Re: RE : Profane

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

David thought I ment:
>So let's see if I have this right. You're a well meaning Dutch teenager.
>
>1. You never meant to insult anyone;
>2. You never did insult anyone;
>3. If someone claims they were insulted,
>   a. they're wrong;
>   b. they're old; and
>   c. it's not your fault.
>4. You have every right to insult anyone you want; and
>5. Anyone who thinks otherwise in a facist pig.

>Is this correct?

1 -- Yes, I never meant to insult any1

3 -- No! Greame claimed I insulted somebody else.. nobody is claiming they
were insulted. But even if some did feel insulted, would I still need to be
pointed at my fingers after I clarify I didn't mean to insult any1 ? (like
happened)

3a -- Yes! There are wrong I did not want to insult them, therefor they are
actually not. They've only interpreterd my message in a way it was not
meant. The blame of that is not theirs, no. But the conclusing that it was
meant insulting was a wrong one. It wasn't!

3b -- No! I said, this kind of problems occur more often with older people
than with younger people. This was something I noticed. I didn't say those
who feel insulted are older. In this case no one did feel insulted, or at
least didn't express himself that way. Plus, I mentioned the age difference,
because grown-ups at least have more expierence and practise with more
formal/commercial/political ways of speaking, while (at least here) young
people are much more direct.

3c -- Yes! I didn't mean it insulting. I pay attention to the English I use.
Could I do more? Could you seriously resent me for this? 'Fault' is the
wrong choice of words. The cause is off course *me*. But it might be the
otherway around if one of you were speaking alone to a group of young Dutch
boys.

2 -- Yes, At least, I would not feel insulted if I would have received such
a message. If I would have I would have never sent it.

4 -- And yes, indeed we do have the right to insult anyone. But that's
besides the matter. As people have rights, they also have responsibilities.
That would be  a conflict between the two. However, the freedom of speech
was referring to the swearing-critism.

5 -- No! Any1 thinking they should decide for others what kind of influence
is healthy and what is not healthy for somebody else. (deciding what is a
good or bad example, therefor peope are not getting confronted with all
options and have less chance making that choice for themselves nor will they
be able to develop themselves individually and completely). And this *too*
was referring to swearing!

Terry Constant pointed out:
>As a point of clarification. You refer to America and the states in your
>response to Graeme's message. Graeme is in Australia. Why are you taking
>issue with the United States for his comments? In a previous series of
>messages, I, an American, took a strong stance on supporting freedom of
>expression. But when a person exercises freedom of expression, he
>inherently accepts the responsibility of being accurate. If an
>Australian, and I have nothing but fond regards for Australia and its
>people, says something to you, perhaps it is best not to attribute it to
>an American.

That was a bad assumption. True. But I just pointed out the beep-thing, to
show the cultural difference between swearing here and America, as I was
thinking Greame was from America. I do not know how the social rules in
Australia are for this matter, but I do notice Greame is against and still
want to point out, that here swearing is not censored nor is considered to
be bad example, simply because you should try to be a clone anyway,  and I
support that.

Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Search



Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu