Kemosabe Shades, can we "ban"

Post by **_John Larsen** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:51 pm

I vote no because the word deals with neither scatological function or reproduction. If we allow the banning of any word, because it is offensive to some--no matter how much in bad taste--we start down a path that has no logical termination.

Post by **_antishock8** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:52 pm

John Larsen wrote:I vote no because the word deals with neither scatological function or reproduction. If we allow the banning of any word, because it is offensive to some--no matter how much in bad taste--we start down a path that has no logical termination.

Amen, brutha... And before you know it this board has all the same problems as The Other Board that Shall Not Be Named.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:53 pm

John Larsen wrote:I vote no because the word deals with neither scatological function or reproduction. If we allow the banning of any word, because it is offensive to some--no matter how much in bad taste--we start down a path that has no logical termination.

Thank you, Mr. Nietzsche. I mean, John.
:-)

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:55 pm

I vote no because the word deals with neither scatological function or reproduction. If we allow the banning of any word, because it is offensive to some--no matter how much in bad taste--we start down a path that has no logical termination.

This is what moderating a board is about. One could posit that the act of moderating, in and of itself, is the start down a path that has no logical termination. So, once having determined that some moderation is needed, it is the job of the admins and/or moderators to determine which behaviors they will act upon. There is no logical reason that this has to constitute an endless slippery slope anymore than determining one cannot post temple content in the terrestrial kingdom constitutes an endless slippery slope.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:57 pm

On a personal note, and some of you are already aware of this - I have already stated my intention of deliberately ensuring that threads that use this phrase go into the telestial kingdom. We've already tried ignoring it, to a certain extent, and tried explaining to posters why it is so offensive. Obviously, these attempts have failed. It is personally offensive enough to me that it is now my open goal to get any thread with it into the telestial kingdom ASAP. It's my own act of vigilantism.

I do not expect this to be a consideration in this conversation, but thought I should mention it in the interest of full disclosure.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:58 pm

This smacks of the same sensibilities that have given us PC and campus speech codes. I understand the feelings involved, but where is the rational limit to such once the Camel's nose is in the tent ("retard" is hardly a "dirty" word, and far worse is bantered about here regarding the intelligence and motives of defenders of the Church. If Merc can call me an animal, why can't I call him (if I so desire, I'm working on that) a retard?

I vote no.

Post by **_antishock8** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:01 am

Coggins7 wrote:This smacks of the same sensibilities that have given us PC and campus speech codes. I understand the feelings involved, but where is the rational limit to such once the Camel's nose is in the tent ("retard" is hardly a "dirty" word, and far worse is bantered about here regarding the intelligence and motives of defenders of the Church. If Merc can call me an animal, why can't I call him (if I so desire, I'm working on that) a retard?

Link to F-bomb photo

Mod Note: Edited by Bond

Post by **_truth dancer** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:01 am

OR, we can just go with Beastie's example...

We can make a rule that anytime someone is going to use the term in a derogatory way they must also include a pic of garmets and at least ten F-bombs.

:-)

~dancer~

I'm kidding with the rule thing... I know we don't like them! LOL

Post by **_asbestosman** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:03 am

beastie wrote:and tried explaining to posters why it is so offensive.

I actually think that's part of the problem. Since the explanations aren't convincing or important to some, they feel they're justified and continue despite knowing that others will be deeply offended. I don't think anyone needs to justify why one is offended at something. The other person should merely weight whether or not it's worth offending that person and then act accordingly.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:57 am

antishock8 wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:This smacks of the same sensibilities that have given us PC and campus speech codes. I understand the feelings involved, but where is the rational limit to such once the Camel's nose is in the tent ("retard" is hardly a "dirty" word, and far worse is bantered about here regarding the intelligence and motives of defenders of the Church. If Merc can call me an animal, why can't I call him (if I so desire, I'm working on that) a retard?

Link to F-bomb photo

MOd note: edited by Bond.

I think this board is at the point of requiring chaperons for the minors here who may be out past their bedtime on a school night...