Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 15:00:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Jeff Smith's post » Lou Pilder, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 11:15:40
>
> > > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...in this thread..illogical and ..to censor..words by replacing a..letter with an asterisk...word allowed here as long as the ..is replaced by an asterisk...Let's pretend...equally offended by the censored version as the non-censored version..fully aware of what the word is...].
> > There is the potential ,IMO, that this thread has at least the question as to if putting the asterisk in the word makes it any less offensive, to those that think the word is offensive, for some could think that words that are deemed offensive to some, could not be offensive to some others.
>
> Lou Im afraid to even attempt to reply to your post since I fear Im gonna come off looking like Im retarded... but Ill try. : )
> So, so far I believe I understand what you just said. And yes, I do believe some may think in that way.
>
> > If we look at that question, then does the use of an asterisk for one letter change the meaning of the word? If it does, then could we have two words meaning two things? If it does not change the meaning of the two forms of the word, then do we not have the theorem that[... if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..] Or, does not the theorem hold that quantities equal to the same quantity equal to each other?
>
> -No, the use of an * does not change the meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend.
> -If it did change the meaning then yes, I do believe we'd have two words meaning two things.
> -Ummmm...OK.... heres where my retardation comes in w/ the "...if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..". I think I *might* possibly be able to figure that one out if you could clarify what the specific sentences "a" "b" and "c" are?
> -And yes (I think), quantities equal to the same quantity would be equal to each other.
> -I just cant figure out what all of those things put together mean.
>
> > Now let us suppose that someone wants to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other form is not. I ask,in your opinions, would then one have to use their imaginiation as in a fantasy rather than reason to think that?
>
> Both forms of the word are still the same exact word... in order to believe one form of the word is offensive and the other is not youd have to:
> -Choose to believe one form of the word did in fact have a different meaning than the other.
> -Choose to believe that it had a different meaning despite the fact that there's no indication or evidence that it was intended to have a different meaning... and every indication that it was intended to have only one meaning.
> -For some reason just choose to believe one form was offensive and one wasnt without being able to conclude for yourself why that is.
> -Or some other reason(s) I couldnt even imagine what could be.
> So yes, Id say you would absolutely have to use imagination as in fantasy rather than reason to think that.
>
> >If so, could they or could they not be deluding themselves into thinking that one form of the word >is offensive and the other form with the asterisk is not offensive? If so, are delusions and/or >fantasies a sound mental-health practice?
>
> -Yes they could or could not be deluding themselves into thinking that. Are they? Id have to say yes, they are.
> -I dont believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a sound/healthy mental health practice... and fantasies, as in this context of perhaps fantasizing that one form of a word is non offensive and one is, sounds a lot like deluding.
> But fantasizing in general about other things Im sure can be a perfectly sound MH practice.
>
>
> >The asterisk has a historical meaning from centuries ago concerning swearing in relation to commandments that some faiths have from their God to them that I would like to discuss by email, if you would like.
> - By "you" do you mean specifically me or anyone who would like? : )
>
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> >
>Friends,
One of the overiding questions here is if the use of an asterisk in a word that is deemed offensive here, makes the word a non-offensive word and thearfore acceptable here to be posted without sanction, whearas the same word without the asterisk is unacceptable and sanctioned. This also involves whether a member that has the word directed to them, or I guess just reads it, is offended by the word if it is asterisked.
Some people could , I guess , not be offended by a word that is considered to be offensive here and some then could be offended. Some could not be offended by an asterisked word, but I could be offended by an offensive word even if it is asterisked.
If someone used either directed to me or not an antisemitic epithet or any ethnic epithet be it asterisked or not, I would be offended. If someone used the word that is generally offensive to women, I would be offended bethe word asterisked or not. If someone used any offensive word here, I would be offended be it asterisked or not. This is because I think that if someone would not want to use the offending word, that they would not then use it .
Here is what another mental-health forum says about the use of asterisks in words that are offensive:
[...Profanity of any nature is not allowed...You may not use acronyms or >asterisks<, for using those in a word does not make it any less offensive. Niether does replacing the leter A with @, or the letter S with $. This is because >if you say the profanity {in your mind} when you read the post, then it is as if you used the profanity. So even ,#@%! could be considered to be profanity<...].
If someone posted here either to me or not, an offensive word with an asterisk,let's say a word that demeans a class of people or a racist word or an antisemitic word , or any word that puts down any peoples,I still see that the word. I ask: Was the word concieved in the mind of the member that posted the offensive word with the asterisk and then the built-in filter inserted the asterisk? If so, do I have any rationale to think that it is any less offensive to me with the asterisk? And even so, is not less offensive still offensive? And if someone was trying to not be offensive, could they just not post the offensive word at all?
If anyone would like to link to the forum that I cited, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:717797
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/719881.html