Questions of a weird mind

[Grinner]

Then shouldn't we try to, you know, encourage people to treat the words like words, rather than something horrible?

By itself, a word is just a configuration of phonemes chained together in a particular order. Only when they are associated with something do they take on meaning.

For example, when I say "cutting board", what do you think of?

Ideally, you would associate that particular phrase with the concept of a board used for cutting food.

[Zale]

By itself, a word is just a configuration of phonemes chained together in a particular order. Only when they are associated with something do they take on meaning.

For example, when I say "cutting board", what do you think of?

Ideally, you would associate that particular phrase with the concept of a board used for cutting food.

Yes. I know that.

I'm saying that ideally, all curse words would not have the negative associations they do. If those negative associations actually cause brain damage, then wouldn't it be smart to try and discourage the associations, rather than the words themselves?

[Grinner]

Yes. I know that.

I'm saying that ideally, all curse words would not have the negative associations they do. If those negative associations actually cause brain damage, then wouldn't it be smart to try and discourage the associations, rather than the words themselves?

Gotcha.

No, it wouldn't. You see, these words still have a purpose: to express intense emotion. It is the misuse of them that causes the problem. They exist for a reason, and if they should be eliminated, then humans will simply find something else to represent those emotions.

Hypothetically, let's say you are successful in eliminating these associations. What you will have done is eliminated people's ability to vent those emotions in a safe manner. So, those emotions will instead be vented through another means. Art? Maybe. Murder? Also an option.

Edit: In summary, you would be trying to cage humanity psychologically.

[wadledo]

All curse words do not have negative connotations.

[Story Time]

None particularly.

Please understand, I was not addressing yourself. Cry is not in AtlanteanTroll's user-name... My...assumption is that Troll already knew that, so perhaps everyone will understand if I cease responding to you for the duration of the thread...

All curse words do not have negative connotations.

...my only recourse is to be courteous and say that I acknowledge the statement. I can not ask for examples, because I do not want them. But I do not want Wadledo to think that I am intentionally ignoring the comment.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Pardon me for taking the liberty to respond to whatever I damn well feel like responding to.

[Story Time]

Hypothetically, let's say you are successful in eliminating these associations. What you will have done is eliminated people's ability to vent those emotions in a safe manner.

...elimination of a single person's associations to particular words does not eliminate any other associations which exist in other individuals...

Swear words and course language are not required to express emotion. Children who have been abused are encouraged to scream into pillows, among other therapies, to express and remove their caged feelings. This requires no use of lingual activity, only the pure resonance of a vowel empowered by animated internal sensation.

[Grinner]

...elimination of a single person's associations to particular words does not eliminate any other associations which exist in other individuals...

I had speaking on a global scale. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If done to a single individual, then those associations will be re-established as the person relearns the meaning of the words.

[AtlanteanTroll]

...elimination of a single person's associations to particular words does not eliminate any other associations which exist in other individuals...

And this isn't tough noogies to them, because why?

[Mx.Silver]

Doctor Caroline Leaf published data regarding a number of aspects in the brain. If you would like more, I can send a private message,

Why not do so in the thread, or at least just point towards the publication in question if copywrite's a problem? This discussion has been public so far and if you are trying to share scientific information I'd have thought it would make sense to do so in a manner most people could read. Especially since I don't think this is common knowledge.

but some-how I do not think that you really want more.

If I didn't want information I wouldn't have asked for it.

Not once, not once, did I mention any concept of a person disagreeing.

Actually, the first post you made on this topic kind of does:

It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form.

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.

This may be just me, but if someone said that they 'thought otherwise' in regards to an assertion I'd have thought that would mean that they held a different opinion and presumably that they did not accept the original assertion. In other words: they disagree with the it. That is what the expression is generally used to mean.

Now this may not have been the message you meant to get across, but the fact of the matter is that someone could be entirely forgiven for reading your post as saying that people who thought differently from (i.e. disagreed with) your premise that 'bad language' should never be acceptable did so because they were forcing themselves to do so. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that is the most likely way a reader would interpret that post.

If that wasn't what you meant, then I'll happily retract my comments that it was. However, I would be curious to know what you did mean by the line in the first place.

I simply made a statement based on the most exact neurological evidence which I had been exposed to. Other persons choosing to disagree or take offense at that data has nothing to do with my bias, accurate or not.

The other problem is that you didn't actually make any reference to any evidence in your initial post. What you said was: "It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form."
Now your stance may well be based on hard evidence, but unless you actually mention that then how is a reader supposed to know that it is based on evidence and not just unsupported opinion?

And, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with a person's emotional state. Apparently the thought-type itself determines whether toxins are stored in the brain or cleansed away.

Fair enough.

[wadledo]

The other problem is that you didn't actually make any reference to any evidence in your initial post. What you said was: "It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form."
Now your stance may well be based on hard evidence, but unless you actually mention that then how is a reader supposed to know that it is based on evidence and not just unsupported opinion?

And I'd also like to point out that when given evidence that counters the assertion of (absent) evidence, Story Time ignores it.

[Story Time]

I had speaking on a global scale. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

That makes so much more sense. Thank you for clarifying that.

Why not do so in the thread, or at least just point towards the publication in question if copywrite's a problem?

...forum rules being what they are, I do not want to step in this direction. I truly am sorry that I can not be of more public help.

This may be just me, but if someone said that they 'thought otherwise' in regards to an assertion I'd have thought that would mean that they held a different opinion and presumably that they did not accept the original assertion. In other words: they disagree with the it. That is what the expression is generally used to mean.

That particular line of text was not a broad slap against any-one who would disagree with me. What I meant to point out was that chronic use of curse-words is a choice and that by doing so a person was choosing to continue to err towards toxins in their mind rather than not.

The other problem is that you didn't actually make any reference to any evidence in your initial post.

That is true. I made a very broad...candid...commentary which was not specifically phrased or poised for debate purposes. ...maybe I should learn to qualify every-thing I say. But if I tried to do so I would be seized by paranoia in the end. I apologize if you personally felt mis-lead or offended in some way.

And I'd also like to point out that when given evidence that counters the assertion of (absent) evidence, Story Time ignores it.

It is possible that I miss certain posts. If so, then I am sorry. There are very few members of this forum that I feel that I know relatively well. Most of the names in this thread are new to me, except Ravens Cry, and I tend to look for...thought-filled posts rather than just...text-blather ( sorry, can't think of a better phrase ). So, yes, I might miss a post or three. I also do not like conflict. I do not like to debate for the sake of debate. So when some person starts speaking about Quantum Physics ( which I have more than a few words to say, few of them happy ) I don't feel right just...plowing out a massive wall of text against it just because someone shared their thoughts.

This is a forum. I'm only one member. I wouldn't be a very nice person if I just debated, un-invited, against every member name that I saw.

If I can be allowed to make blanket statements about my thoughts in the Giant In The Playground forums, then I should at least try to be courteous to allow others to do so.

All curse words do not have negative connotations.

And how should I respond? "Prove it?" I do not want to hear curse words nor do I want to encourage anyone to share them. Neither do I want to supply an excuse for more toxins to gather and calcify in the brains of fellow forumites. So what response should I give?

...I acknowledged the statement. I did not ignore it.

[wadledo]

*snip*

This is a forum. Since I assume you are not pressed for time, I can also assume that you can take a moment to look at the previous page, and look at the posts directly after yours, that quote your posts.

I mean, you asked me a question. I answered it, and you did not respond.
That seems to me to be ignoring it.

[Story Time]

This is a forum. Since I assume you are not pressed for time, I can also assume that you can take a moment to look at the previous page, and look at the posts directly after yours, that quote your posts.

Using the words angels and Fall Mythology at the beginning of a paragraph would be a great way to breech forum rules. No, thank you.

[wadledo]

I would ask you the same thing, though I will try and find a source for mine.

Scientific American, on Swearing having a pain reduction effect.

And unsourced article on HowStuffWorks (or at least, I can't find the press release they are referencing) on workplace swearing and how it builds bonds and allows the employe to move on.

......................If you won't listen to me, I don't know why we are having a conversation.

[Scuzzball]

So interesting conversation was happening, I go to PAX for the weekend, and then people are just arguing. Thread had so much potential, too.

[Grinner]

So interesting conversation was happening, I go to PAX for the weekend, and then people are just arguing. Thread had so much potential, too.

I know, right?

[Story Time]

......................If you won't listen to me, I don't know why we are having a conversation.

Oh! Huh.

That'll take some time to look through.

So interesting conversation was happening, I go to PAX for the weekend, and then people are just arguing. Thread had so much potential, too.

What argument? I'm not angry at any-one. Am I?

Just...start asking more questions from weird minds?

---

1

(Scientific American)

(HowStuffWorks)

Spoiler

Show

The HowStuffWorks article held only one link to any direct data. News articles are not considered data. The press release for the University of Anglia met with a 404 Error so I could not evaluate it.

The Scientific American article linked to a Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins journal called NeuroReport. After investigating the abstract statements of every listing in the table of contents, I found no direct connection to the supposed experiment which was mentioned in the article. The rest of the article referenced psychologists, doctors and other-wise. I am not a psychologist. When I look for data on the brain, I search for neurology. Given that there was no neurology data to find in those to articles, I can only conclude that there is nothing to refute.

However, perhaps there was some kind of experiment performed. And if it was, I find the wording of the Scientific American article, "chant a neutral word," to be extremely...specific...compared to allowing a test subject to say what they wished at the speed that they wished to. Even basic biology teaches that greater oxygen content in the body will reduce pain as will applying pressure to a wounded area ( stubbing a toe or arm, for example ).

...I will try to be quiet about this subject now.

[Elemental]

I suppose I fulfill the requirements to ask a suitable completely unrelated question.

Why is the graphite in pencils often referred to as lead, even though we all know it isn't?

Note: I already know the answer, but it's all I could think of on short notice.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Because it use to be lead and honestly I don't think everyone does know it's all graphite now.

[wadledo]

Because it use to be lead and honestly I don't think everyone does know it's all graphite now.

Actually, with a quick look at wikipedia, it seems that originally no lead was ever used in pencils. Graphite was though to be a type of lead, and thus called 'lead.'

The more you know!

[factotum]

Because it use to be lead and honestly I don't think everyone does know it's all graphite now.

It was never, ever lead--it was always graphite. Lead simply wouldn't work as a writing implement, and it isn't hard enough to form a point either.

[wadledo]

It was never, ever lead--it was always graphite. Lead simply wouldn't work as a writing implement, and it isn't hard enough to form a point either.

There is archaeological evidence of lead based pigments going back to pre-Egyptian times, you know.

[Ravens_cry]

There is archaeological evidence of lead based pigments going back to pre-Egyptian times, you know.

That's . . . not the same thing at all.

[factotum]

That's . . . not the same thing at all.

I'm equally confused. There isn't a great deal of relationship between a paintbrush and a pencil, and I said that lead couldn't be used as a writing implement, not that it couldn't be used as a dye or pigment.

[AtlanteanTroll]

It was never, ever lead--it was always graphite. Lead simply wouldn't work as a writing implement, and it isn't hard enough to form a point either.

Oh yes it was. Way back in Ancient Rome.

[wadledo]

I'm equally confused. There isn't a great deal of relationship between a paintbrush and a pencil, and I said that lead couldn't be used as a writing implement, not that it couldn't be used as a dye or pigment.

I suppose the fault is mine, since I assumed that as long as it was being used a writing material it could be considered part of a writing implement.

[Ravens_cry]

Oh yes it was. Way back in Ancient Rome.

Yes, I had heard this as well.
Another case of elemental metallics being used for drawing was silverpoint.

[Yora]

Why is the face of a cat so much similar to the face of an owl?
Really, the only major difference is the beak and the nose.

Spoiler

Show

They basically have the same facial expresions as well. Looking rather annoyed and slightly pissed off almost all the time.

[Elemental]

Perhaps the proportion of the difference between the eyes and the eye size aids them both really well when hunting at night?