[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The words were not chosen because they were used by the lower class. They were called vulgar as a slurr toward the lower class. The words were "lesser" words much as the lower class were "lesser" people.

What would make them "lesser" without a prior association with the "lesser" classes? This is totally backwards. Words are not inherently coarse or lofty.

A word can't have common associations and still only have the connotations relevant to the context.

When I say context I mean social context. Not verbal. I mentioned my relatives who live in the hollers (a regional word for hollow, or valley, or copse) of eastern KY. For them "sh*t," typically used as in interjection, does not connote the obscene or profane.

[tlj009]

What would make them "lesser" without a prior association with the "lesser" classes? This is totally backwards. Words are not inherently coarse or lofty.

That is your claim. But the etymology of vulgar does not make the case for you. I really don't know how certain words achieved the status of being vulgar. But I doubt that it is simply because the lower classes use them. After all, the lower classes do use other words as well.

When I say context I mean social context. Not verbal. I mentioned my relatives who live in the hollers (a regional word for hollow, or valley, or copse) of eastern KY. For them "sh*t," typically used as in interjection, does not connote the obscene or profane.

If that is really true, then no one notices when their pastor uses "sh*t". There is absolutely no notice that the word is any different than any other word. I just doubt that is the case.

[Bryan]

I swear this thread is getting old.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That is your claim. But the etymology of vulgar does not make the case for you.

Translation: You don't like what I'm saying. I think that's reasonable to assume anyway since I don't see any reasoning as to why.

After all, the lower classes do use other words as well.

You said this before and I clarified that the implication was never that anything a member of the "lower classes" says is automatically a vulgarism. Obviously what I am saying is making little sense to you, and though I am loathe to do it, maybe this quote from wikipedia is less murky:

"Vulgarism" (also called scurrility) derives from Latin vulgus, the "mean folk", and has carried into English its original connotations linking it with the low and coarse motivations that were supposed to be naturally endemic to the meaner classes, who were not moved by higher motives like fame for posterity and honor among peers—motives that were alleged to move the literate classes. Thus the concept of vulgarism carries cultural freight from the outset, and from some social and religious perspectives it does not genuinely exist, or—and perhaps this amounts to the same thing—ought not to exist.

If that is really true, then no one notices when their pastor uses "sh*t". There is absolutely no notice that the word is any different than any other word.

Handwaving. Anyone would notice their pastor using scatalogical terminology in the middle of a sermon. Or any other incongruous language (slang and assorted colloquialisms).

Originally Posted by Bryan

I swear this thread is getting old.

Fine. I'm out then.

[athanatos]

Pastors are often considered the upper crust of society. That would be insupportable for him to speak as though he were akin to the little, ignorant people who don't possess a wide vocabulary.

[tlj009]

Translation: You don't like what I'm saying. I think that's reasonable to assume anyway since I don't see any reasoning as to why.

??? You don't see the reasoning or you don't understand my reasoning? Because it has been addressed every since you made the comment.

You said this before and I clarified that the implication was never that anything a member of the "lower classes" says is automatically a vulgarism. Obviously what I am saying is making little sense to you, and though I am loathe to do it, maybe this quote from wikipedia is less murky:

"Vulgarism" (also called scurrility) derives from Latin vulgus, the "mean folk", and has carried into English its original connotations linking it with the low and coarse motivations that were supposed to be naturally endemic to the meaner classes, who were not moved by higher motives like fame for posterity and honor among peers—motives that were alleged to move the literate classes. Thus the concept of vulgarism carries cultural freight from the outset, and from some social and religious perspectives it does not genuinely exist, or—and perhaps this amounts to the same thing—ought not to exist.

Again, that is about the word vulgar. Words like sh*t are "vulgar" words but they aren't all that vulgar is. The point was that the etymology does not explain how words were chosen to be considered "vulgar". Maybe an example would help. I wake up and decide to label things as "superfluous". Do I arbitrarily pick words for the category or do I pick words that are already grouped and therefore have something in common?

Your argument seems to be that "vulgar" words were randomly picked and labeled as "vulgar". I don't buy it. There has to be another connection. Were they the only words used by the lower classes and not the upper classes? I doubt it. I suspect that both classes used the same speech unless there was a reason to exclude a specific word. So if the upper classes excluded these future "vulgar" words, then I would like to know why. Your etymology simply does not answer these questions and does not make your case for you.

Handwaving. Anyone would notice their pastor using scatalogical terminology in the middle of a sermon. Or any other incongruous language (slang and assorted colloquialisms).

Why would they be out of character? The man wasn't born a pastor and would have used the same speech as everyone else. Why change his speech after becoming a pastor unless there is something inappropriate about using such speech? Which also begs the question, if it is inappropriate for the pastor, why is it not inappropriate for everyone?

Also, you just labeled a word that you claim is solely an interjection as scatalogical. Did you not do that because the word sh*t has additional connotations beyond just being an interjection?

[tlj009]

Pastors are often considered the upper crust of society. That would be insupportable for him to speak as though he were akin to the little, ignorant people who don't possess a wide vocabulary.

So your argument is that the pastor is held to a different standard because he is expected to be better than everyone else. Ok. But why doesn't everyone strive toward that level of "better" or beyond?

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Your argument seems to be that "vulgar" words were randomly picked and labeled as "vulgar". I don't buy it. There has to be another connection. Were they the only words used by the lower classes and not the upper classes? I doubt it. I suspect that both classes used the same speech unless there was a reason to exclude a specific word. So if the upper classes excluded these future "vulgar" words, then I would like to know why. Your etymology simply does not answer these questions and does not make your case for you.

Tlj009, he isn't saying the words were chosen at random. I believe he is saying that the lower classes were considered uneducated, and because of this, lower classes could be distinguished from upper classes by some of the words they would use due to the lack of vocabulary they had. Upper classes deemed many of these words that the lower classes used as forbidden and bad, to keep themselves from being associated with these lower classes. This is something that can not be debated and is shown clearly through the history of our language.

An example of this occurring today, which may help you understand this would be the following:

A young boy goes home and starts using slang and talking in a way that is associated with gangsters and also people who have grown up in a ghetto. His mom over hears him saying "Yo, whats the deal" and tells him not to talk like that. The mother treats the slang her son is using as forbidden and bad, and tells him not to use it any more, because she does not want him to be associated with gangsters or the ghetto by using the same type of words that they use. There is nothing sinful or inherently wrong with the words her son used, however the mom refuses to allow him to use them, because she does not like the thought of her son being associated with a gangster or anyone who grew up in a ghetto. This is the same thing that happened with words which are now considered "vulgar". "Vulgar" words are the words that were used by the lower classes. People associated those who used these "vulgar" words with the lower class people. Thats why he brought up the meaning of the word "vulgar" and brought up the history behind how words became considered vulgar.

By the way, the example I gave came from real life occurances. Growing up, me and my friends would talk and use slang that is associated with "gangsters" but is also very commonly found in most areas stricken with poverty regardless of wether they are gangsters or not. I remember our mom's telling us not to talk like that and the reasoning they gave. I really don't believe one can make a legitament case for "vulgar" words being sinful. I do believe one can make a case for the misuse of God's name however.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

Growing up, me and my friends would talk and ...

... my friends and I would...

Anyway, exactly, exactly, exactly.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by tlj009

So your argument is that the pastor is held to a different standard because he is expected to be better than everyone else. Ok. But why doesn't everyone strive toward that level of "better" or beyond?

Because it's superfluous.

Originally Posted by tlj009

Why would they be out of character? The man wasn't born a pastor and would have used the same speech as everyone else. Why change his speech after becoming a pastor unless there is something inappropriate about using such speech? Which also begs the question, if it is inappropriate for the pastor, why is it not inappropriate for everyone?

First, that's not begging the question.

Second, there are plenty of examples where inappropriateness is not sinning. In our culture, it would be inappropriate to show up at a wedding wearing jogging attire, but not wrong (depending on intentions).

There are plenty of examples of this. Inappropriateness is not sin -- and more to the point, appropriate and inappropriateness, to me, appears to be very culturally decided. Actually, I remember Jesus breaking these cultural norms on a number of occasions -- in fact, he did "inappropriate" things.

See Mathew 12. He picked and ate wheat on the Sabbath. Absolutely inappropriate in that time.

See John 2:12-25, where he drove merchants from the temple. I can't think of any culture where this could be acceptable.

And yet, your argument here is that we ought to follow what is "appropriate".

So, to answer your question, I don't think I'd mind if my pastor said '☺☺☺☺' or any other language, really -- so long as he never used it to pull down or curse anyone.

It wouldn't go over well if my pastor used that sort of language in a sermon, for the same reason that it wouldn't go over well to bring your pet parakeet to a funeral -- it's merely inappropriate usage. To condemn vulgarity for this situation is like condemning having parakeets (because they can be used inappropriately!).

[Skeeter]

It pains me to see Josh's (slap_j) argument so terribly misinterpreted. I think what he had to say is of utmost importance to this debate; the view he is espousing comes at the argument from a completely different context than what was originally being discussed and it seems that several people in this thread have failed to see his point.

To put it simply, how did we come to view swear words as vulgar in the first place? Why are these words considered impolite? Why is f*ck a dirty word, but fornicate is not? Why is sh*t considered offensive, and feces is not?

This isn't about what is polite and what is impolite, or even what is moral and what is immoral. It's a question of how do we decide what is polite, how do we decide what is moral. At some point, swear words became considered impolite and immoral: why?

The answer is simple: those of a lower class used these words and because they were considered immoral, the words they used were considered immoral. Now, obviously this did not apply to all the words they used, but certain ones that already had certain connotations (sex, excrement, etc.). The upper class decided that these words were impolite and immoral, whereas the more highbrow words they used, such as fornicate, feces, urine: these were medically correct, appropriate, polite, and moral words.

It goes back further than that, even. The comparisons I've been drawing between words go back further: the swear words all have germanic roots, whereas their more highbrow cousins have latinate roots. Latin being, of course, the language of learning and education, while the germanic words were from the "barbaric" german tribes.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The only reason these words were and are considered vulgar is because of racism and classism. Those from the "cultured" civilization considered themselves better than the germanic tribes and classified their language as uncivilized, barbaric, and even immoral. Those with education considered themselves better than those without, and as part of this they classified certain words as vulgar and turned the argument circular. Once they decided that certain words were vulgar, it was easy to say that those that use them are vulgar.

The church has bought into this culture-based argument and it pains me deeply.

One more comment: every time someone makes the argument that people would swear less if they had a larger vocabulary, it's an argument that stems from pride. Pride in their own vocabulary. Pride in their education. Pride that they are better than the person who uses swear words. I have been guilty of this in the past and I repent of this pride. I feel ashamed that I have considered myself better than my fellow human beings simply due to the language they use.

[tlj009]

Let me try one more time, as I seem to be making some headway in private messages to slap_j. Certain words are considered vulgar but are also considered profanity. We are talking about profanity. Crap, butt, ☺☺☺☺, etc. are all considered vulgar but not profanity. So even among vulgar words, there is something different about the ones we are discussing. So while vulgar words may be a class issue, profanity can not be solely a class issue. There has to be some other connection.

Now slap_j referenced wiki earlier.
Vulgarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In that page there is not a single word considered profanity. The example given was "the ☺☺☺☺ on Botticelli's Venus".

Compare that to the wiki of profanity.
Profanity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The conclusion is that although we refer to these words as vulgar there is something different about them. It is like they were included under the category of vulgar after they were already considered profanity.

Even with Daniel's example, his mother may consider "Yo, whats the deal" vulgar but I doubt anyone considers it profanity.

And for the record, I have never said that speaking profanities was a sin. I have said that it was impolite, unhelpful, and that I recommend avoiding it but I haven't declared it a sin.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The conclusion is that although we refer to these words as vulgar there is something different about them. It is like they were included under the category of vulgar after they were already considered profanity.

I don't consider any words profane. Anybody who does is wrong.

[tlj009]

I don't consider any words profane. Anybody who does is wrong.

pro·fan·i·ty (pr-fn-t, pr-)
n. pl. pro·fan·i·ties
1. The condition or quality of being profane.
2.
a. Abusive, vulgar, or irreverent language.
b. The use of such language.

profanity - definition of profanity by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

That would mean that definition number 2 is an empty category.

[athanatos]

Is there any word that is inherently "abusive" or "irreverant"? Emphasis on the word "inherently." I don't think there is any such word that is inherently so. It all comes back to how it is being used, not that it is being used. Symbols in context, not symbols alone.