[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: swearing good
At 12:49 PM 7/5/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Even though I am not a person who uses so-called foul language on a
>daily basis, who am I to say that others' language choices are wrong? In
>this post I am in no way justifying the use of ad-homs on the L. In
>most cases those are just substitutes for intelligent argumentation. If
>people feel the need to ad-hom, I say get a backbone and ignore it! What
>a waste of time!
>Glen Strickland wrote:
>Efforts to defend the use of obcenities in postings on CEDA negate the
>very concept of communication that we have learned and that we teach in
>Since when is this list-serv or CEDA debate a classroom in the sense
>that you are using? I think most students who approach this activity as
>a means of education view it as an alternative classroom where societal
>norms are not applicable when choosing language and argument style. How
>can we as a community promote "creative and diverse" argumentation and
>reject certain language styles. What you are referring to as the
>concept of communication taught in the classroom is not one in which we
>are expected (definitly not required) to adhere to in debate.
> A basic precept of semantics and communication is the identification
>of formal and informal levels of discourse-- either written or spoken.
>The informal level allows any type of discourse that is acceptable to
>the entire group (usually a smaller, interpersonal group of people who
>know each other and share similar attitudes about language). For
>example, the use of obscenity on an informal level can be defended
>because all involved are agreeable to the usage of language that is not
>acceptable on a formal level.
>Last time I checked debate is not a formal activity. While this is not
>necessarily agreed upon by all, the large majority definitly do not
>treat it as such. Look around at tournaments, there are perhaps 20% who
>actually wear suits & ties or dresses. The informal label allows a
>diversity of attire, argumentation, etc. that the formal label would
>not. People who want formal debate should try parli.
> Obscenities, even though they permeate the media, are still defined as
>"repugnant, unacceptable in mainstream society."
>So are many arguments that the majority of debators use in debate
>rounds. I see the debate forum as a place where we can and should
>discard societal norms and explore all avenues of argumentation. There
>is no impact of using slang of "obscene" language in speech. It doesn't
>disadvantage anyone involved. Censoring so-called obscenities do exlude
>certain cultures and styles of communication.
> Thus, when we find ourselves in a formal situation (and the internet is
>formal since it is open to anyone from society), we should maintain a
>formal level of discourse, i.e., avoiding obscenities that would offend
>some members. All other arguments aside, if there are some people who do
>not agree that obscenities are acceptable on CEDA-L, then everyone
>should conform to the formal level of discourse and
>Hold on there. We should all conform?!? Sorry I think I must have read
>that wrong. Anyway...
>**concentrate on the issues of debate without allowing language to
>become the focal point.**
>My point exactly, why should language matter either way. When we label
>certain words as obscene or otherwise not acceptable we are focusing on
>language as opposed to argumentation. Where do we draw the line? Ass
>and hell are allowed on t.v. however my parents would be just as
>offended at those words as shit or fuck. While others may even be
>bothered by darn or shoot. As intelligent individuals we should not
>allow ourselves to be personally offended by others' language choices.
> Is there ever a line to be drawn in language use? If the public use of
>the "F" word, for example, can be justified, can the same justification
>be used to condone the use of other "socially unacceptable" words?
>As I said above there is no line to be drawn here, and I see no reason
>why there should be. Your main argument for not using "socially
>unacceptable" words is that we should conform to a formal level of
>discourse here on the L. Well, MR. Strickland, there are many more
>repercusions of formal levels of discourse than just the censoring of
>these few words. It would be best to leave things be. Once we censor one
>thing where does it end?
>Throwing myself in the fire,
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page