What is offensive language?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Such as your well known leaders/evangelists who call for the murder of foreign leaders that they don't like? (Billy Graham)

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, a large number of well-known leaders advocated the murder of a democratically elected leader of Germany not so long ago.

Closer to home (my home, any way) some calls for the murder of British leaders were successfully prosecuted. For instance, in http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm we find

In 1944, with the end the war in sight, Irgun, now under the leadership of Menachem Begin , the future Prime Minister of Israel 1977-83, began to attack the British administration in Palestine, starting with bomb attacks on the immigration offices, tax offices and police stations. Because the war was not yet over these activities met with condemnation even from the Jewish Agency and Haganah, the main Jewish Defense Force, and the forerunner of the Israeli Army. This disapproval did not deter Irgun or the Stern Gang, and in 1944 the Stern gang murdered Lord Moyne the British Minister of state for the Middle East in Cairo, and started a series of bomb attacks on British installations.

In the words of a religious figure we've both heard of, but neither of us counts as one of his adherents (AFAIK): let he who has no sin cast the first stone.

For clarification: I am not accusing you of supporting the aims and/or methods of the Stern gang and I am most certainly not accusing you of hypocrisy. I am only pointing out that hardly anyone can justifiably criticise other religions for advocating murder but not their own (or non-religious belief system if that be the case) without facing accusations of hypocrisy themselves.

The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is often a fine one, and is almost always coloured by the history and prejudices of the person drawing the distinction.

Paul

[retina]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

The true Christian is against violence, will not go to war, will turn the other cheek, etc.

But the point is that no one is actually a true Christian. The bible may well say some things but that doesn't mean that the reader will follow it.

It is not about what the bible (or whatever book you happen to be reading) says, it is about what people actually do.

When confronted with any of the myriad of contradictions in the bible, all of the bible believers that I have met will tell me that: "we must use gods guidance to help us interpret it blah blah blah ...". And that answer is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It means you can interpret it in any way that pleases you and you'll always be right. Just make sure you have a convincing line of flawed logic reasoning and you are good to go with starting a new religion.

[science_man_88]

What is offensive is dependant on who you are:
niger is a word that is usually used in a context of dislike based on the color of a persons skin,

queer is a word usually used to show dislike of someones sexual preference/ just someone in general.

It all depends on if you want to take offense to a word/wording that matters.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

What is offensive is dependant on who you are:
niger is a word that is usually used in a context of dislike based on the color of a persons skin,

No, that is a country: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger[/url]

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

No, that is a country: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger[/url]

sorry spelling error lol.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by retina

But the point is that no one is actually a true Christian. The bible may well say some things but that doesn't mean that the reader will follow it.

It is not about what the bible (or whatever book you happen to be reading) says, it is about what people actually do.

When confronted with any of the myriad of contradictions in the bible, all of the bible believers that I have met will tell me that: "we must use gods guidance to help us interpret it blah blah blah ...". And that answer is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It means you can interpret it in any way that pleases you and you'll always be right. Just make sure you have a convincing line of flawed logic reasoning and you are good to go with starting a new religion.

I have been reluctant to jump into this thread thusfar as I have neither the time nor energy to take part into the all-out catfight that it has become, but I do believe this particular post deserves some clarification from a bona fide Bible-believing Christian member of this forum.

It is a known tenet of the Christian faith that no human can be perfect; thus even the truest of Christians cannot be expected to follow what the Bible says all of the time. The idea is that God will help us to do what is right and has paid for our sins in advance for the times when we won't; His ongoing work in us will have advanced to fulfillment by the time our (earthly) life has completed.

It is also a known fact of the Christian faith that not everyone who claims to be Christian necessarily is. This is addressed in Jesus' parable of wheat and tares (among other passages). The upshot is that there is no clear "litmus test" that can be used by us humans to determine genuine faith; rather we are to inductively determine whether someone is likely "born again" by their exhibited "fruit" (translated to modern English, this refers to the acts that one does and their observed character traits). Since this is by no means a sure test, if someone claims the Christian faith and has not exhibited any "fruit" overtly contrary to it, he is given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be a real Christian until proven otherwise. (This is one of the reasons why the label "Christian" is used to refer to adherents of a somewhat wide range of philosophies.)

Also, it is an observation of mine that many Christians do not do a very good job explaining and defending their faith. For some this is because they do not themselves have a good grasp of exactly what defines their faith (and these are often the ones swayed this way and that by whatever the latest popular philosophical ideas are). For others, they understand internally what they believe but have a hard time articulating it. This is why you will often see clearly flawed and vacuous arguments presented in support of the Christian faith; I have said before (not on this forum) that many church congregations could benefit quite a bit from a class in formal logic and argumentative reasoning.

The only rationally sound way the Bible can be interpreted is with itself: that is, using the context of the entire book to interpret individual passges. The scope of the crazy conclusions that have been arrived at throughout history from Scripture taken out of context is immense, but when it is analyzed as a whole, as a self-contained ultimate standard for human reasoning, these ambiguities disappear and you are left with a beautifully simple and timeless philosophy.

Of course, since we as humans are imperfect, it is not uncommon for two Christians to look at the same Scriptures and arrive at different conclusions. This is not because it has two different valid interpretations, but rather because sometimes it is not easy for one person to grasp a logical connection that is plainly obvious to another. This is where the "we must use God's guidance to help us interpret it" comes in. (Again, you will perhaps see how these little tidbits of Christian thought come out as logically vacuous when not articulated properly.)

I unfortunately do not have the time right now to get into an involved discussion (as inevitably has happened every time I enter the Soap Box ), else I would lay out the full deductive proof of the accuracy and noncontradictory nature of the Scriptures. Thus, I write the above to shed some (hopefully well-articulated) light on some understandable misconceptions arrived at in a discussion of mostly (entirely, prior to my post?) nonadherents.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

What is offensive is dependant on who you are:
niger is a word that is usually used in a context of dislike based on the color of a persons skin,

queer is a word usually used to show dislike of someones sexual preference/ just someone in general.

It all depends on if you want to take offense to a word/wording that matters.

I find it mildly irritating that the appropriate PC designation of
things changes, as if the thing is thereby swept under the carpet.

Your first example is normally spelt with 2 g's and was obviously
originally meant to describe a black man (perhaps from Nigeria)
in line with the Latin for black (negro?), but more informally and familiarly.

As for the second one, queer (= peculiar) is more obviously
offensive, but nothing compared to the hijacking of the word "gay"
(= joyful).

(Having lit blue touch paper, will retire to a safe distance)

David

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by davieddy

I find it mildly irritating that the appropriate PC designation of
things changes, as if the thing is thereby swept under the carpet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Which leaves me puzzled. Why the obsession with language relating to sex (an act which normally expresses love or at the very least can be regarded as natural and life-affirming) in a culture where violence and violent death are freely portrayed as a normal part of society?

Another way to understand this, in addition to what's been posted so far, is to view it in light of the "society as family" morality and political framework proposed by George Lakoff. He explained this in his book Moral Politics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29 ). The two extremes of his "society as family" spectrum are the "Strict Father" model and the "Nurturing Parent" model.

Two aspects of the Strict Father model ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_father_model ) are that it (1) condones corporal punishment for disciplining children, and (2) holds it important to control sexuality. Extensions of these to a societal scale lead to emphasis on controlling expressions of sexuality, while being more lenient about expression of violence. American censorship has historically been more a concern of Strict Father folks than of Nurturant Parent folks.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Your first example is normally spelt with 2 g's and was obviously
originally meant to describe a black man (perhaps from Nigeria)
in line with the Latin for black (negro?), but more informally and familiarly.

nigrum is the root for black if I read correctly and they both come from it.

[Calvin Culus]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Actually, for those interested in history, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a command to limit violence to that level, where it had previously been common to escalate conflicts based on such 'small' offenses as eye-gouging.

It is not a coincidence that tit-for-tat is also an optimal strategy in game theory. Have you read Robert Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation"?