After commenting on my niece’s unnecessary use of the “F-bomb” on Facebook, she responded thusly:
“Can u like stop uncle art or ill just delete u off facebook my dad is my friend on fb and doesnt even comment these and u have no idea whats going on right now cause u never call me”
So now, my dear, I say to you:
You are more than free to delete or “de-friend” me for whatever reason you find sufficient. I’m sure someday (maybe months, maybe years, who knows?) I’ll learn to get over it. In the meantime, the truth remains unchanged: the use of such language shows a great lack of class. It shows a great lack of maturity. Before you or anyone else regard me as hypocritical, be it known that I do NOT consider myself exempt from this criticism and knowing that my daughters or nieces or nephews spew such vulgarity makes me more ashamed that I’ve cultivated the habit. And though your father might downplay your routine use of such language, I’m going to stick my neck out and say that it is not something which swells his chest with pride. (Go ahead---ask him. Ask him what would please him more---your continued use of profane and obscene language, or the knowledge that you are the unique one among your peers that never does. I dare you. See what he says and have him get back to me.)
Here’s something else to consider: It’s one thing when we let such words fly from our pie-holes. It’s quite another to consciously decide to type it out, in caps no less. In other words, it’s not like you were overcome with emotion that even your fingers on the keyboard are beyond your control. Besides, it really doesn’t matter what stresses you believe yourself to be under. It’s easy to be in control when there is no stress. It’s how we act when we are under stress that defines our character.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
I can relate to this situation because my daughter drops the F-bomb in print, such as on Facebook - and other members of our family have remarked on it! I tell her the same thing: it shows a lack of class, and it is a lazy way to make a point anyway. I don't know why she does it, because all our children were brought up to know coarse language is a cop-out on trying to make a point with language skill. Must be peer - example, or something.
Hi Andrew! It's been awhile!
About twenty years ago, I friend of mine remarked that though he still uses some profanity, he never uses the Lord's name in vain. I thought to myself that this is something I should take more seriously and thus decided that I would dispense with that habit myself. To this day, "G**damn!" will slip out of my mouth in moments of high stress. So I know how hard it can be to rid one's self of habit. To then try to eliminate ALL profanity as well, well, it's a daunting undertaking.
But as I said, to hear young family members use the language heightens my own shame. What's more, as I am around more young people more often these days, to hear it used so often by kids in the lower grades makes it that much worse. It reminds me of all that our generation has brought to the table that is not fit for consumption, and how corrupt things have gotten.
So now it's my new obsession...to discontinue using such language. Yeah, I've used it to some solid comic effect, and it means I'll even have to give up my favorite expression, "Dirty rat bastard", but it's worth it. If this means I'm becoming an old fuddy-duddy, I can deal with it. For His sake, as well as my own.
"for His sake..."
You think Jesus cares if you are less than classy in the use of your words?
[For the record, I agree, it is tacky use of language and culturally offensive. I don't want my kids using such language, online, especially. But "for His sake?" Really?]
Art, I think the term, "Taking the Lord's name in vain" is misunderstood.
It is not only using the term "Goddamn". It goes further than that.
While it is offensive and classless to utter the word, "Goddamn", that isn't the only way to take God's name in vain.
Although we Christians understand that souls are damned by their own actions or lack of action, of course, the false perception that God damns people to perdition is nevertheless accepted in our society. So, when we say "Goddamn", we are essentially placing God's curse on whatever or whoever we are "Goddamning". That, in it's own right, is presumptive on our part, since we do not have the power of God in us to damn anything. Thus, using God's name in this context is indeed in vain.
Another way to take the name of the Lord in vain is to attributing some credit or blame to God which does not belong to God, such as when some apostate tells us that "God blesses gay marriage" or "God hates fags", neither of which are Biblical.
Casting devils out, faith healing, preaching a false Gospel, begging for money, etc, in God's name, as these hypocritical, lying televangelists do is also taking God's name in vain, and they may never utter the words, "Goddamn" in either their personal lives or private lives.
That said, I have been making a conscious effort to refrain from the use of anything that could be construed as foul language for years now, and I usually fail at some point. It is a never ending task. I'm even on occasion guilty of typing foul language out in text. Especially when dealing with the apostate rantings of Geoffrey and Dan.
My excuse is sometimes foul language has it's purpose, that is, to accentuate a point that I feel needs to be stressed. In other words, for me, it means "I mean business!"
"You think Jesus cares if you are less than classy in the use of your words?"
Yes. I do. I think all we do should be considered for His sake or to His dishonor. And I seem to recall some verse (perhaps a psalm or proverb, I'm not sure) that implies or refers to controlling our speech. But I keep thinking of the expression, "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" How would profane or obscene speech NOT be unChristian if profane or obscene behavior and actions are? Or do you disagree that they are? If we are to be known by our actions, are not the words we choose actions as well?
Mark,
I get all that. I didn't mean to imply there is only one way to use the Lord's name in vain. And I've even used the same excuse you describe. But that's all it really is. An excuse. It works better for me when other people do it: "Wow! She really means it if she uses that word!" But I don't think we should lose our cool to the extent that we cannot control what we do or say. Besides, when emotion rises, intelligence falls.
I used to cuss like a sailor. I actually got much better just by going to work in a Big 8 accounting firm in Tulsa (and I was still a pagan then). Just being in conservative business settings forced me to use restraint.
I very rarely swear out loud (but slipped once this week with the "d" word) but do so in my head sometimes.
We should not be careless with our words. It is a constant challenge.
Indeed it is, Neil. The message seems to be lost on some. Seems my niece "defriended" me on FB over this discussion.
And I seem to recall some verse (perhaps a psalm or proverb, I'm not sure) that implies or refers to controlling our speech.
The passage you're probably speaking of is from James 3, which has the famous essay on controlling one's tongue...
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go.
Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no one can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
You'll note that the passage begins with the warning that not many should presume to be teachers, for they will be held to a higher standard.
Here, you have a young niece who does not have the same cultural standards that you do on cursing. Many people are like that. Most likely, James and John, those coarse fishermen were like that. Engaging in the use of raw language and "cuss" words is part of some cultures like that.
You (who, by your own admission, cuss at times) have presumed to lecture your niece on the error of her ways and now she has cut you off, at least on facebook. I wouldn't be surprised if she has cut you off emotionally, as well. People don't like to be lectured - especially in a public forum, especially by someone who does the same "sin" as they do, and especially over relatively trivial cultural differences.
Do you think that this distance you have placed between your niece and yourself is worth the lecture she received? Do you think it will help lead her to Christ?
Some things to consider.
Dan,
Let me explain the initial situation so as to give context:
She made a comment about this F**KING BULLS**T is now over!! (Speaking of High School). I simply made the comment "Very classy. Shame on you." From there, she felt she had some personal crisis that justified, not speaking out of emotion, but consciously deciding to type it out in a public forum that displays on MY Facebook page, as well as 500 others (she has that many on her friends list, which includes her father, grandmother, and other relatives including my own daughter). Since she felt that a "woman" of 18 is fully within her rights to spew vulgarities on a public forum, I see no reason why said "woman" shouldn't be critiqued in the same public forum.
If my niece does not have the same standards as I, it is good that she learn that others to whom she might have claimed some measure of familial devotion might NOT have the same standards and perhaps, as only the most ignorant dreg might be unaware, may be offended at the thought of a child puking out obscene language. I am not so much offended, but rather saddened that she does not have higher (yes, HIGHER) standards of behavior. But as to whether other of the aforementioned family members might be offended as well as saddened to see it, well, it seems she needs such enlightenment quickly. And what better time than in that very same public setting where she exposed her crudeness to her friends and family.
Is it your position that such behavior should be allowed to go on unchecked? And don't you think it is a bit more efficient to make a public statement so as to enlighten other dullards of the fact that such language IS offensive to others? And are you not the one who so often chides opponents for lacking grace in their choice of words?
One could ask whether or not I have the right to "lecture" anyone in a public manner. I don't look at it as a right, but more of an obligation or duty. The fact that such language is so prevalent is a result of "good men doing nothing". People of character have given in to such behaviors for too long. I don't much care to bear it any longer and will continue to voice my opposition to boorishness whenever it dares to present itself in my presence. What's more, the closer one is to me (friend, relative, immediate family member), the less likely it is that I will let it go without comment.
cont---
There are some who feel that it is not one's business to call another on their bad behavior. One who used to visit here even made noise to the effect that it is God's business only and He can handle it on His own without our help. That's rank cowardice and laziness.
This is not to say that one should spend one's time nagging all day long, looking for the opportunity to tell people what to do. But to say never say anything while people behave badly is to enable and be complicit in that bad behavior.
The fact that people don't like to be lectured is actually something that should be ignored as it is irrelevant. Of course no one likes to be lectured. Being lectured is the price one pays for doing that which provokes the lecture. No one likes being told they're wrong, but when one is wrong, one needs to be told. More accurately, one needs to be told that others know one is doing wrong, that others recognize what "wrong" is when it is done in front of them. This whine, that no one likes to be lectured, has lead to the childish "you're not the boss of me" attitude that is at the core of moral relativity. That no one likes to be lectured is a fact, but not one that is deserving of respect or recognition, unless one is willing to allow bad behavior to fester and further coarsen the culture. I think we've had enough of that.
And who better to lecture than one who is guilty of the same sin, who understands the downside from being afflicted with the same addiction to vulgarity, who knows the difficulty of the struggle to overcome it?
cont---
As to the distance that may now exist between my niece and myself as a result of this episode, yes, it is worth it to have made known to her in a manner not really so public as one might like to believe (my wife, not a FB user, would never know of the event if not I had not told her---I don't think the kid's mother is an FB user and also would not know if the kid or her father, brother or friend hasn't told her). But even if all the world knew, I would still say it was worth it. Because now she knows (as if she didn't really know all along) that some will see her as lacking in class and good character for her liberal use of such language. At some point she may come to realize that her uncle Art was right and finally dispense with the habit (I hope she finds it easier than I).
Will it lead her to Christ? Frankly, I wasn't thinking of that at the time. I was more concerned with her appearing to be a crude little hussy to anyone who reads her comments. She has over 500 on her friends list. Of those 500+, others see such comments who aren't on her list at all, but on the lists of the 500. She's exposed herself to a lot of people. That's a lot of people who now regard her in a manner shaped in part by her choice of words. Even scumbags who use such language all the time know in their dark hearts that people of good character, class and honor do not use such language. The use of foul language, or the avoidance of it, is not the be all and end all of what defines good character, but it is a definite part of it.
And frankly, any time I hear a girl or woman drop an f-bomb, they drop a bit in my regard. I can't help it, it just happens. It's really the same with men as well, and that's even though I am guilty of the same sin, but with women it's a more tangible drop. I used to kid women about it. I'd hear one say, "F**k" and I'd say to them, "You know, you've really got a filthy mouth." and they'd usually say something like, "Yeah, I know. It's bad." and I'd say, "No, I like that in a woman!" and we'd all have a good laugh. But really, I don't like it in a woman. And I hate it in the children in my family. I won't apologize for that, nor will I apologize for saying so publicly.
It has, I think, more to do with respect than it does with offensiveness.
Respect for oneself as much as respect for others. If you respect others you don't wish to offend them. If you respect yourself you don't want others to think poorly of you.
Now, if your niece wasn't raised to be polite, likely she doesn't think such language to be offensive, because she was never taught that it is, although, that's highly unlikely. But, if she was taught to be respectful of others, and still talks trashy, she shows a definite lack of respect, to herself, but more importantly, to those who raised her.
My parents taught me wrong from right, and the language used is an important part of that training.
My mother will be 90 years old this summer, God willing, and I still will not use offensive language in her presence.
As a child, I can still remember hearing garage mechanics working on my dad's car using profanity, and even at that early age, I considered it disrespectful for them to use profanity in my mother and dad's presence. It embarrassed me to even hear such language.
These days, it's not so unusual and isn't nearly as offensive to me as it was then, but when I hear teens and younger use such language, I am still offended.
Incidentally, once in a while, if teen or twenty-something using the language is particularly offensive and/or is in earshot of the elderly or the very young, I will say something to the offender, such as, "You kiss your mama with that mouth?"
I don't know. Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I think it's just trashy to talk like that.
I write my blog with the thought in mind that my mother might read it so I don't use objectionable language. And you would be surprised what she would consider cursing.
One time (once) I heard her say, "Damn it!", but she was very upset at the time. In fact, that's the only time I ever saw my mother cry, as well. In case one gets the impression she is a super sensitive person. She isn't, and never was. She is emotionally stronger than these girly men who comment here, such as Dan and Geoffrey.
She is emotionally stronger than these girly men who comment here, such as Dan and Geoffrey.
"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
Eph 4
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be."
James 3
I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Don't like it? Stop being such a wuss.
Dan,
I'm puzzled. You leave two verses but have questioned my feeling that curbing our tongues should be for His sake. There seems a contradition here.
"(my wife, not a FB user, would never know of the event if not I had not told her---"
You've got a big mouth Marshall.
Now the whole world can know since you've posted it on a really public forum.
Your niece did the right thing. No one likes a blabber mouth.
I see, Marty. So, you support a young girl's right to talk like a cheap whore, is that it? You disagree that one's choice of words speaks to their character, is that it? It would be just peachy if a daughter, granddaughter or niece of yours said something like, "F**k that s**t, dude! That sucks d**k! That b**ch can shove it up her f**king c**t!"
What's the standard of decency and propriety for YOU, Marty?
BTW, thanks for assuming that my words of wisdom are so widely read as to have alerted the world of my niece's gutter talk. That's sweet.
Aside from Mark's ad hominem, this discussion is actually quite revealing in any number of ways. It would be nice, more than nice, if people, young and old, refrained from using vulgarity. Yet, they do not. It would be wonderful if young people paid attention to the advice of their elders (regardless of any alleged or actual hypocrisy) on all sorts of matters of conduct, etiquette, and behavior. They do not now, and in our country seldom have.
Marshall's defense of his actions is thorough, and certainly justifiable. At the same time, he mentions that his niece is 18. Legally an adult, regardless of any other considerations, being hectored by a relative probably smacks of the kinds of interference she feels should be left behind.
My own recently-turned-18yo niece is also a friend of mine on FB. The first time I saw she had types a vulgarity, I blanched, but because she is my niece, not because I was "offended". Yet, her mother (my sister) has said nothing about it. I do not feel it my place to be in loco parentis on FB. Just like seeing her tattoo when we visited in March, I figured that, if her mother has no comment, my only response should be to note it and move on.
Is this laziness? Actually, it is another form of social etiquette - minding one's business. Particularly in the case of those who have recently achieved their legal majority, it seems to me that such meddling is only counter-productive. Dan's question about the effect of your hectoring on relations between you and your niece, and your response, is also quite telling. Dan was asking if peace in the family, and good relations respecting differences of age, behavior, and personal preference was not, perhaps, better than making your point known on what is, after all, a minor matter. Does your niece use drugs? Is she in a gang? Does she engage in prostitution, steal, or has she killed anyone?
No?
Then, perhaps, the presence of vulgar words in her vocabulary should be set beside other, better parts of her nature and behavior and considered in that light. My niece, who graduates in a few weeks, is smart, extremely funny, is headed to the University of her choice to study a subject that is near and dear to her. She is extremely responsible, mature even for her age. I can tolerate some four letter words in and amongst all this.
"I see, Marty. So, you support a young girl's right to talk like a cheap whore, is that it?"
Wow. A kid utters a few curse words on FB and you compare her to a cheap whore. Wow. Just. Wow.
Look Marshall. I've already gasped at a young high school FB friend of mine doing the about same thing as your niece. But honestly, I was more offended by an adult FB friend calling for the death of Obama.
"if her mother has no comment, my only response should be to note it and move on."
Exactly.
Marshall, if it offended you that much you could have scolded her in private by sending an e-mail, but I find your willingness... to do it publically... offensive. Apparently so did she. I don't blame her for deleting you as a FB friend. Not that I approve of her use of such language. I don't.
You let commenters here use the "f" word and don't call them out on it. Sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.
From our host: "It would be just peachy if a daughter, granddaughter or niece of yours said something like, "F**k that s**t, dude! That sucks d**k! That b**ch can shove it up her f**king c**t!""
While you ask Marty this question, I think it an implicit question to any who disagree with your actions. The answer should be obvious - of course I would not think it "peachy" or even acceptable, for this kind of talk from anyone, either on FB or elsewhere. Whether or not I approve of it or not, however, does not mean I will take a moment and, quite publicly, chastise the person who used such language, particularly if the person in question is an adult.
Among the 200+ persons on my friends list on FB are my 15yo niece (another sister's daughter), several colleagues of my wife, her immediate ecclesiastical superior, and several friends who would, no doubt find such language not just inappropriate but offensive in the extreme. For that reason, I do not, myself, use such language. On the other hand, there are others who use such language pretty freely, including in comments that show up on my page. I handle this pretty easily - the words aren't mine, but the person who typed them. I am not responsible for them. If there are those who find such language offensive, I have yet to hear from them, either privately or publicly. I do not consider myself the moral police of the behavior of others, in any case. I have enough trouble policing my own behavior.
I do have to second Marty's thoughts concerning your willingness to consider your niece's language akin to that of "a cheap whore". That is quite as offensive as typing any vulgarity. That you do not see the inconsistency here also tells me much about your character.
It's not the least bit surprising that the Liberals here have no problem with a youth being disrespectful to others in a public forum. This is simply more proof of what I've been saying:
Liberals will always come down on the wrong side of the moral fence.
Not surprising at all. Liberals have no morals so they don't see anything wrong with someone being publicly immoral. Thanks for proving my point, Geoff, Marty, and Dan.
And you dare to call yourselves Christian!
OK, so Mark, did you actually read what I wrote? If you had, you might have discovered that I do indeed find the use of profanity in a public forum unacceptable.
What choices do I face? I could, as Marshall did, preach a certain code of moral conduct to other adults, and probably alienate them, although giving myself the satisfaction of being right.
Or, I could, without comment, at least on FB, delete the comment and give my reasons for doing so. The end result would be the same as above.
Or, I could, as I do, respect other people as competent moral agents, and consider the use of rough language along side other measures of character and moral rectitude. All things considered, I hardly consider the presence of vulgarity a moral flaw akin, say, to the expression of hatred of others, or seeking the death of others. Especially when those in question are distant relations, there are other moral issues, including keeping family relations healthy, to consider. Since both Marshall Art's and my own niece are 18, and since (at least in my case) her mother does not voice objection, what possible reason, other than being seen as a busybody, would lecturing her on the use of profanity serve? It would strain relations, create havoc where none is necessary, and violate a tenet that was pounded in to our heads as children by my own parents - my your own business.
(cont'd)
Geoffrey,
We have, in the past, found you have a decided disconnect between a word, its meaning and its appropriate usage, if one exists. Now, you find my description of a young girl's language to that of a cheap whore to be offensive. Well, indeed it should be, but not, I expect, for the reason YOU would put forth. We are, rightly or wrongly, judged by the language we use. (There's even a self-help program that says this in their marketing now that I think of it.) Though there are millions of left-wingers and their offspring who would not think twice of someone who vomits obscene language, millions of other do and to let slip an expletive in the wrong company can mean the difference between getting a job and not getting a job, even if the employer swears a mean streak himself. That's just the way it is.
Here, for whatever reason she felt justified, my niece chose to type out something that, with just a little thought, could be expressed in a far less vulgar manner. I find that horrible for her own sake and I care enough to do something about it. Back in my day, way back when I was a wee lad, public humiliation wasn't a concern for a concerned parent or neighbor. It was far more important to correct bad behavior and the public humiliation went a long way toward making that correction solidify in our little minds. And guess what? We are none the worse for having gone through it.
But you, who are proving once more that you are incapable of understanding the moral decline in our culture thinks speaking the hard truth (talking like a cheap whore) is somehow as bad, if not worse, than actually talking like a cheap whore. And here's some news for ya: cheap whores talk like cheap whores and ladies don't. If you know a lady who uses such language, then she's not the lady you thought she was. It's as simple as that. And the really offensive part isn't that some "ladies" might use such language, it's that some in this culture now have lowered the bar regarding what it means to be a lady. Because as any liberal will demonstrate liberally, it's that it's far easier to lower the bar than to vault over it.
Finally, just to clarify for those like Marty who are more interested in trashing conservatives than developing their own moral clarity, I never compared my niece to a cheap whore. I compared her choice of words to the speech of a cheap whore. If you need help understanding the distinction, I'm here for ya.
Your broad sweeping generalization that liberals always come down on the wrong side of moral issues is odd, all things considered. Do you now, or have you ever, seen Dan, or me, or any liberal, support murder, theft, the abuse of public trust for personal gain? Have you ever read any of us advocating for pedophiles, mass-murderers, or other heinous individuals? Have you ever seen a post in which I defended tyranny, as opposed to freedom?
No?
Then perhaps you might just reconsider such a thought. True, I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion; true, I do not think the presence of vulgarity on FB is akin to murdering one's children; true, I support equal legal rights for sexual minorities. Hardly central moral concerns of our times, all things considered. We certainly disagree on the issue of whether or not they should be, but, again, that is simple disagreement, hardly moral failing on the part of either of us.
And, yes, I not only call myself a Christian; I am a Christian. As are you, and Marshall, and Neil, and Dan, and Alan and ER and many others. Our differences should be as nothing compared to the unity we find in the Spirit of the crucified and risen Christ, Son of the Father. I find it fascinating that you would think my refusal to call out someone for a few four-letter words is enough to question my faith in Jesus.
Such are the differences between human beings.
Marshall, I see the distinction you make between "cheap whore" and "lady" as nonsensical. If it makes you feel better about yourself that you managed to alienate your niece, that's your choice. I wonder what your brother, her father, would think of your comparison of her words to those of "a cheap whore".
This is the fundamental difference on this, and many other, threads. Difference, for you, is error. Change, in the form of lax social standards toward profane language, is a sign of moral decadence. "Ladies", not "cheap whores", speak properly.
Dividing up the world this way is just not my style. I don't judge other people for the way they live their lives in private, particularly if they are adults. As I wrote, I have enough on m y plate making sure I conduct my own affairs with a certain amount of rectitude to be bothered overmuch by behavior in others of which I may or may not approve. Calling names, drawing distinctions, like between ladies and cheap whores, well, I really don't understand it.
I don't consider this a moral failing. We just look at the world different as all. At least I have not alienated any of my relatives by lecturing them on their personal conduct.
Marshall,
I'm writing out of a concern for the relationship between you and your neice. You commented on how you didn't know whether your response to her facebook post had broken the relationship and that hit me.
I would respectfully offer the following:
Let me begin by saying that we live in a much different time today. I read over the comment your neice posted and the abuse of the English language which is becoming increasingly apparent and widespread through texting, twitter, and to a lesser extent facebook is devestating to textual communication. Social networking sites also allow a wide range of people into a more intimate circle than would have been possible before.
You know the relationship between yourself, your neice and her father better than anyone writing on this site, so there really is nothing to comment on at that point. The only things to consider is the language usage and addressing said language.
I think profanity is quite simply the use of crass language that does not bring glory to God. We don't base our actions on how the world views things, but if the common understanding is that a certain word is vulgar or crass then it is not useful for edification or encouragement. Also, as believers we are to be called out, seperate from the world in word and deed.
If I may be so bold, however, I do think that the biblical model for addressing situations in which you feel led to confront someone about their behavior is to pray about the situation (for what to say yourself, and that the Lord might prepare the other individual's heart to be receptive to your comments {don't know if you did this or not because you didn't specify but I thought i'd mention it anyway}) to confront them privately with the biblical justification for your position and to see them through (walk with them in repentence). It may be that in addressing the issue in the public forum of the social networking site (where the same 500 friends who saw her words also read your chastisement) may have provoked her to anger (possibly allowed pride to enter in). Again, I don't know how close you were before, but perhaps a phone call or a personal email where you shared your own struggle with foul language and an invitation to work on that and hold one another accountable would have been more appropriate?
Again, my heart is with the relationship and I pray that it has not been broken. Perhaps even now a personal call or email with an apology for the public nature of the rebuke and an offer to hold one another accountable as you work together to be conformed into Christ's likeness would help mend any hurt. We know from scripture that anger turns to malice and then to hatred if left unchecked.
Finally, be encouraged that no matter what we do in any situation, God can work things out for the good. I will continue to pray for you and your neice, for reconcilliation between you two, and for each of you to receive grace in changing the language you use.
Even this post I intended to be in the form of a personal email, but I didn't see your address listed on your profile, so forgive me for the public nature of this comment. Please feel free to take it for what it is worth. Blessings.
Geoffrey spews, "True, I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion; true, I do not think the presence of vulgarity on FB is akin to murdering one's children; true, I support equal legal rights for sexual minorities."
Translation:
I believe it's a nice thing to murder pre-born babies. I think obscenity is just dandy. I think homos should be allowed to frolic around and have sex with each other in front of God and everybody. And I believe I know better than God what God thinks.
And thus Geoffrey proves my point, that Liberals will always come down on the wrong side of the moral fence.
Jeremy has given insightful and very good advice.
Jeremy,
First, welcome. I don't belive you've ever commented here before. I've read your comments at other blogs.
Secondly, I appreciate your comments very much.
I would like to say that I know for a fact that my niece's parents object to this behavior. However, at this stage of the game, I believe they feel there's little they can do about it anymore. I didn't want to comment on their parenting style, but suffice to say that no kid in my household would risk such behavior a second time. There's a strong likelihood that my sister is ready to send the kid off on her own now that she is 18. (I had been sent packing on more than one occasion in my "yoot", and I wasn't yet 18 when it happened).
I am willing to concede that perhaps a private message would have been the way to go. At the same time, I am aware of obscenity laced tirades between mother and child that leads me to believe that such a tactic would have little impact and most likely would have been outright ignored. I could be wrong. A nephew got such a message and it didn't matter, though since this event I haven't noticed him using such language on FB.
In any event, I also hope there's no lasting damage to the relationship, but I am not too worried about it if the love for profane talk is so important that she can't get over it. There seems to be a feeling that somehow I hate the chick over this. Nothing could be further from the truth. The shortcomings of those I love do not prevent my love, because thus far, they aren't that bad and of course, my own shortcomings deny me any claim of superiority.
Geoffrey,
"Marshall, I see the distinction you make between "cheap whore" and "lady" as nonsensical."
Are you really such an idiot, Geoffrey? If I say someone talks like a sailor, is that the same as saying the guy IS a sailor? Or are you saying that there is no difference between a cheap whore and a lady? That truly IS idiotic. Of the two, how would you desire your own daughters impress the world in which they live? For mine, I'd prefer that those with whom they come into contact view them as ladies, well mannered, respectful, polite, with no evidence that they are less than that. I would hate it if someone felt less of them because they talk like a cheap whore or a sailor. It's absolutely stupid to pretend that the use of such language doesn't lower the average opinion of the speaker, including as I said, the opinions of others who use such language.
"I wonder what your brother, her father, would think of your comparison of her words to those of "a cheap whore"."
My brother-in-law would probably not like it, but he also probably would not disagree with the sentiment. He would likely not like that his daughter was known to use such language because it would negatively affect opinions of her.
"Difference, for you, is error."
Absolute nonsense. Error is error and difference is error only when error is the difference.
"Change, in the form of lax social standards toward profane language, is a sign of moral decadence."
Absolute truth and it's a wonder you were even able to type this sentence out without your head exploding.
""Ladies", not "cheap whores", speak properly."
Another truth, but more so in the sense of levels to which one should aspire. Ladies and gentlemen DO have a greater command of their emotions and thus their choice of words. This is considered "putting on airs" by those who exert no effort toward their personal sense of propriety and manners.
"I don't judge other people for the way they live their lives in private, particularly if they are adults."
I don't judge people, I judge behavior. More precisely, I don't really need to judge the behavior as it is already known to be unacceptable either by Biblical standards or common notions of manners and propriety. What's to judge of a person who's actions advertise to the world the quality of their character?
"At least I have not alienated any of my relatives by lecturing them on their personal conduct."
No. I don't suspect you love your relatives enough to risk their displeasure by recognizing when their behavior crosses the line. Of course, you don't really have any lines, do you? Oh yeah, "murder, theft, the abuse of public trust for personal gain...pedophiles, mass-murderers, or other heinous individuals". Well, let's all give you a big round of applause for that, Geoffrey.
There was a system in New York City put in place by, I think Rudy Giuliani, that looked to clean up the city by focusing on small things like broken windows, funky lots, grafitti, etc. The result was that crime in general went down. The feeling was that by no longer ignoring what some considered minor infractions, it would affect the overall attitude. I feel the same about the little things regarding the behavior of our young, be they family, friends or just kids in the community. I do NOT remain silent when I see kids acting poorly out in the open. Enough ADULTS taking an interest is what real "it takes a village" action is all about. It will eventually slow and then reverse the moral decline. You've obviously chosen which side of this battle you are on.
Marshall,
Thanks, I do read your blog at least twice a week. I've not commented before because I can't keep up many times with the number of comments between my opportunities to get back to your site.
Best of luck with your relationship, and I do hope you can find a partner to hold you accountable for working on curbing your own use of obscenities. It is a wonderful blessing to find another brother and hold one another up while both trying to be conformed more unto Christ's likeness. Also, a powerful witness and testimony of how the Lord works in our lives and gives victory over things that have become strongholds in our lives.
Hopefully i'll get another chance to comment soon. You always have provocative topics and lively discussions. Blessings.
Mark's "translation": "I believe it's a nice thing to murder pre-born babies. I think obscenity is just dandy. I think homos should be allowed to frolic around and have sex with each other in front of God and everybody. And I believe I know better than God what God thinks."
I feel sorry for you, Mark. I really do. The anger, indeed hatred, that bubbles below the surface of your approach to dialogue and discussion with those with whom you disagree; the way you somehow sexualize any discussion of sexual minorities; your confident assurance not only of your own correctness, but the ultimate error of any who disagree - that's a pretty heavy burden to carry around.
What should be an interesting, productive discussion, enlightening each other about all sorts of issues from the private conduct/public conduct line in the age of social networking; the changing social mores and how we all approach them; moral reasoning and calculation turns in to nothing more than an opportunity for you to ignore serious discussion and believe you have scored some kind of moral and intellectual victory.
That's OK, no hard feelings from me.
I would make one final point here. As someone whose extended family has suffered greatly from broken relationships, years gone by with no communication between brothers and sisters, parents and children, and very little time or space for bridging the gaps years of silence creates, I can tell anyone reading this that no moral victory is worth that price. My three sisters, my brother and I are all different people, with different approaches to life, religion, child-rearing, all sorts of things. I would no more break faith and relations with them over something as relatively petty as whether one of their children used a dirty word - I wouldn't even break faith with one of my nieces or nephews over it - because, quite frankly, far higher in the hierarchy of my moral calculus is good relations with them.
This doesn't mean I don't express disagreement, or voice my opinion. I just do not do so to the point of breaking faith with them.
I make no apologies for the positions I take. I have seen far too much pain, anger, and heart-rending regret over years, even decades, of time lost because family members decided to break faith with one another over issues that, over time, become forgotten.
Marshall, in response to your questions regarding my comment on your "cheap whore/lady" dichotomy, what I meant (and I guess the fault is mine for not being clear) was that I don't draw those kinds of distinctions. For one thing, I find the word "whore" denigrating in the extreme. It denotes an attitude toward women's sexuality I find troubling. For thousands of years, men could pretty much have sex with anyone they wanted, married or not, and the more partners they had was a sign of their power, their virility, their "real" masculinity. If a woman pursued her own sexual matters in this way, she is a whore. Period.
As for lady, well, it certainly denotes class and style, and I refuse to judge anyone's class and style, let alone brains or anything else, on their use or not of vulgarity. That you do so is your choice. I was explaining my own approach, is all.
AM wrote: "So, you support a young girl's right to talk like a cheap whore, is that it?"
Wow... I can't imagine why your neice de-friended you on FB. Saying that she talks "like a cheap whore"? Who would be offended by that? (roll eyes)
AM should be "MA" in my last comment.
MA wrote: "There's a strong likelihood that my sister is ready to send the kid off on her own now that she is 18."
Wow... I wonder if your neice will enjoy learning this information from an internet blog.
And ~you~ accuse ~her~ of lacking class?? Look in the mirror man!
And Mark's "translation" (nice to kill pre-born babies...) was a really effective way to show the world what a grade-A jack a$$ you are Mark! Nice job!
From Merriam-Webster:
Whore-1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
Again, Geoffrey, I use the word the way it is defined and again you find fault for doing so. You seem to have a real problem with the concept that our culture is in moral decline. The problem with you is so bad that you no longer recognize it. I fear that's an issue for most of the culture as well.
So let's try it this way: Consider that one of your daughters decides to earn her living as a whore. Are you cool with this? If so, then you are indeed a victim of the moral decline so pervasive in our culture. If, however, you stand aghast at the mere mention of your daughter in this way, there is not only hope for you, but you recognize that whore's are not on par with what is commonly (or used to be) referred to as "a lady".
Whores, by virtue of their choice of profession, are low class. Ladies, by virtue of their, uh, virtue and poise and refinement are high class. Do I know some women I would consider high class ladies that are guilty of the occasional salty expression? Yes, I do. Though I consider them classy, they would be more so without the bad language. It's that simple. The same could be said of the whore, though her career would definitely overshadow her speech patterns in judging her "classiness" or "lady-like" character.
And again, I don't have to divide anyone who has already chosen their suitable demographic by their own words and actions. Nor do I disown anyone for lack of perfection. Perhaps I've somehow given off that impression. It is not true.
What is true is that, like other areas, you've chosen to redefine what it means to be a lady so that the most vile and vulgar language, nor its frequency of use, is a factor. I can plainly see that the traditional definition better serves the culture, and holding our young to that standard does as well.
One more point: I don't know that I've crippled my relationship with my niece over this incident. If her psyche is really that fragile, then I'd sooner we get it over with rather than later. But I doubt that's the case. She's well aware that I have different standards than she is used to, as I am well aware that she spews such language whenever she feels it appropriate.
MA wrote: "I don't know that I've crippled my relationship with my niece over this incident. If her psyche is really that fragile, then I'd sooner we get it over with rather than later."
Wow. You sound like a swell uncle! If your neice has a psyche that is ~that~ "fragile" you'd just as soon end your relationship than attempt to revive it. Just wow.
I just can't believe that you can display such obvious classlessness while still denouncing your neice's lack of class! Irony - you have it in truckloads!
Joe,
"Wow... I can't imagine why your neice de-friended you on FB. Saying that she talks "like a cheap whore"? Who would be offended by that? (roll eyes)"
Thus you cement my belief that you are morally corrupt. If stating the fact is found by her to be offensive, then perhaps she might think on her usage a bit more and rein it in just a tad. What I've done is known as "laying card on the table". It's an exercise in honesty and in this case calling an evil by it's name. If it offends, it should. It means there's hope for the girl.
"Wow... I wonder if your neice will enjoy learning this information from an internet blog."
If she does, it will be a case of self-delusion. I've no doubt such a possibility has been screamed at her on more than one occasion. It will have been tied to the kid's overall behavior, just as it was to mine back in my day.
It's pretty clear by your few comments here that you have little to teach me regarding class and/or morality, Joe. But if you stick around or go through my archives, you'll learn a lot about both.
MA wrote: "Thus you cement my belief that you are morally corrupt."
Interesting claim... care to back it up? Is it because I find your foisting of your morals onto your neice in such a public manner to be unseemly? From that you claim I'm "morally corrupt"? Strange...
If we can't "foist" our morals upon our own family, then on whom can we?
More seriously, if one attempts to mitigate the behavior by accusing those who recognize that action for what it is, then that one is morally corrupt. You act as if the crime, and calling it by it's name is somehow of less concern than when and where the calling takes place. I find that morally retarded. What's most evident of the moral corruption is that anyone would balk at my calling out my niece simply because it took place where it did and never address the foul language as it ought to be addressed.
But it's quite clear what is going on here. Joe sees a chance to denigrate a conservative Christian. What Joe is too lost to understand, is that I do not feel any guilt over accusations from one such as he. How could I? He is what I hope my nieces, nephews and daughters will never be. His words only help my case, though such as he are unable to see it.
MA wrote: "If we can't 'foist' our morals upon our own family, then on whom can we?"
The point isn't that you did it, it's that you chose to do it in front of the world. You treated your 18 year old niece like a child.
And you continue to use the internet as a place to embarrass her.
The funniest part of this whole episode is her crime! Using "foul" language!! That whore-tongued sinner!
MA cont's: "Joe sees a chance to denigrate a conservative Christian."
Dude, I'd have to walk around with plugs in my ears and my eyes closed in order to avoid a "chance to denigrate a conservative christian"!! I mean - have you looked around lately?? It's an epidemic!
MA cont's: "He is what I hope my nieces, nephews and daughters will never be."
I understand to a crusty old bigot it must be scary to encounter a thinking man of the 21st century... you'll get used to it though. And besides, it sounds like you've already given up on your niece...
Which, btw, is in a whole new level of unbelievable. That you would instigate a fight with your niece because of the language she used and allow it to escalate to the point of ending the relationship.
It appears that words mean a little too much to you - they're just words you know!
Just wow.
"You act as if the crime, and calling it by it's name is somehow of less concern than when and where the calling takes place."
OK. So does that mean from now on when someone curses on this here blog, including a professing Christian, you'll call them on it?
Joe, When these idiots (and it appears you are one) says they are for a woman's right to choose, they are really saying they think it's OK to murder pre-born babies. If they really cared about a so-called right to choose, why are they so anxious to deny the baby a choice?
The translation is wholly accurate.
If I am a jackass for standing up for moral principles, so be it.
I don't much care what you think about me, because you obviously are an idiot.
I don't get insulted by idiots like you and Dan and Geoffrey. To take what inanities you spew as an insult, I would have to have respect for you.
I don't.
I do, however, find all of you idiots amusing. You are so thin-skinned and easily provoked, it's fun to mock you. The more self-righteously indignant you all get, the more fun I have.
Right now, I'm having more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
Mark wrote: "If they really cared about a so-called right to choose, why are they so anxious to deny the baby a choice?"
Um... because it isn't a "baby" yet? How do you propose to give a 2 week zygote a "choice"? Yell loudly at the woman's stomach: "kick once if you want to die, twice if you want to live"??
Absurd...
I would be happiest if no abortion is ever needed again. I don't "like" abortion, I just support a woman's right to make the decision as it's ~her~ body. (nobody "likes" abortions - that's sick).
Mark cont'd: "Right now, I'm having more fun than humans should be allowed to have."
Ah - that lovely religion again. Putting restrictions on "fun" that humans "should be allowed to have". What is the matter with you theists that you hate "fun" so much? No wonder you're so angry...
Wow, Joe, thanks for proving my point. You really are an idiot.
I hate fun???
Boy, did you misread my comment!
Or maybe you just can't read. Let me guess. You went to public school, right?
Art, Perhaps Feodor is using a new name?
I considered that possibility, Mark. But no, I'm going to believe that even with his twisted notions of Christianity, Feodor would not pose as an agnostic.
"OK. So does that mean from now on when someone curses on this here blog, including a professing Christian, you'll call them on it?"
Why? I never have before, except that I did once delete a graphic comment Mark made. Turns out doing so was a bad idea, for then, Dan, who claimed victimhood by Mark's comment, continually related the story in an inaccurate manner in order to accuse Mark. From that point, I went with my original plan which is to allow people to expose themselves by their own words and let everyone else decide for themselves whether or not they feel it's appropriate. Apparently you, Joe or Jim won't have any issues with it, so that's good. Geoffrey and Dan will likely display shock if it serves them to do so. The main point is that if the commenter turns out to be my niece, or another niece, or a nephew or daughter, I will certainly call them out because I care about my own. For myself, it will be easy to eliminate even my favorite cuss words from publication, because it IS easy and I am more than capable of expressing myself in other ways.
"...it must be scary to encounter a thinking man of the 21st century..."
I dunno. Find me a thinking man and I'll let you know. What passes for thinking in your case isn't so much frightening as humorous. Haven't really read anything from you the truly qualifies as "thinking". But you keep trying. As with everyone else, I'm here for ya.
"The point isn't that you did it, it's that you chose to do it in front of the world. You treated your 18 year old niece like a child."
Maybe you missed the part where I related that correcting a child in front of the whole world was commonplace. And despite her ability to vote and go to war, she still is, like so many high school graduates, still very much a child. What's worse, if she follows those who think words don't matter in a public place, she'll be, like so many, a child well into her 30's and 40's.
"The funniest part" is the fact that people who should know better are so willing to defend her "right" to use vulgar language in a public setting, but rail against anyone who might express dissappointment with her in the very same public setting. OH THE HORROR! that such a fragile child should endure such psyche-crushing humiliation! Will she ever find a way to recover from the egregious harm inflicted upon her??!!
Get serious. The kid's stronger than that. Most kids are. And if she isn't, it only means trouble for her in the future and then certainly she was failed in her upbringing. I have no doubt that's not the case.
Epidemic?? It would be a blessing if conservative Christians are truly making inroads toward reclaiming the culture so horribly sullied by, what did you call it? "thinking men of the 21st century"? Now pardon me whilst I wipe the Dr. Pepper I just spit up on the screen. Considering any liberal a "thinking man" is too funny!
I have to go now, but while I'm away, perhaps you could explain whence comes the "bigot" nonsense. I'm sure that will provoke laughter as well.
"I never have before, except that I did once delete a graphic comment Mark made."
And that comment contained no curse words in it at all. I only got as graphic as I did (which wasn't as graphic as other comments here have been in the past)to make a point.
Mark wrote: "...maybe you just can't read. Let me guess. You went to public school, right?"
You stay classy Mark!
MA wrote: "...correcting a child in front of the whole world was commonplace."
That makes it right? Whatever... it's your niece that you're alienating, no skin off my nose.
MA cont'd: "Epidemic?? It would be a blessing if conservative Christians are truly making inroads toward reclaiming the culture so horribly sullied..."
It ~is~ like an epidemic... you're not making any "inroads towards reclaiming culture" though because you're all crazy! It's hard not to laugh out loud at some of the ideas y'all put out (like gay marriage will somehow ruin my hetro marriage! Ha!).
Conservative christians are in the news 24-7, the problem is that it's often because of rent-boy issues and such.
If you truly want to make inroads you'll have to be a LOT more reasonable I'm afraid... which pretty much dooms your group.
MA asked: "I have to go now, but while I'm away, perhaps you could explain whence comes the 'bigot' nonsense"
Ok. From merriam-webster:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
**
The key there is "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance."
You don't tolerate gay people - that makes you a bigot. It's basic language Art.
"You stay classy Mark!"
Thank you. I wish I could return the compliment, but alas, I'm honest.
Mark wrote: "I'm honest."
And all this time I thought you were christian... guess I was wrong.
Joe,
"That makes it right?"
Right? I don't see that it's right or wrong. But better? Definitely. Though I don't like to see kids humiliated publicly, when it's due to bad behavior on their part, it re-inforces the notion of consequences and does so as well for anyone who is witness to it, particularly other young people. In this case, what humiliation there may be is ever so slight, if it exists at all. I might regard my niece as corrupted by So. California and the corrupting culture in general, but I don't regard her as a panty-waiste, like most left-leaning people are. And as another measure of our cultural decline, I point to the sentiment that correcting bad behavior is dangerous for fear of "alienating" a child. If you haven't already, Joe, don't procreate.
"...you're not making any "inroads towards reclaiming culture" though because you're all crazy!"
Sure, Joe. We struggle with making inroads toward reclaiming out culture because even amongst our own (which would be Christians who are liberals) are many who are also corrupted. If you can point to an example of how we might be "crazy", it would go a long way toward making your point, if you truly have one. But if you run with stupid statements like this: "...like gay marriage will somehow ruin my hetro marriage!", you'll only make your earlier statement suggesting yourself to be a "thinking man of the 21st century" that much more laughable than it already was. NOBODY has EVER suggested such a thing about homosex marriage. (What a loon!) So forgive me if I doubt your ability to understand or recognize what being reasonable looks like.
I'm perfectly aware of how "bigot" is defined. You still haven't demonstrated that I am one. If I am obstinate about anything, it is righteousness and what it looks like. If I am intolerant, it's only against that which is not righteousness but is obstinately put forth as such and the intolerance towards those who disagree.
Further, I am not in the least bit hateful toward homosexuals. But to call me intolerant of them because I refuse their attempts to legitimize their abnormal and immoral behavior, well then, I'm intolerant, just as I am against all improper behavior. But none of this is bigotry. What's hateful is to ignore and/or downplay the negatives attached to homosexuality and the furthering of the homosex agenda and the covering up of those negatives by the activists actually pushing that agenda. True love for one's fellow man would not involve such dishonesty in presenting one's case. If this was a corporation, like an auto maker, covering up the negatives of a new model, the outcry from people like you would be deafening.
MA wrote: "...to call me intolerant of them because I refuse their attempts to legitimize their abnormal and immoral behavior, well then, I'm intolerant"
Ok, you admit that you're intolerant (regardless of the fact tht you feel the intolerance is warranted).
MA cont'd: "...But none of this is bigotry."
It's the ~definition~ of bigotry! Didn't you read the definition??
You cannot say 'I am intolerant of certain people who display a particular behavior' and then continue by saying 'but this is not bigotry'... because it is the very definition of bigotry.
It doesn't matter that you think your bigotry is warranted - it's still bigotry.
MA cont'd: "What's hateful is to ignore and/or downplay the negatives attached to homosexuality"
And what might those be?
Joe,
You're not really very bright, are you? I'll cut you some slack, though because I see I didn't make myself clear. More accurately, I didn't maintain perfect accuracy in my remarks. This is important when dealing with lefties and I failed to maintain the discipline. So I'll type slowly and try to use words small enough to be easily understood:
I hate bad behavior. I hate when people try to say that bad behavior is good behavior.
That does not constitute either bigotry OR intolerance as you hope to label me. I AM intolerant of bad behavior. What upstanding individual would say otherwise? That one particular group engages in one particular form of bad behavior does NOT mean that I am bigoted against the people of that group, but only that I am intolerant of their behavior and the fact that they attempt to legitimize that behavior. Is this all too deep for a thinking man of the 2st century? If so, let me know and I'll try to find even smaller words.
Now, if you now wish to cling to first part of the definition you posted and label me with that, I'll concede because I am truly obstinately and intolerantly devoted to my opinions of righteousness, every bit as much as you are devoted to your opinions of immoral behavior as moral.
What's most important is that you use the term in a manner that is comparable to an Archie Bunker who doesn't like blacks because they're black. Of course that comparison is incredibly stupid and a thinking man of the 21st century should see that plainly. So what's your excuse? It must be that you equate changable behavior with unchangable racial characteristics. And boy, that IS stupid.
As to the negatives attached to homosexuality, aside from the stats from the CDC that I posted in the thread about homosexuality (thanks for straying), I did two posts on that very topic. Go find them, enjoy and learn something of worth.
MA wrote: "You're not really very bright, are you?"
I wonder why you wrote that...
MA cont'd: "...because I see I didn't make myself clear. More accurately, I didn't maintain perfect accuracy in my remarks."
Oh... I see. I'm "not very bright" because ~you~ weren't clear. ~You~ weren't accurate. Nice thinking there...
MA cont'd: "This is important when dealing with lefties and I failed to maintain the discipline."
It's important when dealing with ~anyone~. Clarity is a good thing.
MA cont'd: "I hate bad behavior. I hate when people try to say that bad behavior is good behavior."
The problem is that "bad" is subjective. What you consider "bad" behavior others might not.
MA cont'd: "I AM intolerant of bad behavior."
And that makes you a bigot. I don't see how you can dance around that fact.
You seem to think that because ~you~ think something is "bad" that justifies intolerance and somehow avoids the obvious implication that you are a bigot.
Just own it - you're a bigot to gays. That ~you~ think gays exhibit "bad" behavior doesn't change that fact.
MA wrote: "...your opinions of immoral behavior as moral."
I don't make "moral" claims... morals are subjective, what you think it "moral" I might not.
MA cont'd: "you use the term in a manner that is comparable to an Archie Bunker"
Beat that straw man Art! Beat it!
MA wrote: "It must be that you equate changable behavior..."
Ah, you believe that gays can "change" I guess. I wonder why so many anti-gay activists keep getting caught with rent-boys then?? Wouldn't they, of all people, have "changed"?
Joe,
"I wonder why you wrote that..."
Uhhhhh....because you're not very bright? Weren't you paying attention? To most people it would be pretty obvious that I was referring to the behavior of people, not the people themselves. So, to then go on to say that "I hate them for supporting bad behavior..." and then using THAT while ignoring previous comments were specifically about behavior, well, it's both typcial of a lefty to jump on such a mistake rather than to consider the entire context in which it was made, and typical of someone with no real ability to debate. So, to be even MORE clear, my mistake was not being clear enough FOR YOU, the thinking man of the 21st century, who needs every detailed spelled out just so.
"The problem is that "bad" is subjective. What you consider "bad" behavior others might not."
Typcial response from the morally confused. That's why I'm here. To bring truth back to the fore.
"MA cont'd: "I AM intolerant of bad behavior."
And that makes you a bigot. I don't see how you can dance around that fact."
So I'm a bigot because I'm intolerant of theft? of child molesting? of muggings? of reckless driving? of littering? of vandalism? of loug talking in a theater during a movie? of pissing in alleys? of REAL bigotry?
"I don't make "moral" claims..."
Those too morally weak to abide traditional notions of morality normally don't.
"...morals are subjective, what you think it "moral" I might not."
Morals are subjective to those who are too morally weak to abide traditional notions of morality.
"MA cont'd: "you use the term in a manner that is comparable to an Archie Bunker"
Beat that straw man Art! Beat it!"
Straw man? You ARE really not very bright, are you? Achie was created to represent a bigot, someone who hates PEOPLE for superficial reasons, like race. You use the term in this manner to say I'm a bigot against homos. But I don't hate them, I feel bad for them, especially those who have bought into the lies about the condition. In addition, as I continue to remind your sorry self, I oppose their behavior and their attempts to attain state sanctioning of it, and general acceptance of it as a normal and good thing, which it is neither.
"Ah, you believe that gays can "change" I guess."
Yes, in the sense that they can choose to ignore their corrupt desires, like an adulterer can, and live as a normal person. This has been proven by thousands of former homos.
" I wonder why so many anti-gay activists keep getting caught with rent-boys then?? Wouldn't they, of all people, have "changed"?"
HA. You act as if the number is huge. THat's funny. And what's a "rent-boy" anyway and why do you know? And of course, like all immoral degenerates, you think that because others that acknowledge the truth about what constitutes bad behavior, that somehow that means none of them would ever succomb to their own personal temptations. Talk about creating straw men! Worse, you'd celebrate finding another "hypocrite" when such people would only be hypocrites if they denied the behavior was wrong for them. Otherwise, they are only human.
But this suggests what is so clearly true with people like yourself. What is "moral" for you is based on what you want to do, not on some higher truth about the behavior itself. THat would mean, for example, if I wanted to smack the poop out of some thinking man of the 21st century for the stupid things he says, that would be morally OK if I decided I believe it to be so.
But that isn't the case. But that's one thing that agnostics and atheists have over Christians and others of faith, they make up their own rules as they go along, discarding what is too difficult to follow and pretending it is no longer "bad".
You need to look up "straw-man" before you mis-use it again. Your dragging Archie Bunker into this discussion ~is~ a straw man.
My pointing out that anti-gay activists being exposed as gay is pretty good evidence that you can't just turn off 'teh gay' is ~not~ a straw man. It's not even close to one.
I know, Iknow. It's my fault that you don't know what a straw-man is... it's always a lefty's fault.
Anyway - it's pretty clear that you're angry. Deep breaths Art, deep breaths.
(aside: I think it's funny that you continue to show your bigoted stance ~even~ while trying desperately to deny it! 'I'm not a bigot, I just don't tolerate the gays or their agenda!'... oh the irony.)
Oops! I meant to say...
I find your intolerance of my intolerance intolerable.
There. That's better.
Joe,
You're really working hard to convince me that you're an idiot, aren't you? Is this a setup? I'm really beginning to feel like I'm being set up. Mark suggested you were another lib blogger using a new name. I'M beginning to think you're a conservative purposely being stupid to yank my chain.
The Bunker reference, once again, pay attention, was to describe what your use of the word bigotry was intended to imply about me. But that isn't what is going on here and I'll point out your dishonesty in a moment.
I never referred to these alleged anti-gay activists who are really homos themselves as being related to any straw-man argument. Where did that come from?
I'm fully aware of what "strawman" implies. I did not create one with my Bunker analogy. Once again, you twit, you refer to me as a bigot such as the type of character Bunker was created to present. That's not a strawman argument on my part, it's an accurate description of your argument. I'm not a bigot. A "bigot" is a term more aptly applied to you based on your tone in regards to Christians and "fundies".
Now, you're surely not the first. All enablers accuse those of us with morals and/or religious faith as bigots. We're used to it. Stupidity doesn't much bother us. In a similar way, you believe that I'm angry. This too is a common mistake. Frustrated by your inanity, sure. Angry? For what? But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe me angry, why, you just go right ahead and believe it.
Now here's where you lie outright: "'I'm not a bigot, I just don't tolerate the gays or their agenda!'" This isn't in the least bit accurate, especially since I worded my position again in simpler terms that should have been easy for a thinking man of the 21st century to understand. I oppose homo behavior and the attempts to codify the agenda that seeks to legitimize it as normal. What's so hard for your thinking mind to comprehend about this very straightforward position? Why must you lie about it to paint me as something I'm not? What's "reasonable" (something you think we're not being) about lying about your opponents?
One more thing, that someone can't simply "turn off" an inappropriate immoral desire does not mean that it is impossible to resolve in the long run. That some who oppose a behavior are compelled to engage in that same behavior themselves does not in the least mean anything more than that some who recognize the immorality of a behavior also are attracted to it. I struggle with the use of bad language but recognize that cussing is bad form. So what? The difference again is that I recognize man's fallen nature and losers like yourself just pretend morality is relative.
There are thousands who have left the homo lifestyle. Many of them haven't necessarily lost the desire for strange sex, but they have come to lead happy normal lives. When a man marries a woman, he doesn't necessarily lose his desire for other women. But he does control his lusts. That is what losers like yourself reject. Rather than control one's self, you would reclassify the behavior and insist everyone else buy into it. I don't tolerate THAT childishness either.
MA asked: "I never referred to these alleged anti-gay activists who are really homos themselves as being related to any straw-man argument. Where did that come from?"
Actually, you did. It's right here in your last comment, quoted thusly: "you think that because others that acknowledge the truth about what constitutes bad behavior, that somehow that means none of them would ever succomb to their own personal temptations. Talk about creating straw men!"
See what you did there?
And then MA wrote: "The Bunker reference, once again, pay attention, was to describe what your use of the word bigotry was intended to imply about me."
Right, I said something about your bigotry and you changed it to be about Archie Bunker. You then proceeded to bash Archie Bunker's views... classic straw man.
MA cont's: "I'm fully aware of what 'strawman' implies. I did not create one with my Bunker analogy."
Um... except that you did. It's a couple of comments up. You can't miss it... well, ~you~ might miss it.
I think you have some issues to work out...
Regarding Facebook - a picture of my son showed up and it looked like he was smoking a bong. I sent him a message and he replied that it was a Rooka - a russian pipe with tobacco in it - not an illegal substance. I sent him a note back that I really didn't care what was in it and his prospective employer wouldn't care either. If he wanted a good job, he needed to police what pictures were on the internet.
The picture came down the next day.
Randy - http://newfromclt.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment