Profanity

[Rino]

Originally Posted by BigRed

My cursing doesn't infringe on any of their rights. They are perfectly free to not associate with me or anyone that curses.

As I see it, they have the right to be in public and not hear it, just as you have the right to be in public and say it. So who has more right?

The answer is neither.

The difference here is a majority of those that do not want to hear it will respect your right and go elsewhere or stay and deal with it, where you will not respect their right to be free of it.

Do you understand?

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by Rino

As I see it, they have the right to be in public and not hear it, just as you have the right to be in public and say it. So who has more right?

The answer is neither.

The difference here is a majority of those that do not want to hear it will respect your right and go elsewhere or stay and deal with it, where you will not respect their right to be free of it.

Do you understand?

A perfect analogy can be made with smoking in public.

People say, "Ooh. I don't want second-hand smoke." Then don't go to an establishment where smoking will be permitted. Don't complain about the dragon and then walk into the fire. It makes no sense.

Now of course, with regards to freedom of speech, which is what we are diving into right now, there are of course limitations to that aforesaid freedom in public places. The cliched "no yelling fire in a theater" applies here. Hearing obscenities from some guy at the local Store may be bothersome to some. That's why you walk away...

Just like on television. If you think something is offensive, you change the channel. I shouldn't have to alter the programming at the expense of those that do enjoy it.

It is impossible to infringe upon someone's beliefs if that person has the option of not having his rights infringed upon, which is applicable here.
It is a delicate balance I suppose.

[The12thMan]

A perfect analogy can be made with smoking in public.

That is exactly what I thought, then you said it in the next sentence I read.

Just like on television. If you think something is offensive, you change the channel. I shouldn't have to alter the programming at the expense of those that do enjoy it.

Exactly. Think of us as the Disney Channel or a no-smoking forum.

[Rino]

Originally Posted by BigRed

A perfect analogy can be made with smoking in public.

People say, "Ooh. I don't want second-hand smoke." Then don't go to an establishment where smoking will be permitted. Don't complain about the dragon and then walk into the fire. It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. If you do not want to be offended by being subjected to smoke, then do not go where people are allowed to express that right. But at the same time, if you are allowed to smoke do not subject someone to it that does not want to be. As such the advent of the smoking section. If the section does not stop the smoke from getting to the non smoker then it is on the owner.

Now of course, with regards to freedom of speech, which is what we are diving into right now, there are of course limitations to that aforesaid freedom in public places. The cliched "no yelling fire in a theater" applies here. Hearing obscenities from some guy at the local Store may be bothersome to some. That's why you walk away...

The "no yelling fire" deal is a matter of public safety, not a matter of freedom of speech so lets leave that out of this discussion.

Just like on television. If you think something is offensive, you change the channel. I shouldn't have to alter the programming at the expense of those that do enjoy it.

Did I say anything to the contrary?

It is impossible to infringe upon someone's beliefs if that person has the option of not having his rights infringed upon, which is applicable here.
It is a delicate balance I suppose.

Not so. The person who does not want to hear your profanity has the same right to be there that you do. So why should they leave when you can just as easily keep your emotions under control and not curse?

[Rino]

Originally Posted by The12thMan

That is exactly what I thought, then you said it in the next sentence I read.



Exactly. Think of us as the Disney Channel or a no-smoking forum.

Madam, we are no longer speaking of board policy. We all agree that there is no such thing as freedom of speech on a private message board.

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by Rino

It makes perfect sense. If you do not want to be offended by being subjected to smoke, then do not go where people are allowed to express that right. But at the same time, if you are allowed to smoke do not subject someone to it that does not want to be. As such the advent of the smoking section. If the section does not stop the smoke from getting to the non smoker then it is on the owner.

The "no yelling fire" deal is a matter of public safety, not a matter of freedom of speech so lets leave that out of this discussion.

Did I say anything to the contrary?



Not so. The person who does not want to hear your profanity has the same right to be there that you do. So why should they leave when you can just as easily keep your emotions under control and not curse?

Because they are the ones bothered by it.

It is like slamming your fist into the ground, saying, "that hurts" and then blaming the ground for being there and continuing to hammer your fist into the ground.

Nobody is forcing you to stay there and listen to the profanity or inhale the smoke. Thus, I can't possibly be infringing on your rights when I'm not forcing you to do anything. And you can't force me to not be able to shout curse words on the off chance it might upset someone.

[Rino]

Originally Posted by BigRed

Nobody is forcing you to stay there and listen to the profanity or inhale the smoke. Thus, I can't possibly be infringing on your rights when I'm not forcing you to do anything.

I belive you have a very loose view of liberty. You are infringing on my rights by being there. It is just as easy for you to shut your mouth as it is for me to leave. It is just as easy for you to have common decency to not infringe on my rights as it is for me to leave. So once again who is in the right?

And you can't force me to not be able to shout curse words on the off chance it might upset someone.

Oh I could force you. But that would infringe on your rights so I would not take that path.

You are avoiding my question. Please pay me the same respect I have given you.

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by Rino

I belive you have a very loose view of liberty. You are infringing on my rights by being there. It is just as easy for you to shut your mouth as it is for me to leave. It is just as easy for you to have common decency to not infringe on my rights as it is for me to leave. So once again who is in the right?



Oh I could force you. But that would infringe on your rights so I would not take that path.

You are avoiding my question. Please pay me the same respect I have given you.

So to appease your rights, I have to cease to have mine? Whereas the other solution offers us both to have our rights, peacefully and without intrusion?

For your question, I felt I already adaquately answered it. But to be more clear, my solution is in the right. Because as I said, nobody is infringed upon, but in yours, I am. Just like smokers are now being infringed upon by the smoking ban.

You are appeasing one sect of people while hurting another.

[Rino]

Originally Posted by BigRed

So to appease your rights, I have to cease to have mine?

No sir, it is called refraining. Your rights are intact. As are mine.

Whereas the other solution offers us both to have our rights, peacefully and without intrusion?

Please quote me when you are speaking. I have had a few tonight and am not getting everything.

For your question, I felt I already adaquately answered it.

I do not feel that you did.

But to be more clear, my solution is in the right.

We are always in the right in our own minds.

Because as I said, nobody is infringed upon,

Actually, my rights are infringed on because if I want to be there I have to listen to your filth.

but in yours, I am.

Are you unable to express yourself in any other way? You would still be allowed to express yourself without infringing on others.

Just like smokers are now being infringed upon by the smoking ban.

If you would read a few of my posts you would notice that I am a smoker.

You are appeasing one sect of people while hurting another.

And you are appeasing to one sect of people while hurting another.

I am sorry, but that does not seem very libertarian to me.

[SpankyTheWhale]

Originally Posted by BigRed

Stop trying to be so darn intelligent and just speak.

But yes, in essence an explanation of the self deriving from an impactful emotion is far more important than anything else as it pertains to a character.

What's your point?

My point is that people tend to use profanity more as a way to inject their passions into the debate than as a way to actually explore or elucidate the issues that are being discussed. That passion is appreciated and can be useful, but it can more easily detract from the substance of the debate than reveal truth.

Profanity is useful in that it more easily tells the other people in the debate where you stand on the issues, but it does not further the cause of trying to find the best way to solve those issues.