´óÏó´«Ã½

In contributing to this thread, just to seek clarifcation at the start, are we allowed to write the word 'shit' or will we be expected to write sh*t, s**t, sh1t or some other variation?

Good question, romejellybean. I think we all know what is meant by s***, and some people may find the unexpurgated version of the word offensive, so I plan to respect their sensitivities for the purpose of my comments.

Thanks for clarification, William. Its just that I had recently watched George Carlin's 'Seven words you are not allowed to say on television.' (Youtube.)

S*** it is then.

Ordure aside, I'm in favour of letting the dust settle concerning this new appointment.

The real test comes when the A'bishop is in office, and we see if his words and actions are consistent.

Meantime I'm off to spread the other stuff on my roses.

Just did my on-line morning crossword and have had my completed crossword removed by the site manager.

I can only think that it must have been my answer to 3 down - lies at the bottom of a budgie cage. (There were two letters **IT)

Seemingly the answer was actually GRIT.

Just wondering, RJB, if you made your deduction a posteriori?

No portwyne, I actually made my deduction when I returned from the doctors.
(I've been suffering from a sore stomach recently. He asked me what colour my stools were. I said, "Mahogany with red tops.")

Just trying to see how far I can push this particular boat out before the mighty hand of the moderator smites me into the abyss that is censorship.

I once heard the story of a bank robbery gone wrong where a policeman chased the perpetrators along a busy street.
One robber fired a shot at the policeman, the bullet hitting him in the stomach. As he fell to the ground he shouted "Oh s***!"
A woman who witnessed the incident from a nearby bus stop later wrote a letter to the policeman's boss complaining about his disgraceful language.

I suppose the point I'm making is that as some people can find bad language nauseating, I can find some people's omnipotent moral busy-bodyness just as nauseating.

You can be removed from this site for the former, but not for the latter.

RJB

I rather suspect one does not have to hang around long to discover that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ possesses a hierarchy of sensibilities. The most indirect comments which touch, however, tangentially, on race will be pulled but one can quite freely call homosexuality an abomination. (I am thinking here of one of my own comments where I gave an example - clearly flagged as such - of what I considered might constitute incitement to hatred and which was duly moderated).

Much excites my ire but very little actually offends me - one thing which does both is an ethics blog without a defensible ethical framework shaping the boundaries of the acceptable.

I would love to know what is the moral justification which allows postings whose whole thrust may wound a person to the core while forbidding those whose only reproach is merely that they contain historically acceptable but now cacophonous (forgive the pun) vocabulary.

One is left to draw the conclusion that the deciding factor is not morals but manners: social acceptability not ethical consideration.

Well put, Portwyne. Social acceptability seems to be the rule of thumb, not any ethical consideration.

But there is surely an intellectual consideration here. If a person is not mature enough in his or her thinking to see that there is a context to a swear word, joke, comment, and just reacts offended all the time e.g. Mary Whitehouse, where there is no offence - shouldnt such a person's outlook be challenged, instead of being errected into the rule of thumb for acceptable behaviour?

Portwyne

You make a fair point.

Whatever one's views on a variety of moral issues I think we must take care not to 'wound a person to the core'. Maybe however we are not always successful in this, maybe we are too often driven by what we find offensive or inoffensive rather than thinking of how another may react, or what they might absorb into their being.

We are also confronted with the dilemma that on a blog such as this we do not really know one another, indeed I meet many people face to face every day who I do not really know, and probably will never know; in this context it is doubly difficult to give regard to how another may or may not react.

Finally, on the specific issue of words, there are some words that I find my self using which are accompanied by a twinge of guilt, a hand reaching from the past telling the 'child', that the word is wrong.

Incidentally, I have a friend who much prefers to use the 'f' word rather than OMG or even 'my goodness', on the basis that the latter two are blasphemous. The interesting thing is that he is considered rather impolite!

My moral framework would permit all comment on the blog except direct incitements to violence. I agree whole-heartedly that the narrow-minded and the immature should be challenged. I abominate the prissy! I am quite prepared to tackle those who transgress my boundaries and I completely accept the right of those whom I offend to rebuke me but I would deny them the right to silence me.

Peter

I am undoubtedly guilty of the sin I condemn in others and it does trouble me. I try to react to ideas and condemn them rather than people but, on occasion, I may get carried away...

I am often upset by personal attacks and ad hominem arguments which surface too often in discussion - my resolution this Holy Week must be to be more care-full in future.

True, Portwyne, I can see why people may be angered on this site and say something cutting - guilty, M'lad! - but regarding reaction to a word deemed offensive, I find I have a similar reaction to you, ( i.e. the hand reaching in from the past and telling the child it is wrong.)

My "hand" is when I'm actually writing, for example, the word shit. To reduce it to s*** makes me feel a bit of a wimp and that I'm pandering to those with a prudential morality.

A priest gave his sermon (true story) stating to his packed congregation, "70 thousand innocent people have been butchered in El Salvador and you dont give a shit."
Members of his congregation were outraged. The priest continued, "The reason I know none of you give a shit is because when I told you that 70 thousand innocent people have been butchered in El Salvador, none of you fell off your seats. When I said the word shit, nearly all of you fell off your seats."

It really brought home to me how we can often be offended by something miniscule, yet remain silent about things that we should never tolerate.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Mmm! Pushing it a bit there, portwynne. That story could get the chop because the moderators may think, well its funny, but is it educational? Is it indulgent? Is it making a good enough point considering that there are six *!#@s in it?"

On the other hand, they may think,"Yeh, portwyne's joke actually has a clean punch line and it is highlighting the absurdity of a prudish morality."

Then again, it might not get the chop because the moderators might be in their beds *!#@ing, (snoring.)

Here boys, I don't know about the 's' word, but there's a discussion on the Historic Jesus thread about how many asses he had.

Lol Peter, brilliant.

Answer - millions!!

Peter - I love it!!!! Will have to join that debate...

At the risk of having my second moderated post of the evening I thought I would share with anyone who cares to look the my mother gave me when I moved to my present home. It is I believe a double -donkey.

This thread just keeps getting better and better, but I dont think you'll be in trouble for the double donkey.

The other picture might get you the jail, though.

The slightest crack in the door to let some light in and people are blinded. Too bad he didn't open it up all the way and keep it open to let the whole truth out. Then he shut it again and tried to pretend it didn't happen. But some of us knew all along what was on the other side. We were just surprised he'd go as far as letting the rest of the world have a peek for themselves.