I'd just like to bump this thread with a story.
On the way to Uni while I was on a bus, the bus picked up three girls(bogans at it) and one of the girls flashed a single ticket and tried to pass it off as a double. When the bus driver saw through her bullshit he asked her to pay for a single, she of course was pissed and spent the rest of the bus ride saying how the "stupid asian bus driver" was a "fucking retard", her herself being black I respect her opinion to ignore racial stereotypes.
I didn't mind the swearing, it didn't want to make me cry and I didn't politely ask her to stop the mean words, the bus driver could've demanded them to shut up or get off the bus, but he didn't(if I was the bus driver I'd tell them to shut the fuck up then gtfo if they didn't shut up, and if the bus driver said he wouldn't drive until they got off and they didn't I'd throw the girls off myself)
The point is swearing as an insult is just equivalent to douchebaggery which isn't a crime. In public venues like malls and buses it should be the owners decision to throw them out and on the streets people shouldn't have their speech oppressed by anyone(unless they were being loud and disturbing the residents, that's different)
a few things:
#1: Godwin's Law, look it up then shut up.
#2: he was attacking the absuirdity of your comparison of the hollocaust to fining people for being offensive in public (which there are laws against in almost all western countries)
#3: using the word Christ in a context other than religion is a swear word, has been for a long time.
#4: you may not know this, but most weastern countries founded their laws based on the bible.
#5: using "they" and "them" makes you sound more like a conspiracy theorist than having a valid argument, censorship of "everything" is just as absurd as your comparisons, yes, language evolves, but so does the law, which is what people seem to be missing here, it's one thing to stop people swearing but it's another thing to round them up, tie them two-by-two and shoot them.
#6: i can never see a context nor time where we'd evolve to have "****" and "fuck" as being acceptable unoffensive words, and a person that could, is as nieve as they are stupid.
this is meerly a law to stop people being offensive in public, it isn't a grand scheme to censor our opinions or make us more obediant, it is simply to make the world a less repulsive place, or rather, make people less repulsive, this is one Australian that is happy about it, and even wants it nation wide, but hey, if you can't express yourself without swearing, then your vocabulary is seriously lacking, not your freedoms.
1. Godwin is a retard. And frankly I never compared anyone with Nazis here. All I did was providing a poem written about the holocaust - but if you knew shit about poems, you'd know how interpreting them works. If you don't see how the comparison works, I'm sorry, but I guess it's pointless to talk to you.
2. There's a difference between "being offensive in public" and swearing. Swearing, in many circumstances, constitutes for assault in at quite a few countries. There's a difference between "oh, you silly fuck" and "Fuck you, asshole, I'm going to fucking kill you". While the latter isn't necessarily going to be followed up by a physical assault, it's still a threat. The first, while being "offensive", is harmless.
THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
By allowing the government to unreasonably restrict the parts of your speech/freedoms that you don't particularly care about (comparison with taking away the communists, unionists, jews, whoever) you're opening yourself up for further restrictions. Precedents are precedents, if the government sees this system working well (as in, bringing in a lot of money) they might go further. And being "offensive" on the streets suddenly means not complying with every single part of current political party's ideology or talking negatively against them. That's almost, like, inciting a protest or something. If a mere "fuck" offends, that offends a lot more!
And then you can take a look at the history and see how many countries employed similar tactics and where it went. Nazi Germany, USSR, Brazil during the 60s-80s. Sure, all these countries were clear examples of dictatorship. But by allowing any government to control a sliver of your freedoms, you're only making yourself more vulnerable.
3. Not to me. Secular/atheistic/anti-theistic people do not see it as an insult. And why should they? The whole idea of this particular "swear" comes from religious grounds, and fuck them.
4. You may not know this, but there's a pretty clear difference between having laws like "Do not kill" and "Do not steal" (which are basic societal laws that exist in most societies without any meddling from religion) and being based on the Bible. And yes, some laws might bear slight religious corruption, because before the concept of separating religion and state came up, most of these countries were majorly Christian. But today, with immigration being so easy and discrimination on religious basis being less noticeable, you can safely say that most countries in the West are more or less secular.
5. "They" and "them" are just pronouns. There are only 2 main groups - the people, and the government. Last time I checked, the government were the ones passing and enforcing laws. 4 letters take up less space them 10 letters.
6. They are perfectly acceptable as any words go. Context is what matters. And seeing how you've didn't even understand the core of my criticism I've been repeating in my previous posts, really, I think you're the naive one here.
All you want is to build taboos around simple words, with no context involved. And if passing this law doesn't simply result in the policemen getting a list of "naughty words" (like we're all a bunch of fucking kids), and lets them look at the context of words... then it's even a bigger boat of fail. They're the authority, and you're allowing them to judge you on whether you've meant something to be offensive or not. Not to invoke the whole "corrupt cop" stereotype, but I'm not comfortable with that. There's a reason why in court, judges are supposed to be neutral. By letting an authoritative power like the police judge whether you're being offensive or not on the spot and fining you immediately you're opening up a LOT of opportunities for corruption.
You're the naive one. And being an asshole is not against any law, and it shouldn't be. If you're on private property, it should be the owner's decision on what goes on in there as long as it doesn't go against some of the basic human rights.
Work on your grammar...
slowpoke999 said:
I'd just like to bump this thread with a story.
On the way to Uni while I was on a bus, the bus picked up three girls(bogans at it) and one of the girls flashed a single ticket and tried to pass it off as a double. When the bus driver saw through her bullshit he asked her to pay for a single, she of course was pissed and spent the rest of the bus ride saying how the "stupid asian bus driver" was a "fucking retard", her herself being black I respect her opinion to ignore racial stereotypes.
I didn't mind the swearing, it didn't want to make me cry and I didn't politely ask her to stop the mean words, the bus driver could've demanded them to shut up or get off the bus, but he didn't(if I was the bus driver I'd tell them to shut the fuck up then gtfo if they didn't shut up, and if the bus driver said he wouldn't drive until they got off and they didn't I'd throw the girls off myself)
The point is swearing as an insult is just equivalent to douchebaggery which isn't a crime. In public venues like malls and buses it should be the owners decision to throw them out and on the streets people shouldn't have their speech oppressed by anyone(unless they were being loud and disturbing the residents, that's different)
a few things:
#1: Godwin's Law, look it up then shut up.
#2: he was attacking the absuirdity of your comparison of the hollocaust to fining people for being offensive in public (which there are laws against in almost all western countries)
#3: using the word Christ in a context other than religion is a swear word, has been for a long time.
#4: you may not know this, but most weastern countries founded their laws based on the bible.
#5: using "they" and "them" makes you sound more like a conspiracy theorist than having a valid argument, censorship of "everything" is just as absurd as your comparisons, yes, language evolves, but so does the law, which is what people seem to be missing here, it's one thing to stop people swearing but it's another thing to round them up, tie them two-by-two and shoot them.
#6: i can never see a context nor time where we'd evolve to have "****" and "fuck" as being acceptable unoffensive words, and a person that could, is as nieve as they are stupid.
this is meerly a law to stop people being offensive in public, it isn't a grand scheme to censor our opinions or make us more obediant, it is simply to make the world a less repulsive place, or rather, make people less repulsive, this is one Australian that is happy about it, and even wants it nation wide, but hey, if you can't express yourself without swearing, then your vocabulary is seriously lacking, not your freedoms.
1. Godwin is a retard. And frankly I never compared anyone with Nazis here. All I did was providing a poem written about the holocaust - but if you knew shit about poems, you'd know how interpreting them works. If you don't see how the comparison works, I'm sorry, but I guess it's pointless to talk to you.
2. There's a difference between "being offensive in public" and swearing. Swearing, in many circumstances, constitutes for assault in at quite a few countries. There's a difference between "oh, you silly fuck" and "Fuck you, asshole, I'm going to fucking kill you". While the latter isn't necessarily going to be followed up by a physical assault, it's still a threat. The first, while being "offensive", is harmless.
THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
By allowing the government to unreasonably restrict the parts of your speech/freedoms that you don't particularly care about (comparison with taking away the communists, unionists, jews, whoever) you're opening yourself up for further restrictions. Precedents are precedents, if the government sees this system working well (as in, bringing in a lot of money) they might go further. And being "offensive" on the streets suddenly means not complying with every single part of current political party's ideology or talking negatively against them. That's almost, like, inciting a protest or something. If a mere "fuck" offends, that offends a lot more!
And then you can take a look at the history and see how many countries employed similar tactics and where it went. Nazi Germany, USSR, Brazil during the 60s-80s. Sure, all these countries were clear examples of dictatorship. But by allowing any government to control a sliver of your freedoms, you're only making yourself more vulnerable.
3. Not to me. Secular/atheistic/anti-theistic people do not see it as an insult. And why should they? The whole idea of this particular "swear" comes from religious grounds, and fuck them.
4. You may not know this, but there's a pretty clear difference between having laws like "Do not kill" and "Do not steal" (which are basic societal laws that exist in most societies without any meddling from religion) and being based on the Bible. And yes, some laws might bear slight religious corruption, because before the concept of separating religion and state came up, most of these countries were majorly Christian. But today, with immigration being so easy and discrimination on religious basis being less noticeable, you can safely say that most countries in the West are more or less secular.
5. "They" and "them" are just pronouns. There are only 2 main groups - the people, and the government. Last time I checked, the government were the ones passing and enforcing laws. 4 letters take up less space them 10 letters.
6. They are perfectly acceptable as any words go. Context is what matters. And seeing how you've didn't even understand the core of my criticism I've been repeating in my previous posts, really, I think you're the naive one here.
All you want is to build taboos around simple words, with no context involved. And if passing this law doesn't simply result in the policemen getting a list of "naughty words" (like we're all a bunch of fucking kids), and lets them look at the context of words... then it's even a bigger boat of fail. They're the authority, and you're allowing them to judge you on whether you've meant something to be offensive or not. Not to invoke the whole "corrupt cop" stereotype, but I'm not comfortable with that. There's a reason why in court, judges are supposed to be neutral. By letting an authoritative power like the police judge whether you're being offensive or not on the spot and fining you immediately you're opening up a LOT of opportunities for corruption.
You're the naive one. And being an asshole is not against any law, and it shouldn't be. If you're on private property, it should be the owner's decision on what goes on in there as long as it doesn't go against some of the basic human rights.
Work on your grammar...
slowpoke999 said:
I'd just like to bump this thread with a story.
On the way to Uni while I was on a bus, the bus picked up three girls(bogans at it) and one of the girls flashed a single ticket and tried to pass it off as a double. When the bus driver saw through her bullshit he asked her to pay for a single, she of course was pissed and spent the rest of the bus ride saying how the "stupid asian bus driver" was a "fucking retard", her herself being black I respect her opinion to ignore racial stereotypes.
I didn't mind the swearing, it didn't want to make me cry and I didn't politely ask her to stop the mean words, the bus driver could've demanded them to shut up or get off the bus, but he didn't(if I was the bus driver I'd tell them to shut the fuck up then gtfo if they didn't shut up, and if the bus driver said he wouldn't drive until they got off and they didn't I'd throw the girls off myself)
The point is swearing as an insult is just equivalent to douchebaggery which isn't a crime. In public venues like malls and buses it should be the owners decision to throw them out and on the streets people shouldn't have their speech oppressed by anyone(unless they were being loud and disturbing the residents, that's different)
You're right. It is America's fault. Damn those Americans. D:
OT:But... but think of the children!
Okay, really on topic this time: Well, all I can really say because everything else has been said to death is that Queensland is going to make a lot of money off this.
Some people don't hate swearing, but when every single person is swearing non-stop all day everyday you get kinda sick of it.
So go on, bring the fines.
[sup]EDIT: Stop quoting me, I know that you guys don't like my opinion but coming back to this thread over and over just to see the people abusing me is not fun.[/sup]
Some people don't hate swearing, but when every single person is swearing non-stop all day everyday you get kinda sick of it.
So go on, bring the fines.
[sup]EDIT: Stop quoting me, I know that you guys don't like my opinion but coming back to this thread over and over just to see the people abusing me is not fun.[/sup]
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
