Posted by Lou Pilder on October 31, 2004, at 15:09:27
In reply to Re: LOu's request, posted by Dr. Bob on October 31, 2004, at 11:50:14
Dr. Hsiung,and others,
My apology for the tone of some parts of the article above as you wrote in your quoting of Jean Jacque Rousseau. The opinions of the author of the article are the author's only, and I would like to use the article {for discussion} as to the mental health aspect of the use of profanity.
The author and you and I all agree that profanity does not get acceptance on your forum.
But there are two things that I would like to discuss here. One is if the use of the asterisk to insinuate the word without typing it could be a justification on a mental health basis to allow this on a mental health board. I have submitted the rules for another mental helath community on the internet that spacifically prohibits it. The owners prohibit it, as they write, [this includes the use of aserisks...to insinuates the word without typing it...].
The next thing is in relation to using either form of a word that could be deemed as a word that [...could offend others...] is if it is necessary to use the word in a mental health setting such as this mental health forum. It is the author of the aticle, and my opiniion that other words could be used instead of the word that [...could offend others...].
The fact that a asterisk replaces a letter in a word that could offend others, could still offend others.
You wrote that using an asterisk to replace a letter in a word that could offend others is a compromise to allow freedom speech. But where is freedom of speech defined in any Bill of Rights to allow {unrestricted} speech. Could one defame by libel or slander and claim "Freedom of Speech"? Could one lie in court and claim "Freedom of Speech". Could one here write,[...anyone that honors any other God besides Jesus is not saved...]or, [...Jesus said, Iam the waythe truth and the life...] and claim Freedom of Speech? Are not people offended by different kinds of speech? Are not people offened by [...language that could offend others...]? Are not words that offend others just as offensive as words that have a letter replaced by an asterisk that insinuates the same word? Are not the offended allowed the same sound mental health atmosphere as those that want or need to use offending words that have a letter replaced by an asterisk? Are you saying that you can not restrict the use of words here that have a letter replaced by an asterisk that insinuate the word that is offensive because you would be taking away someones's "Freedom of Speech"? Are you saying that I, or teenagers, or mothers and fathers of children or the children reading this site can not see what the words with the asterisk mean? If a word is offensive and replacing a letter in the word with a star still allows the word to be seen as to be offensive, then an offensive word can be seen and is not still offensive? Applying your principle of allowing the offensive word by doing such leads me to ask,even though the following is somewhat different, could it be acceptable for one here to write,[...I would want to write that such-and-such is evil, but I won't write it because it is not allowed to write that here...].
Lou Pilder
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:409477
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/409646.html