Disclaimer: I am highly offended by foul language. Please refrain from its use, or, if you must use it, please censor it.
I am afraid I have offended one of the site admins - I deleted a post of his from my previous blog due to the foul language it contained. Therefore, I am formally apologizing here for stepping out of line. However, an important question was brought up by this incident - what is the limit on bad language?Children do visit this site - people from 13 to 16 should not be exposed to R-rated language - but the general rule is worded "Do not swear excessively." This also goes for blog comments. But what is "excessive" swearing?The blog in question had already had two different people posting swear words in comments. The first one, I warned; the second, I removed. Two of certain swear words is enough to earn a movie an R rating here in the states - so are blogs allowed to go into R-rated territory?And what amount of control does a blogger have over the language others post in his blog? If a blogger (such as myself) objects strongly to foul language, should he not have some control over what language is found in his blogs? Can he not at least request that any foul language posted in his blog be censored? And what should be done about comments that contain such language?I've been working on and off on Lions of the Atlantic - correcting game bugs and fixing issues. Look for a release in a couple of weeks.
The internet is a community just as anything else, and as such, those in charge are fully allowed to form rules that are based on the opinions of the community, and will most effectively keep a large number of members coming back to the site. Since the majority of people with common sense are in agreement with what I'm telling you, and the administration is obviously that of higher intelligence than the average user, it is only natural that they make this decree.
As I've stated, you are the one that is putting this in bad taste. No one else controls what goes through your head. Morals are not a factor since nothing wrong is being done, and children are not allowed on this site. They come here illegally when they pass by the terms of use and ignore the age limit. Once they do that, they are subject to any content within. If a child like yourself is offended, it's your own fault.That doesn't cut it, sjf. Right and wrong are absolute, not relative. Murder is just as wrong for the murderer as for the murdered and for anyone else. Foul language has been foul since its inception, because of that which it normally refers to. It's the same as blood, gore, and nudity being featured prominently in grade-school textbooks. Whether or not it is being used to refer to the ideas in question, it is still representative of those ideas and should not be used in public conversation. It's the same idea as keeping children from playing M-rated games or watching R-rated movies. Such things tend to stick in your memory - and bad language is not a good thing to remember.
As for your last sentence and first paragraph, let me set forth some things here and now.1. I am 17 years old. Not really a child, but not an adult either.2. I have an IQ of 145, an SAT score of 2250+, and a 3.8 GPA. I have been accepted to the top Christian college in the nation. I am not stupid.3. As Melee-master stated earlier in this blog, it is quite permissible, even with the admins here, to control the content of your own blog. In this situation, YOU are the one with bad taste. End of story.1. There is a world of difference between truth and opinion. Opinion is that which is unique for each individual, and is what you seem to be referring to as truth. Truth, however, is just that - true. There is no "relative truth." If I believe the Bible is correct and you believe that Darwin is correct, only one of our beliefs is true. The other is false. It doesn't matter what individuals believe - only what IS. Got that?
2. From the time it was first spoken, foul language has been used to refer to things that do not belong being said. Let me give a little example here.The word "horse" normally refers to a four-legged grass-eating beast of burden. It has for centuries. Now suppose I want to say that the animal normally called a horse is actually a sparrow. Does that make it so? No. A horse is a horse, no matter who calls it a bird. 3. I don't care about your IQ. The point in question was the implication that I am stupid, which I have since disproved. As for your SAT score, that is equivalent to a 2235/2400, which is similar to my own.4. Wheaton College IS one of the top colleges in the nation. It also happens to be a moral, Christian college that isn't full of the typical anti-Christian courses found in so many secular colleges.Finally, I know that I am a sinner. I also know that there are absolute truths in this world - and there are certain things which are best left undone. Your claim that bad language is only bad because I make it so is approximately equivalent to claiming that murder is only bad if people think it is. Sins are sins, whether you're the person committing them, or the victim of them.1) I am not a believer in Darwin's theories. Don't make me out to be a non-Christian in some sad attempt to incriminate my thoughts. That shit might fly if you did some research, but I happen to be a Christian Antinobialist.
2) When was foul language first spoken? You seem to know a lot about it, so why not educate me? Are you telling me that if I call you a fool and you aren't one, I'm doing the equivalent of cursing? I agree, since cursing is just that… using a nonsensical word to describe something or exclaim an emotion.3) Your IQ has nothing to do with whether you are "stupid". IQ measures intelligence, which is in turn only the ability to memorize, calculate, and recognize patterns. I would be more impressed if you didn't make an ass of yourself. That might prove to me that you weren't a fool.4) Like Science?…and in yet another reply, you make it easy to confuse your ideas with those of nonbelievers. Seriously - you seem to have the most liberal, morally questionable worldview I've ever heard called Christian. Did you ever hear the admonition to be "in the world, but not of it?"
Now that you have stated that you are a Christian, I can approach the situation somewhat differently.1. This was partly based on the assumption that you were not Christian, but my statement was not meant for that. I was simply trying to say that two opposites cannot both be true.2. ,,,and in the same light, so is pornography and violence on video - nothing more than a symbol which can be taken a certain way. BUT! it has been "taken a certain way" for many years, and if you go out in public and spout words like you wrote earlier in this blog, you will get (at least) some very strange stares. There's a reason that people don't run around naked. Can you figure it out?3. Am I a fool for holding a different position from you? For debating in support of that position? For making an assumption about your worldview based on your actions?4. No - for "science" which ignores such pertinent previous data as the Bible cannot be called science.Final paragraph: We have bandied this point back and forth for some time now, and I believe that neither of us is getting close to convincing the other. It may be best to just drop the debate here.1. While it is true that acts have no bearing on acceptance, it is also true that assurance of eternal life is no reason to ignore morality. A murderer can get into heaven through faith, but that does not mean we should have no concern about murdering people!
2. "Obey those in authority over you" - Romans 13. The laws of this nation, I believe, include strictures against indecency - thus, public nudity IS wrong in this country and by the Bible's standards. (see verse reference) Just because something does no harm to others is no reason to think it's ok to do.3.The way in which you claim to have disproven my arguments is by relativistic "it's all in your head" claims, which I frankly count as ridiculous.4.That I was.5. Whatever.1. That is true, but as we've established, "cursing" is not a form of immorality…
2) The Bible is very loose in this… and I beg you to consider the many things that would never have happened if this rule were to be followed as it is translated. It is my believe that this is one of the many things that we mistake for a direct reference in the bible.