[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: swearing good

>>>>
 Glen Strickland wrote:
 Good for you Lilly but you do not directly respond to the communicative 
nature of the posting based on the different levels of communication.
>>>>

There are several places I answered this in a few different ways:  

1)  "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."

2) "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."

3) "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."


>>>>
  While you do not find offense to such postings, this doesn't mean that 
others won't be offended. 
>>>>

I answered this as well: 

"  As intelligent individuals we should not allow ourselves to be 
personally offended by others' language choices."

What I mean here is why should we care? One person's choice of language 
does not force other's to repeat it.  If you don't want to use this type 
of language then don't, use it, but don't limit others choice of 
language either.


>>>>
 Likewise, where do you draw the line on word usage?  Or is there a line 
to be drawn?
>>>> 

Again I said there is no line. When you argue that certain words should 
not be accepted on the L you are drawing a line, and where is that?  Is 
it jsut the "F" word or is it any slang?  Do we make a list of every 
word or phrase taht may offend someone out there? Specifically I said:

" 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."


By the way you did not answer:
1) Censoring language excludes some cultures.
2) This thinking would lead to exclusion of valid arguments.
and
3) Where does it end? (see quote above)


Jen Lilly


> 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
> >the classroom.
> >>>>>
> >
> >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,
> >Jennifer Lilly
> >
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page