

I'd ignore them because I'd rather spend my time talking to someone who gets to the point quicker, rather than adding pointless filler for their own amusement.

Also, using swear words all the time shows that you don't understand their use. You could view them as merely words if you wish, but then you're missing the point.

I am extremely entertained when I say swear words to people and watch their irrational reactions.

Now this is childish.

 

[Jennywocky]

This is retarded nonsense.

No need to be insulting -- my god man, he even told you he likes how you style your hair, and this is the thanks he gets??

 

[Cæilon]

I think it takes a lot of brass to throw the word 'childish' about in the same breath you say you'd largely disregard a sound argument on the basis of your personal, emotional response.

But I think before you go about calling things retarded, it's best to make sure the rest of your response is coherent. I've flatly acknowledged that people may find the way certain ideas are presented distasteful, yet the distasteful presentation does not invalidate the ideas themselves. You can obviously choose to disengage if you like, but you cannot invalidate arguments this way. If these are arguments you need to hear, you are at fault for letting emotion override reason. Despite calling my post 'retarded' you actually reaffirm that position yourself.

If the arguments were important, why would you embed them in pointless filler? Or are you letting emotions override your ability to communicate succinctly?

 

[Yellow]

There is no rational reason to be offended by swear words, only emotional reason.

I am extremely entertained when I say swear words to people and watch their irrational reactions.

I would argue that being offended by swear words can be perfectly rational.

If the use of a specific word in specific situations is considered to be uncouth, disrespectful, offensive, etc. and you choose to use it, you are offering that word and all of its inferred meanings to everyone within hearing range. Unless you are completely unaware of any cultural rules surrounding a word, then it could be argued that the use of a swear word in "polite" company is deliberate act of disrespect. And regardless of how you offer disrespect, it is quite reasonable for those on the receiving end to take offense or attempt to correct your misbehavior.

 

[kris]

If the arguments were important, why would you embed them in pointless filler? Or are you letting emotions override your ability to communicate succinctly?

It's not relevant. I've not criticized anyone for being emotional; I've criticized conflating emotional response and rational argument.

 

[kris]

he even told you he likes how you style your hair, and this is the thanks he gets??

Maybe it's 'cause I said 'hair' when pandas technically have fur (assuming that avatar is not a lie).

 

[k9b4]

Now this is childish.

Is it? What is childish? Why should I not be childish? I don't care what you think.

 

[kris]

I'd ignore them because I'd rather spend my time talking to someone who gets to the point quicker, rather than adding pointless filler for their own amusement.

Also, using swear words all the time shows that you don't understand their use. You could view them as merely words if you wish, but then you're missing the point.

That's a load of shit.

 

[Absurdity]

Is it? What is childish? Why should I not be childish? I don't care what you think.

Hahahahahahahaha

 

[k9b4]

Hahahahahahahaha

wot m8 do u want to fight me i have big muscles

also big penis

just ask ur mum

 

[Cæilon]

It's not relevant. I've not criticized anyone for being emotional; I've criticized conflating emotional response and rational argument.

Enough with the pettifoggery.

 

[kris]

Enough with the pettifoggery.

It's not pettifoggery; it was the essential point of my post to which you chose to respond.

 

[Cæilon]

I was referring to your entire post collection in this thread along with my own.

Of course the correctness of an argument has nothing to do with emotions; however, we are emotional beings, so unless you're a complete social douche, you will be affected in some way by the additional words that are unrelated to the argument. The fact that you responded to my "retarded" comment proves this point.

It's all pettifog.

Spoiler

for clarification: I did not just call you a social douche.

 

[Grayman]

You ignore it because you're offended. Don't lie to yourself.

There is no rational reason to be offended by swear words, only emotional reason.

I am extremely entertained when I say swear words to people and watch their irrational reactions.

It is logical to assume that cuss words do not produce good end results for what you are emotionally attached to, therefore logic does not validate the use of such words.

I suppose an emotional attachment to the effect or the power of the words themselves might enable one to use them, however this is not logical in addressing ones own 'higher' values and concerns. You are are instead sacrificing your greater values for more temporary satisfactions therefor failing to be more practical in your own life or social decisions.

In short, from my point of view, you are sacrificing your social status and ability to function in society which is an important part of survival so that you may indulge is some kind of false pride. You feel more intelligent simply because they react to you but a higher intelligence would ensure their reactions were always beneficial in a more practical way.

 

[k9b4]

In short, from my point of view, you are sacrificing your social status and ability to function in society which is an important part of survival so that you may indulge is some kind of false pride. You feel more intelligent simply because they react to you but a higher intelligence would ensure their reactions were always beneficial in a more practical way.

False pride? Pfft. True pride.

Fuck social status. Everyone who is not me is an idiot.

 

[Grayman]

False pride? Pfft. True pride.

Fuck social status. Everyone who is not me is an idiot.

A changing standard. Hmm

 

[Cherry Cola]

False pride? Pfft. True pride.

Fuck social status. Everyone who is not me is an idiot.

I think you are forgetting that you are also a human being. You gon fuck yourself in the ass with that attitude.

 

[doncarlzone]

I think you are forgetting that you are also a human being. You gon fuck yourself in the ass with that attitude.

This is one of those things that can only be learned the hard way.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think you are forgetting that you are also a human being. You gon fuck yourself in the ass with that attitude.

This is one of those things that can only be learned the hard way.

Maybe if he puts soft music on and dims the lights a little, it will be a less painful experience.

 

[Grayman]

I think you are forgetting that you are also a human being. You gon fuck yourself in the ass with that attitude.

But he transcends the human condition that plagues humanity and is evidenced in the social construct that encases mankind.

 

[kris]

I was referring to your entire post collection in this thread along with my own.

Just as bad. I expressed a simple point and you called it to question with an incoherent criticism. It's only natural I would want to prevent what I initially said from being distorted, no?

Of course the correctness of an argument has nothing to do with emotions; however, we are emotional beings...

I've never said anything to the contrary.

...so unless you're a complete social douche, you will be affected in some way by the additional words that are unrelated to the argument.

People's motives and mannerisms vary based on personality and context; we cannot attribute such simplistic explanations for word choice when talking in such a generalized manner.

The fact that you responded to my "retarded" comment proves this point.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of proof. In order to make that statement, you'd have to reasonably know my motives for responding. It's improbable you have sufficient insight to do so reliably, so what you have is speculation on a point.

In this case my driving motivations are boredom and my generally disagreeable nature.

for clarification: I did not just call you a social douche.

It seems more likely you called yourself a social douche.

 

[J-man]

This thread has got me all emotional. Fuck you guys. Fuck you all.

 

[Grayman]

This thread has got me all emotional. Fuck you guys. Fuck you all.

hmmm.... emotions seem so disrespectful and mean.

 

[StevenM]

Why do people get offended when I try to offend them?

I dunno. Quite a mystery that one. People are silly I guess.

 

[Cherry Cola]

But he transcends the human condition that plagues humanity and is evidenced in the social construct that encases mankind.

Then he should be our new leader. The guardian of the custodian of the pillar of the basis of the groundwork of our intellectual foundation!

 

[k9b4]

But he transcends the human condition that plagues humanity and is evidenced in the social construct that encases mankind.

Yeah I'm like jesus.

Then he should be our new leader.

I second this notion.

People are silly I guess.

Personally, I prefer the term 'FUCKING RETARDED'.

This thread has got me all emotional. Fuck you guys. Fuck you all.

Not fuck me, fuck you.

 

[Reluctantly]

motherfuckers

 

[k9b4]

motherfuckers

That's the spirit.

 

[Cæilon]

Just as bad. I expressed a simple point and you called it to question with an incoherent criticism. It's only natural I would want to prevent what I initially said from being distorted, no?

It was pettifog: Trivial nonsense.

It's the same as "paying for a burger and them giving it to you" vs."paying for a burger, they give it you and then spit in your face".

Both transactions are the same because the burgers are not affected. Let's see you be rational about the latter.

I've never said anything to the contrary.

I know you didn't... Trivial nonsense.

People's motives and mannerisms vary based on personality and context; we cannot attribute such simplistic explanations for word choice when talking in such a generalized manner.

Of course we can. Irrelevant to the point I was making.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of proof. In order to make that statement, you'd have to reasonably know my motives for responding. It's improbable you have sufficient insight to do so reliably, so what you have is speculation on a point.

In this case my driving motivations are boredom and my generally disagreeable nature.

The reason for the motive is irrelevant because you cannot respond to anything without being affected in some way. I understand the concept just fine.

It seems more likely you called yourself a social douche.

Passive aggressive personal attack. Nice.

Spoiler

I'm not offended by this of course, but it's the cheapest of shots you can make against someone's point.

 

[k9b4]

It's the same as "paying for a burger and them giving it to you" vs."paying for a burger, they give it you and then spit in your face".

Both transactions are the same because the burgers are not affected. Let's see you be rational about the latter.

No, it's more like:

Paying for a burger and them giving it to you

vs

Paying for a burger and them giving it to you and then telling you they don't like you.

If someone spat in my face, I wouldn't be offended by the meaning behind the spitting, I would simply not enjoy the feel of the spit on my face.

If someone says 'fuck you' to me, usually I don't care at all, because all 'fuck you' means is 'I don't like you', and I usually don't care if other people like me or not.

 

[Cæilon]

If someone spat in my face, I wouldn't be offended by the meaning behind the spitting, I would simply not enjoy the feel of the spit on my face.

I could be wrong of course, but I am more inclined to say that I find this hard to believe. This is because you are saying what you think would happen vs. what would actually happen.

People do not act as they usually do in the spur of the moment.

 

[OrLevitate]

What are you two even doing with your time?

 

[k9b4]

What are you two even doing with your time?

Fucking posting on a fucking forum.

I could be wrong of course, but I am more inclined to say that I find this hard to believe. This is because you are saying what you think would happen vs. what would actually happen.

People do not act as they usually do in the spur of the moment.

Alright, I would be a little bit offended.

But not as much as some other people.

 

[OrLevitate]

wasn't talking to you kb69, how dare you disrespect your elder master lord

 

[k9b4]

69

That's rude.

how dare you disrespect your elder master lord

sry master

 

[Brontosaurie]

hahahaha

 

[kris]

It was pettifog: Trivial nonsense.

It's the same as "paying for a burger and them giving it to you" vs."paying for a burger, they give it you and then spit in your face".

Both transactions are the same because the burgers are not affected. Let's see you be rational about the latter.

Why? You keep wanting me to address things which are tangential to what I wrote. I'm not interested. I never once said a person needs to be rational about the swearing/ face spitting. I've not addressed that. I don't care about it.

The reason for the motive is irrelevant because you cannot respond to anything without being affected in some way. I understand the concept just fine.

I made the assumption that you were not reducing words to the point that you no longer have an argument. Yes, every last stimulus which reaches me affects me in some way. Thing is, that's true of the rational part of the argument and the swearing alike. Even if you are a 'complete social douche' it still applies so there is no 'unless' once you get so vague with language that all contextual considerations in the conversation are lost.

Passive aggressive personal attack. Nice.

I'm not offended by this of course, but it's the cheapest of shots you can make against someone's point.

It's your points. Your words. They put you at greater risk of being a complete social douche, using your own standards, than they do me.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm just impressed that this thread can spin so much straw into gold (or is it gold into straw?)

 

[kris]

You're going to jinx it.

 

[Cæilon]

Why? You keep wanting me to address things which are tangential to what I wrote. I'm not interested. I never once said a person needs to be rational about the swearing/ face spitting. I've not addressed that. I don't care about it.

You said I was at fault for letting emotions override reason.

It's your points. Your words. They put you at greater risk of being a complete social douche, using your own standards, than they do me.

Are you attempting to justify a personal attack? ^^

 

[kris]

You said I was at fault for letting emotions override reason.

Yes, that I did say. What I didn't say was that you had to respond rationally to personal insults. I don't understand where you are lost. It's like you think you have some sort of 'gotcha!' moment here, but what you have is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very post which set this exchange off.

What I said is that it is unreasonable to disregard the rational portion of the argument. In your burger analogy, that would be like throwing away the hamburger, or like going to the manager of the restaurant and saying "Your employee refused to sell me a hamburger." Complain about the spitting all you like -- not my business really --, but just be honest about the fact that the burger is fine.

What I actually wrote in my initial post:

"I don't care if people are offended by a bit of cussin' for the most part, provided they don't use it as an excuse to dismiss the content of a message."

"Just saying, you can dislike how someone coveys their position all you want, but that's not a free pass to reject their arguments along with."

It wasn't hidden. I wasn't being tricky or anything.

Are you attempting to justify a personal attack? ^^

What personal attack? You set forward a criterion 9one with which I had already stated disagreement) . That criterion seems more likely likely to apply to you than to me. Disagree with that assertion if you like, but the personal attack, if it exists, is yours. All yours. It's not my place to justify it.

If I said "Only assholes wear red hats" and you said, "but Kris, you're wearing a red hat," who was it that attacked me? Personally, I'd say it was me in that scenario.

 

[Cæilon]

Yes, that I did say. What I didn't say was that you had to respond rationally to personal insults. I don't understand where you are lost. It's like you think you have some sort of 'gotcha!' moment here, but what you have is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very post which set this exchange off.

What I said is that it is unreasonable to disregard the rational portion of the argument. In your burger analogy, that would be like throwing away the hamburger, or like going to the manager of the restaurant and saying "Your employee refused to sell me a hamburger." Complain about the spitting all you like -- not my business really --, but just be honest about the fact that the burger is fine.

What I actually wrote in my initial post:

"I don't care if people are offended by a bit of cussin' for the most part, provided they don't use it as an excuse to dismiss the content of a message."

"Just saying, you can dislike how someone coveys their position all you want, but that's not a free pass to reject their arguments along with."

It wasn't hidden. I wasn't being tricky or anything.

I'm not after a "gotcha" at all. My point all along was that it's retarded nonsense because nobody dismisses an argument's validity due to cussing. What people actually do is focus more on the fact that they have just been insulted.

If you want people you're debating with to respond to your arguments, don't be a dick to them because it will take you a hell of a lot longer to reach an agreement; irrespective of whether you're right or wrong... This is common sense in my opinion. This endless back and forth between you and me is an example of this. I admit I am being a dick. ^^

It's not an excuse they use to dismiss the validity of an argument, it is a priority shift from debating with you, to processing the unwarranted insults you fired at them.

As I mentioned before, we are emotional beings and many emotions were developed for social interaction. A social douche would be someone who is socially inept and does not experience social emotions like the majority of people.

Most people react to insults, social douches don't.

Why call them social douches I hear you ask. Because they aren't offended by the term...

 

[Fukyo]

Are you attempting to justify a personal attack? ^^

What is this feeling of deja vu?

 

[Cæilon]

What is this feeling of deja vu?

I used to have deja vu, these days however, I appear to suffer from jamais vu.

 

[Brontosaurie]

we really need non fucking french names for those things

 

[Goldar]

....and I got the 100th post in this thread.
I WIN.