Agrippina wrote:Also why should the word "destroy" imply anger? There's something really satisfying about ripping weeds out of a space where you want to dig up a new flowerbed, and whacking away at them while making very satisfying ninja sounds. That's not "angry" destruction, that's very pleasurable. Just as destroying stupid ideas with "profane" language is very satisfying.

Weeding isn't really destroying. If you destroyed weeds you'd hack them to bits and leave the bits lying around all over the place. "Destroy" is without doubt an aggressive sentiment.

Uhg.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:It's actually the most rational thing to do, given that is the primary purpose of swearing. Occam's Razor.

Irish people, among others, would disagree with you.

And the forum is composed of much more than just Irish people.

Irrelevant. You made a universal claim, ie that the primary function fo swearing is agression.
I only have to provide one counterexample to refute that.

Bullshit. Using it for humour, or as a benign substitute word, or any of the other reasons people might swear, is a secondary use of swearing. What the Irish do is not unique to them. They just do it more than others do it.

Bernoulli wrote: Pairing the word "destroy" with swearing (which is primarily used as a tool of aggression) makes a compelling link.

Except it's not necessarily, primarily a tool of agression.

Of course it is. Look it up in the dictionary. Go and talk like that to your nearest policeman and see what happens.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

This is a great example of your ridiculous posting style.

I have explained why I post like this Bernoulli. That you don't like it, does not make it ridiculous.

Bernoulli wrote: When you read and respond one sentence at a time, you wind up looking disingenuous and rude.

I am not responsible for other people making unsupported assumptions about my motivations.

You've just done it again. I support my contention in the next sentence!

I tend to respond to individual sentences because I like to address any and all points I find lacking. It's for clarity, not some nefarious motive.

People make points in more than single sentences. Just because there's a full stop, doesn't mean that a point has finished being made.

But if that part of the point itself is questionable, it's perfectly valid to criticise or question it in and of itself.

But surely you can see how in the case I highlighted it wasn't valid to criticise it or question it. You questioned it by asking a question which was directly answered by the very next sentence. I'm only talking about those cases. I'm not suggesting it is inappropriate to chop a post into relevant points (which may include single sentences) and address them individually.

Bernoulli wrote:

Nor is it rude, as responding to each point seperately is far more legible than responding with walls of text addressing multiple points all after another.

It may or may not be far more legible, but it certainly makes you appear to be disingenuous and rude for the reason I explained.

Correction you asserted it appears disengenuous,

What? How are you correcting me by pointing out exactly what I just stated in the bit you quoted. I just don't understand how you parse some words. They appear to have totally different meanings to you than what they clearly have.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: "Again, what's bad about that?" How about you read the next fucking sentence and you'd find out what I think is bad about that.

Why are you so angry?

You couldn't fucking script this shit. You've just been pontificating how irrational it is to assume that because someone is swearing they are angry. Then I swear one time and you accuse me of being angry.

To hopefully make you realise that using swear words doesn't necessarily mean anger. I'd hoped that would be obvious, but apperently it either isn't or you really are angry and aggressive.

Well it appears we've both tried to trap each other there. In any case, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger. Again, words have meaning. Read what I actually write instead of what you think I was writing.

Bernoulli wrote:

And you have not actually explained what's so bad about it. You've asserted that it's irrational to abuse, ie use negative language to criticise an idea.
You have not actually demonstrated how it is irrational.

Because it has zero effect.

That's a false assertion.
It has the effect of making it extra clear that you consider an idea to be flawed.

"Extra clear"? You can't be more than clear. You don't need swearing at a concept to show that you disagree with it. If one does, then they are arguably lacking in intellectual depth.

Bernoulli wrote:
An idea isn't a sentient being, so it can't change it's mind. It's about as useful as punching rocks.

Only if you operate under the misunderstanding that the descriptors applied to an idea are an attempt to get the idea to change it's mind rather than the person making it.
Why you would think that, I don't know.

I'll tell you why, because it was a rhetorical point to point out the real truth as to why people carry on like a drunken twat towards an idea. It's because they are really targeting their abuse at the person putting forward the idea. Unless you are actually naive enough to think that someone is more likely to change their mind if their interlocutor swears at them and/or is aggressive.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'd like you to remind you again that I'm not trying to have an honest discussion with you and request that you stop accusing me of nefarious motives when there are none present.

Again, words have meanings. I didn't accuse you of nefarious motives. I said your posting style gives the appearance of it.

It only does if you assume the only explanation can be dishonesty and not misunderstanding by you and/or me.

That's ridiculous logic. Behaviour can have multiple possible explanations, but one can choose the most likely one to characterise the behaviour. Are you familiar with the saying: "if it quacks like a ducks,..." etc?

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Irish people, among others, would disagree with you.

And the forum is composed of much more than just Irish people.

Irrelevant. You made a universal claim, ie that the primary function fo swearing is agression.
I only have to provide one counterexample to refute that.

Bullshit. Using it for humour, or as a benign substitute word, or any of the other reasons people might swear, is a secondary use of swearing.

That's your assertion, you've yet to provide evidence for this.

Bernoulli wrote: What the Irish do is not unique to them. They just do it more than others do it.

And your evidence for this, is what exactly?

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Pairing the word "destroy" with swearing (which is primarily used as a tool of aggression) makes a compelling link.

Except it's not necessarily, primarily a tool of agression.

Of course it is. Look it up in the dictionary.

I know I already pointed out to you that an appeal to dictionary definitions is fallacious.

Bernoulli wrote: Go and talk like that to your nearest policeman and see what happens.

Go talk like what exactly? You see it all depends on the context.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I have explained why I post like this Bernoulli. That you don't like it, does not make it ridiculous.


I am not responsible for other people making unsupported assumptions about my motivations.

You've just done it again. I support my contention in the next sentence!

I tend to respond to individual sentences because I like to address any and all points I find lacking. It's for clarity, not some nefarious motive.

People make points in more than single sentences. Just because there's a full stop, doesn't mean that a point has finished being made.

But if that part of the point itself is questionable, it's perfectly valid to criticise or question it in and of itself.

But surely you can see how in the case I highlighted it wasn't valid to criticise it or question it.

I don't. I specifically pointed out in my response that your next sentence does not support your former.

Bernoulli wrote: You questioned it by asking a question which was directly answered by the very next sentence.

But it wasn't.
You asserted it was irrational, without demonstrating how it would be.

Bernoulli wrote: I'm only talking about those cases. I'm not suggesting it is inappropriate to chop a post into relevant points (which may include single sentences) and address them individually.

I get that.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Nor is it rude, as responding to each point seperately is far more legible than responding with walls of text addressing multiple points all after another.

It may or may not be far more legible, but it certainly makes you appear to be disingenuous and rude for the reason I explained.

Correction you asserted it appears disengenuous,

What? How are you correcting me by pointing out exactly what I just stated in the bit you quoted.

Because you make the positive claim that it certainly makes it appear ot be disengenuous, my correction is that you assert it without evidence.
There's a difference between asserting something being X and something actually being X.
My correction was to point out to you that you haven't demonstated that it appears disengenous.

Bernoulli wrote: I just don't understand how you parse some words. They appear to have totally different meanings to you than what they clearly have.

I already explained this to you in another thread, so please read this again, carefully.
Words do not have singular, transcendant meanings.
They have usages. Even the dicitonary acknowledges this by often providing multiple usages for a single word.
Ergo when you use certain words you might have usage 1 in mind when I think you're employing usage 2 or 3 or whatever other possible usage.

This is also the reason why I keep asking you to demonstrate various claims of yours, so it will become more clear exactly how you use a certain words in said claims.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Why are you so angry?

You couldn't fucking script this shit. You've just been pontificating how irrational it is to assume that because someone is swearing they are angry. Then I swear one time and you accuse me of being angry.

To hopefully make you realise that using swear words doesn't necessarily mean anger. I'd hoped that would be obvious, but apperently it either isn't or you really are angry and aggressive.

Well it appears we've both tried to trap each other there. In any case, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger.

Fine let me rephrase; why all the agression?

Bernoulli wrote: Again, words have meaning.

No, again, words have usages.

Bernoulli wrote: Read what I actually write instead of what you think I was writing.

I do read what you write and will continue to ask you to explain your claims in more clear and detailed arguments.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

And you have not actually explained what's so bad about it. You've asserted that it's irrational to abuse, ie use negative language to criticise an idea.
You have not actually demonstrated how it is irrational.

Because it has zero effect.

That's a false assertion.
It has the effect of making it extra clear that you consider an idea to be flawed.

"Extra clear"? You can't be more than clear.

Of course you can.
For example: I think that the idea that Justin Bieber makes good music silly.
I think the idea that the earth is fucking stupid.

Bernoulli wrote: You don't need swearing at a concept to show that you disagree with it.

You can use it however, to distinguish between various degrees of disagreement.

Bernoulli wrote: If one does, then they are arguably lacking in intellectual depth.

Aggie already linked to an article demonstrating the exact opposite, here it is again:
http://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-curse-a-lot-have-better-vocabularies-than-those-who-don-t-study-finds

People who curse a lot have better vocabularies than those who don't, study finds

If someone’s ever accused you of sounding less intelligent because you swear too much, don't worry - science has got your back. A new study has found that those who have a healthy repertoire of curse words at their disposal are more likely to have a richer vocabulary than those who don’t.

This challenges the long-held stereotype that people swear because they can’t find more intelligent words with which to express themselves.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:
An idea isn't a sentient being, so it can't change it's mind. It's about as useful as punching rocks.

Only if you operate under the misunderstanding that the descriptors applied to an idea are an attempt to get the idea to change it's mind rather than the person making it.
Why you would think that, I don't know.

I'll tell you why, because it was a rhetorical point to point out the real truth as to why people carry on like a drunken twat towards an idea.

I still object to your drunken twat characterisation it appears to me to be nothing but an emotional appeal.
Using 'bad' words doesn't automatically make you sound like a drunken twat.

Bernoulli wrote:
It's because they are really targeting their abuse at the person putting forward the idea.

Wrong. As I explained before, it's to point out how extremely you disagree with a certain claim, especially as opposed to more benign bad ideas or less obvious bad ideas.

Bernoulli wrote: Unless you are actually naive enough to think that someone is more likely to change their mind if their interlocutor swears at them and/or is aggressive.

I've just explained above that your dichotomy is false.
And again, using swear words is not necessarily agressive.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

And the forum is composed of much more than just Irish people.

Irrelevant. You made a universal claim, ie that the primary function fo swearing is agression.
I only have to provide one counterexample to refute that.

Bullshit. Using it for humour, or as a benign substitute word, or any of the other reasons people might swear, is a secondary use of swearing.

That's your assertion, you've yet to provide evidence for this.

Bernoulli wrote: What the Irish do is not unique to them. They just do it more than others do it.

And your evidence for this, is what exactly?

Remember who started this dumb point about the Irish. Provide evidence for your own assertions first, and then I might consider any requests for mine.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Pairing the word "destroy" with swearing (which is primarily used as a tool of aggression) makes a compelling link.

Except it's not necessarily, primarily a tool of agression.

Of course it is. Look it up in the dictionary.

I know I already pointed out to you that an appeal to dictionary definitions is fallacious.

You apparently don't understand what an appeal to dictionary fallacy is. It is when someone claims a word can only have one meaning. I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming what it's primary meaning is. Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't the first time I've had to point out to you that you are using a logical fallacy wrong

Bernoulli wrote: Go and talk like that to your nearest policeman and see what happens.

Go talk like what exactly? You see it all depends on the context.

You essentially make a broader point for me. Most people, notwithstanding the Irish, and instances in Australia, can understand from the context whether swearing is being used in an aggressive fashion. I doubt you would have agreed to this point earlier in the thread.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

You've just done it again. I support my contention in the next sentence!



People make points in more than single sentences. Just because there's a full stop, doesn't mean that a point has finished being made.

But if that part of the point itself is questionable, it's perfectly valid to criticise or question it in and of itself.

But surely you can see how in the case I highlighted it wasn't valid to criticise it or question it.

I don't. I specifically pointed out in my response that your next sentence does not support your former.

Bernoulli wrote: You questioned it by asking a question which was directly answered by the very next sentence.

But it wasn't.
You asserted it was irrational, without demonstrating how it would be.

FFS, what is with you and words? You asked "what's bad about that?". I fucking explained what's bad about that in the next fucking sentence. If you read the next sentence first, you could have addressed my reasoning, instead of asking for my reasoning that had already been given.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:


It may or may not be far more legible, but it certainly makes you appear to be disingenuous and rude for the reason I explained.

Correction you asserted it appears disengenuous,

What? How are you correcting me by pointing out exactly what I just stated in the bit you quoted.

Because you make the positive claim that it certainly makes it appear ot be disengenuous, my correction is that you assert it without evidence.

Nowhere did I say it certainly makes it appear disingenuous. What the fuck is wrong with you?? I gave my opinion of why I think it makes you look disingenuous and explain the reasoning for that opinion. Stop making shit up.

There's a difference between asserting something being X and something actually being X.
My correction was to point out to you that you haven't demonstated that it appears disengenous.

I absolutely demonstrated how it appears disingenuous to me.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:


You couldn't fucking script this shit. You've just been pontificating how irrational it is to assume that because someone is swearing they are angry. Then I swear one time and you accuse me of being angry.

To hopefully make you realise that using swear words doesn't necessarily mean anger. I'd hoped that would be obvious, but apperently it either isn't or you really are angry and aggressive.

Well it appears we've both tried to trap each other there. In any case, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger.

Fine let me rephrase; why all the agression?

Of ffs, what's the point in debating you when one has to explain points twice? I'll say again, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger (or aggression). Therefore, your belief that I am being aggressive is totally unfounded, not least because of your own proclamations regarding swearing.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:


Because it has zero effect.

That's a false assertion.
It has the effect of making it extra clear that you consider an idea to be flawed.

"Extra clear"? You can't be more than clear.

Of course you can.

Um, no you can't. You can't have more than 100%.

Bernoulli wrote: If one does, then they are arguably lacking in intellectual depth.

Aggie already linked to an article demonstrating the exact opposite, here it is again:
http://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-curse-a-lot-have-better-vocabularies-than-those-who-don-t-study-finds

Vocabularly =/= intellectual depth.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Irrelevant. You made a universal claim, ie that the primary function fo swearing is agression.
I only have to provide one counterexample to refute that.

Bullshit. Using it for humour, or as a benign substitute word, or any of the other reasons people might swear, is a secondary use of swearing.

That's your assertion, you've yet to provide evidence for this.

Bernoulli wrote: What the Irish do is not unique to them. They just do it more than others do it.

And your evidence for this, is what exactly?

Remember who started this dumb point about the Irish. Provide evidence for your own assertions first, and then I might consider any requests for mine.

Both sides, assuming they're wanting an honest and rational discussion, carry their own burden of proof, regardless of whether they other side manages to carry theirs.
Here you go:
http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/craic/Top-Ten-reasons-why-the-Irish-swear-so-much.html
http://atriptoireland.com/2013/09/06/why-do-the-irish-swear-so-much/

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Except it's not necessarily, primarily a tool of agression.

Of course it is. Look it up in the dictionary.

I know I already pointed out to you that an appeal to dictionary definitions is fallacious.

You apparently don't understand what an appeal to dictionary fallacy is.

I do actually.

Bernoulli wrote: It is when someone claims a word can only have one meaning.

Which is exactly what you keep doing when you accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting you when I infer a different usage of the same word than you do.

Bernoulli wrote: I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming what it's primary meaning is.

Claiming and failing to substantiate. It's still usage, not meaning, btw.
And not all words have primary usage, more-over, depending on the context, assuming a secondary usage might be more rational.

Bernoulli wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't the first time I've had to point out to you that you are using a logical fallacy wrong

I don't suppose it is, but at least in this case you haven't actually demonstrated it, while I've just explained that I am using it correct.
Note; I'm not accusing your from deliberate foul play, I am just pointing out that you keep berating me for misunderstanding how you use certain words, because you assume the way you use it is the primary usage.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Go and talk like that to your nearest policeman and see what happens.

Go talk like what exactly? You see it all depends on the context.

You essentially make a broader point for me. Most people, notwithstanding the Irish, and instances in Australia, can understand from the context whether swearing is being used in an aggressive fashion.

I don't see how that makes your point. It actually makes mine.
If you have no context, you cannot reasonably assume it's agression.
IE, if I'm saying: 'That idea is fucking stupid', you cannot asssume I'm being agressive, instead of just amazed for example.

Bernoulli wrote: I doubt you would have agreed to this point earlier in the thread.

Like I explained in another post, that isn't because I'm unwilling, but because you haven't presented sound arugments and/or evidence.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
But if that part of the point itself is questionable, it's perfectly valid to criticise or question it in and of itself.

But surely you can see how in the case I highlighted it wasn't valid to criticise it or question it.

I don't. I specifically pointed out in my response that your next sentence does not support your former.

Bernoulli wrote: You questioned it by asking a question which was directly answered by the very next sentence.

But it wasn't.
You asserted it was irrational, without demonstrating how it would be.

FFS, what is with you and words? You asked "what's bad about that?". I fucking explained what's bad about that in the next fucking sentence.

Might I remind you that you've had lexical difficulties with other members as well and it might not all be my fault?
Asserting something isn't an explanation.
If I ask you to explain why the moon orbits the earth, if you respond with 'because of gravity', you haven't actually explained anything.

Bernoulli wrote: If you read the next sentence first, you could have addressed my reasoning, instead of asking for my reasoning that had already been given.

But you did not provide reasoning, you provided a claim.
There''s a difference between:
1. X=Y
and
2. X= Y because of ........ which leads to Y.

What happened was:
'What's bad about using swear words?''
'It's irrational.'
The step missing here is you demonstrating how it's irrational.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Correction you asserted it appears disengenuous,

What? How are you correcting me by pointing out exactly what I just stated in the bit you quoted.

Because you make the positive claim that it certainly makes it appear ot be disengenuous, my correction is that you assert it without evidence.

Nowhere did I say it certainly makes it appear disingenuous.

Correct, it's actually worse, you said it makes me appeart to be disengenuous.
I made it extra noticable for you.

Bernoulli wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you??

Nothing. You are the one who denies making a statement that's quoted in the very post he's responding to.

Bernoulli wrote: I gave my opinion of why I think it makes you look disingenuous and explain the reasoning for that opinion. Stop making shit up.

I am not. I have not made accusations about your mental faculties, language skills, motivations etc.
Yes, you explained your reasoning and I explained why that reasoning was flawed and that you're jumping to conclusions.

Bernoulli wrote:

There's a difference between asserting something being X and something actually being X.
My correction was to point out to you that you haven't demonstated that it appears disengenous.

I absolutely demonstrated how it appears disingenuous to me.

Could you next time include that then, because the to me part wasn't present in your original claim, making it seem as if you were berating me for making objectively dishonest appearing posts.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

To hopefully make you realise that using swear words doesn't necessarily mean anger. I'd hoped that would be obvious, but apperently it either isn't or you really are angry and aggressive.

Well it appears we've both tried to trap each other there. In any case, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger.

Fine let me rephrase; why all the agression?

Of ffs, what's the point in debating you when one has to explain points twice?

Explanations can be unclear or even wrong.
We're also having part of the same discussion in two threads at the same time, so that might confuse things.

Bernoulli wrote:
I'll say again, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger (or aggression). Therefore, your belief that I am being aggressive is totally unfounded, not least because of your own proclamations regarding swearing.

My own proclamations are irrelevant, I'm trying to get you to see that your own actions don't agree with your position on the issue. And I just provided evidence that you did indeed claim that it's reasonable to assume agressions.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

That's a false assertion.
It has the effect of making it extra clear that you consider an idea to be flawed.

"Extra clear"? You can't be more than clear.

Of course you can.

Um, no you can't. You can't have more than 100%.

I clarified this in another post, what I mean is that you can distinguish between various degrees of disagreement or how stupid you think an idea is.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: If one does, then they are arguably lacking in intellectual depth.

Aggie already linked to an article demonstrating the exact opposite, here it is again:
http://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-curse-a-lot-have-better-vocabularies-than-those-who-don-t-study-finds

Vocabularly =/= intellectual depth.

Fair enough.
Still, the orignal claim is yours: how does using swear words demonstrate a lack of intellectual depth?

Bernoulli wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Also why should the word "destroy" imply anger? There's something really satisfying about ripping weeds out of a space where you want to dig up a new flowerbed, and whacking away at them while making very satisfying ninja sounds. That's not "angry" destruction, that's very pleasurable. Just as destroying stupid ideas with "profane" language is very satisfying.

Weeding isn't really destroying. If you destroyed weeds you'd hack them to bits and leave the bits lying around all over the place. "Destroy" is without doubt an aggressive sentiment.

I wasn't "weeding" in the sense of gently removing tiny seedlings. I was whacking great big overgrown plants, with relish! Thoroughly enjoyable but aggressively destructive, with not an ounce of anger.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Bullshit. Using it for humour, or as a benign substitute word, or any of the other reasons people might swear, is a secondary use of swearing.

That's your assertion, you've yet to provide evidence for this.

Bernoulli wrote: What the Irish do is not unique to them. They just do it more than others do it.

And your evidence for this, is what exactly?

Remember who started this dumb point about the Irish. Provide evidence for your own assertions first, and then I might consider any requests for mine.

Both sides, assuming they're wanting an honest and rational discussion, carry their own burden of proof, regardless of whether they other side manages to carry theirs.
Here you go:
http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/craic/Top-Ten-reasons-why-the-Irish-swear-so-much.html
http://atriptoireland.com/2013/09/06/why-do-the-irish-swear-so-much/

That's not evidence. It's two opinion pieces. There is no data there whatsoever.

Bernoulli wrote: It is when someone claims a word can only have one meaning.

Which is exactly what you keep doing when you accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting you when I infer a different usage of the same word than you do.

Bernoulli wrote: I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming what it's primary meaning is.

Claiming and failing to substantiate. It's still usage, not meaning, btw.
And not all words have primary usage, more-over, depending on the context, assuming a secondary usage might be more rational.

More evidence why debate with you is a waste of time. The first red highlight you claim I am saying that a word can only have one meaning. I point out below that that I am claiming that words have a primary meaning, not a single meaning. In the second highlight you AGREE WITH ME that that is my claim. You can't have it both ways.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: Go and talk like that to your nearest policeman and see what happens.

Go talk like what exactly? You see it all depends on the context.

You essentially make a broader point for me. Most people, notwithstanding the Irish, and instances in Australia, can understand from the context whether swearing is being used in an aggressive fashion.

I don't see how that makes your point. It actually makes mine.
If you have no context, you cannot reasonably assume it's agression.
IE, if I'm saying: 'That idea is fucking stupid', you cannot asssume I'm being agressive, instead of just amazed for example.

Who said the context is only to be attempted to be determined from one sentence only?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

But surely you can see how in the case I highlighted it wasn't valid to criticise it or question it.

I don't. I specifically pointed out in my response that your next sentence does not support your former.

Bernoulli wrote: You questioned it by asking a question which was directly answered by the very next sentence.

But it wasn't.
You asserted it was irrational, without demonstrating how it would be.

FFS, what is with you and words? You asked "what's bad about that?". I fucking explained what's bad about that in the next fucking sentence.

Might I remind you that you've had lexical difficulties with other members as well and it might not all be my fault?
Asserting something isn't an explanation.
If I ask you to explain why the moon orbits the earth, if you respond with 'because of gravity', you haven't actually explained anything.

Oh ffs. This is getting more and more ridiculous. You ASKED A QUESTION THAT ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER TO WAS PROVIDED IN THE NEXT FUCKING SENTENCE. The problem is categorically with you and your inability to read more than one sentence ahead at a time.

Bernoulli wrote: If you read the next sentence first, you could have addressed my reasoning, instead of asking for my reasoning that had already been given.

But you did not provide reasoning, you provided a claim.
There''s a difference between:
1. X=Y
and
2. X= Y because of ........ which leads to Y.

What happened was:
'What's bad about using swear words?''
'It's irrational.'
The step missing here is you demonstrating how it's irrational.

That you disagree with my reasoning, is not the same thing as implying that I hadn't answered your question. This is simple stuff.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

What? How are you correcting me by pointing out exactly what I just stated in the bit you quoted.

Because you make the positive claim that it certainly makes it appear ot be disengenuous, my correction is that you assert it without evidence.

Nowhere did I say it certainly makes it appear disingenuous.

Correct, it's actually worse, you said it makes me appeart to be disengenuous.
I made it extra noticable for you.

Non-sequitur. Nowhere did i say it certainly makes you appear disingenuous. This is elementary level logic that you keep stuffing up on.

Bernoulli wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you??

Nothing. You are the one who denies making a statement that's quoted in the very post he's responding to.

It's clear you struggle with logic. This is basic stuff.

Bernoulli wrote: I gave my opinion of why I think it makes you look disingenuous and explain the reasoning for that opinion. Stop making shit up.

I am not. I have not made accusations about your mental faculties, language skills, motivations etc.
Yes, you explained your reasoning and I explained why that reasoning was flawed and that you're jumping to conclusions.

Um no, you've made up a claim. You claim I said it certainly makes you appear disingenuous. Absolutely nowhere did I say that or anything resembling it. You've literally invented that.

Bernoulli wrote:

There's a difference between asserting something being X and something actually being X.
My correction was to point out to you that you haven't demonstated that it appears disengenous.

I absolutely demonstrated how it appears disingenuous to me.

Could you next time include that then, because the to me part wasn't present in your original claim, making it seem as if you were berating me for making objectively dishonest appearing posts.

No, I'll continue to use English that 99% of intelligent people understand the meaning of.

Bernoulli wrote:
I'll say again, I clearly didn't say that using swear words means anger (or aggression). Therefore, your belief that I am being aggressive is totally unfounded, not least because of your own proclamations regarding swearing.

My own proclamations are irrelevant, I'm trying to get you to see that your own actions don't agree with your position on the issue. And I just provided evidence that you did indeed claim that it's reasonable to assume agressions.

Oh my God. Words literally have no fucking meaning to you. You've just repeated the same fucking mistake again. I give up. You win through sheer Dunning-Kruger-ness.

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's your assertion, you've yet to provide evidence for this.


And your evidence for this, is what exactly?

Remember who started this dumb point about the Irish. Provide evidence for your own assertions first, and then I might consider any requests for mine.

Both sides, assuming they're wanting an honest and rational discussion, carry their own burden of proof, regardless of whether they other side manages to carry theirs.
Here you go:
http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/craic/Top-Ten-reasons-why-the-Irish-swear-so-much.html
http://atriptoireland.com/2013/09/06/why-do-the-irish-swear-so-much/

That's not evidence. It's two opinion pieces. There is no data there whatsoever.

Have you actually read the two articles?
They aren't just opinion pieces.
The second article is text for tourists to explain why the Irish swear so much. Do you really think they'd make such an article if it wasn't true?
And this isn't like your claim about slavery of which there are no direct witnesses left.
These are people that live in the country and are aware what's common in their culture.
How about these then:
http://www.dailyedge.ie/northern-irish-people-swearing-1573528-Jul2014/
https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/shite-talk-and-gobshites-in-irish-english/

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote: It is when someone claims a word can only have one meaning.

Which is exactly what you keep doing when you accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting you when I infer a different usage of the same word than you do.

Bernoulli wrote: I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming what it's primary meaning is.

Claiming and failing to substantiate. It's still usage, not meaning, btw.
And not all words have primary usage, more-over, depending on the context, assuming a secondary usage might be more rational.

More evidence why debate with you is a waste of time.

Rather this being more evidence that you make ludicrously hasty generalisations about people you barely know.
I keep trying to have a civil discussion with you and I keep getting personalised remarks like this in return.

Bernoulli wrote: The first red highlight you claim I am saying that a word can only have one meaning. I point out below that that I am claiming that words have a primary meaning, not a single meaning. In the second highlight you AGREE WITH ME that that is my claim. You can't have it both ways.

Becaus that's not the issue.
The issue is that you keep acting as if I am in the wrong, if I don't have the same primary usages of words that you do.

Bernoulli wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:

Go talk like what exactly? You see it all depends on the context.

You essentially make a broader point for me. Most people, notwithstanding the Irish, and instances in Australia, can understand from the context whether swearing is being used in an aggressive fashion.

I don't see how that makes your point. It actually makes mine.
If you have no context, you cannot reasonably assume it's agression.
IE, if I'm saying: 'That idea is fucking stupid', you cannot asssume I'm being agressive, instead of just amazed for example.

Who said the context is only to be attempted to be determined from one sentence only?

You.
When I pointed out that, without any additional context, it's irrational to assume anger, you claimed it was the most rational thing to do because it's the primaryp purpose of swearing.
A claim, I might add, you have not even begun to support with evidence.

I'm going to ask you this one last time to stop with the hasty and false accusations Bernoulli.

Sometimes it's fucking hard to get your fucking point across without fucking using the fucking word "fuck".

One favorite is the apocryphal story about General Patton and the broken down Jeep. Seeing a Jeep on the side of the road, the General asked a soldier what was wrong with it. The soldier replied, "I don't know, sir, the fucking fucker's fucked".

Keep It Real wrote:I seem to remember it roughly means that people only pretend to take offence at belligerent posts because their arguments are flawed. Seems to me that belief in this rule perpetuates belligerent posting which is a turnoff for many. I also find it to be untrue, in that some people sometimes genuinely withdraw from discourse because the belligerence and foul language of their interlocutor is too much to tolerate, regardless of the veracity of their arguments. Thoughts?

Back to the nominal reason for this thread...

First, I still can't find any direct list of "Goldmane's Rules" anywhere, in order to directly address the title question. Nor can I find any indication that this "Goldmane" ever had any recognized authority to go about making or suggesting rules.

The very vague mentions of what this so-called third rule was, make me respond to it by saying "nope, that's bollocks. Next question?"

Now. I am going by the examples given, and the "recollection statement" above, that the point of this thread is to ask if it really IS legitimate, to declare that someone has LOST an argument, because they were so offended by the language used to argue about it, that they left the discussion. And further, that the technique of using abusive/offensive language to express ideas, specifically in order to win false debate victories, should be respected.

Worst if all, it APPEARS to be so, that this original "goldmane" character actually claimed that the fact that someone gets in a huff and leaves, is, in and of itself, proof that their idea was bad, even if no support is ever presented to directly dispute the idea itself.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I seem to remember it roughly means that people only pretend to take offence at belligerent posts because their arguments are flawed. Seems to me that belief in this rule perpetuates belligerent posting which is a turnoff for many. I also find it to be untrue, in that some people sometimes genuinely withdraw from discourse because the belligerence and foul language of their interlocutor is too much to tolerate, regardless of the veracity of their arguments. Thoughts?

Back to the nominal reason for this thread...

First, I still can't find any direct list of "Goldmane's Rules" anywhere, in order to directly address the title question. Nor can I find any indication that this "Goldmane" ever had any recognized authority to go about making or suggesting rules.

4th post in this thread:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic52999.html#p2463151
Goldenmane is/was a member of this forum as well as others.
Whether he's an authority is completely irrelevant.
No-one's saying we should follow the rule because Goldenmane made it, it's just named after him because he was the first to express it in a detailed post.

igorfrankensteen wrote:
Now. I am going by the examples given, and the "recollection statement" above, that the point of this thread is to ask if it really IS legitimate, to declare that someone has LOST an argument, because they were so offended by the language used to argue about it, that they left the discussion.

No-one in this thread has advocated that position.
They haven't lost the argument, they haven't addressed it because they're worrying about the language rather than the argument itself.

igorfrankensteen wrote:
And further, that the technique of using abusive/offensive language to express ideas, specifically in order to win false debate victories, should be respected.

You just admitted you don't know what the rule is. Why then are you know making up all manner of claims about it?

igorfrankensteen wrote: Worst if all, it APPEARS to be so, that this original "goldmane" character actually claimed that the fact that someone gets in a huff and leaves, is, in and of itself, proof that their idea was bad, even if no support is ever presented to directly dispute the idea itself.

Again, given your admission that you could not find the rule nor it's author, how did you arive at the above quoted statement?

Just to address your bit; no, it's conclusive evidence that their idea was bad.
It is however an indication that they cannot defend it and/or address the criticisms.
Otherwise, why would you spend all your time to complain about your interlocutors use of words, especially when said words aren't applied to you, but rather your claims, rather than actually addressing their points or defending your own.

Thomas. I am NOT NOT NOT "making up all manner of claims about it." I am referring directly to what I found at the posted links about it.

Attack if you like, but it would be far more useful to locate the ACTUAL RULE, so that we could all discuss what it actually IS.

Just to address your bit; no, it's conclusive evidence that their idea was bad.
It is however an indication that they cannot defend it and/or address the criticisms.

That's an illegitimate bit if reasoning (even if I assume that you meant to say "it's not conclusive evidence etc"). The fact that someone does not respond, doesn't even REMOTELY prove that they CANNOT do so. And by claiming that, you are ironically directly supporting what you just finished claiming was me "making things up."

Simple example: if you, or someone who looks like you, says "The colors of the American Flag are Red, WHite, and Black." and someone who looks like me says "You are in error, the colors are Red, White, and Blue," and you or your doppelganger comes back in response with "only a stupid cunt would claim that it's blue and not black," and my replica moves on to other things (having concluded your twin is a jerk)...

... by YOUR concept, your replicant would then be able to claim that my robotic stand-in was INCAPABLE of proving that the correct color is Blue.