The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Why do people use profanity? Options
towan52
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 9:37:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,914
Neurons: 219,108
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
Personally, I find gratuitous profanity to be depressingly offensive and in the past have attributed it (perhaps simplistically) to an inability to express oneself. looked at objectively though, it's clear that eloquence and profanity are not mutually exclusive. Clever use of these words can be witty and even hilarious; repetitive use of a string of "four-letter words" in normal conversation is usually unacceptable.

Knowing that the internet never lies, I offer this link to put forth some research.

Ideas and thoughts from members will be viewed with effin' enthusiasm!

Voldermort for Trump 2020
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:48:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,153
Neurons: 207,936
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
towan52 wrote:
Personally, I find gratuitous profanity to be depressingly offensive and in the past have attributed it (perhaps simplistically) to an inability to express oneself. looked at objectively though, it's clear that eloquence and profanity are not mutually exclusive. Clever use of these words can be witty and even hilarious; repetitive use of a string of "four-letter words" in normal conversation is usually unacceptable.

Knowing that the internet never lies, I offer this link to put forth some research.

Ideas and thoughts from members will be viewed with effin' enthusiasm!

Well, personally I think **^!!*&^*# and !!&*#¬>, but otherwise, no problem!

The article, I found rather funny. They put forward the theory, despite the fact that they did three tests - one supported the theory, one contradicted it and they couldn't understand the results of the third!
Also there are questions within the questionnaire which are supposed to detect lies - but some experts think that a high score on these questions means that you lie, while other experts think that a low score means you lie . . .
That makes it awkward doesn't it?

Of course I never swear or curse, being a perfect gentleman.
Quote:
"Bad language or abuse,
I never, never use,
Whatever the emergency;
Though “Bother it” I may
Occasionally say,
I never use a big, big D."
–"What never?"
"Well, hardly ever."
Gilbert and Sullivan - H.M.S. Pinafore

(Of course, "the big D" is "Damn!" - shock, horror!)


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 12:08:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,042
Neurons: 50,816
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Glad I wasn't the only one Drago, who found the article rather funny! Maybe it's just because the idea of a word being "profane" is a concept that one doesn't expect to come across in 2019!

But, like you, I also wondered what on earth was the purpose of publishing an article which just says "Hey, we looked into it but couldn't come up with a definitive conclusion so we still don't know."
towan52
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 12:56:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,914
Neurons: 219,108
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
Romany wrote:
Glad I wasn't the only one Drago, who found the article rather funny! Maybe it's just because the idea of a word being "profane" is a concept that one doesn't expect to come across in 2019!

But, like you, I also wondered what on earth was the purpose of publishing an article which just says "Hey, we looked into it but couldn't come up with a definitive conclusion so we still don't know."


being somewhat involved in research, it's not that unusual to come across work that actually doesn't prove (or contend) anything in particular or even appears to contradict itself. Other bodies of research will come up with differing conclusions. The premise, "Consider the source" has value here. The link was not intended be a definitive resource - just to get a conversation going. My mother once told me, "I don't bloody swear, but my mother's a bugger at it!". Made me laugh!

Voldermort for Trump 2020
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:24:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,153
Neurons: 207,936
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
My mother had a stroke (many years ago) and lost the power of speech.

She kept trying and trying (even from the first moments of coming around after the stroke itself).
A few weeks later, she was given an injection, and said her first word - "Bugger!"


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Parpar1836
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 3:27:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2014
Posts: 379
Neurons: 16,289
Location: Rochester, New York, United States
Well, bugger all!
Paulo Rogério 7
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:19:34 PM

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/31/2016
Posts: 53
Neurons: 297,314
Location: Florianópolis, Amazonas, Brazil
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
My mother had a stroke (many years ago) and lost the power of speech.

She kept trying and trying (even from the first moments of coming around after the stroke itself).
A few weeks later, she was given an injection, and said her first word - "Bugger!"

Indeed, the very first shocking words from childhood are the first to come back after an extense brain injury. Even though inappropriate sometimes, or used in a wrong context. I went through the suggested article and was impressed with this quote:
"The traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism are collectively known as the “dark triad” of personality, and are associated with greater dishonesty" (and cursing as a whole, I learnt).
RSoul
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 12:30:39 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
I suppose it depends on what you mean by and how you define 'profanity'or 'profane'. It originally referred to the disrespect of a temple or place of worship.

Which in itself can be an ambiguous concept. If I stand in front of a religious building and vocally declare my disbelief in its various subjective, hypothetical and allegedly supernatural deity or deities I would literally be being profane.

The two most common 'four letter' Anglo-Saxon (Old Frisian) words most often associated with vulgarity were originally not considered offensive to the Frisian speaking Germanic settlers of my country.

I believe when people claim to be offended by 'profanity' it reveals a lot about their own paradigmatic world view and attitudes.

I personally find people who are offended by gratuitous profanity depressingly offensive.

Although I'd never express that opinion of course, for fear of being considered profane. Silenced

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:08:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,198
Neurons: 60,589
Every culture has developed rules for behavior which facilitated good relationships between the members of that culture. Language is part of culture, so it would naturally seem to follow that there would be rules for what words should, or should not be spoken.

Some of the first behaviors the young exhibit is defiance of rules as a way of establishing their independence, gaining admiration from their peers, and attempting to appear "adult" is the use of vulgar language.

So I don't think it has anything to do with honesty. It has more to do with establishing a sense of self in the hierarchy of one's social circle during youth development. However, with common usage, it becomes a habit.

In adulthood, we abandon some of the immature and childish traits we developed in our teen years, at least that is what we are encouraged to do. Some are more successful than others at that. For many, it seems, the desire to stand out, to defy convention, or simple laziness makes the use of profanity common in today's world. Language heard in daily conversations, and in movies and music, would have not been tolerated 60 years ago.

Whether or not this trend continues is anyone's guess. Societies are continually growing and evolving. The young are usually most eager to defy the rules of their parents, so the common use of profanity may reverse itself in the future. But then some new form of vulgarity may be developed to take the place of words we think of as profane today. We tend to remain silly as a species because each generation is ignorant of all that went before it. Ultimately, we just find new ways of doing the same silly things.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
RSoul
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:24:10 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
I've often wondered if so called 'youthful rebellion' is actually a hardwired evolutionary mechanism to disturb the status quo.

Possibly some innate survival strategy that may or may not be effective depending on external conditions?

Not sure what it has to do with the concept of profanity though. Think

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 2:25:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,198
Neurons: 60,589
RSoul wrote:
I've often wondered if so called 'youthful rebellion' is actually a hardwired evolutionary mechanism to disturb the status quo.

Possibly some innate survival strategy that may or may not be effective depending on external conditions?

Not sure what it has to do with the concept of profanity though. Think


RSoul, forgive me for not welcoming you to the forum. I meant to do so, but got caught up in cogitating.

In considering your suggestion, I was reminded of the youthful energy of a young calf, colt, puppy, or kitten. The young of most mammals are exuberant in their energy levels. Usually, they are permitted to run free unless danger is present. This appears to the the evolutionary aspect.

The same appears to be true of humans also. But there usually comes a point when the adult puts a damper on that enthusiasm. As the young grow and learn more about their environment, they explore more, and in consequence, risk their safety more.

At the same time, they must be taught how to relate and get along with their fellow humans in their social group. This would appear to be part of the survival strategy, for a lone human is very often soon to be a dead human. So a contrary set of impulses are found to be operating: youthful energy and social restrictions - innate evolution and survival strategy.

I think it is the confluence of those two things that we see acted out. Some expressions of energy are carried out in approved ways, but there are also expressions that are unapproved - profanity being one of them. To what degree certain behaviors are met with approval is always in flux. Indeed, even the expressions themselves, since we see what may be permitted in one society may be condemned in another.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:54:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Two thirds of curse words are to show feelings such as surprise, pain, frustration, and anger. On forums and in other places, swearing is used to show scorn for the subject. Profanity may also be used to try to intimidate.

Test results are general and cannot be extrapolated to individuals but they are fun to read sometimes. MHO is that people who aren't afraid to swear occasionally have self confidence, have given themselves permission to do so, and don't worry about the approval of others when they have their own.

They also do not worry about their religion forbidding it. My Dad did not allow "taking the Lord's name in vain" as he was a religious man. He was British and yet the word "bloody" was also off limits as it referred to Christ in my Dad's eyes.

All language changes overtime. Words that were once taboo become acceptable.

A couple of months ago there was a discussion with our son and his family. Somehow the topic came up that when the kids were little my son did not like it that my husband (who rarely rarely swears) did have a saying to show offhandedness - he would finish a topic with "But what the hell". He obviously did not think of hell as a swear word but our son and his wife did when the kids were little. (And I thought I was the one with the potty mouth at home who had to be careful around the kids.) Anyhow, I looked at these now (brag - beautiful inside and out) grown women of 21 and19 and asked if their parents' efforts when they were young did any good because we of course never hear swearing from them.

They both laughed.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes/ears. It was their final, most essential command Orwell 1984
RSoul
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 7:17:01 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
FounDit wrote:
RSoul wrote:
I've often wondered if so called 'youthful rebellion' is actually a hardwired evolutionary mechanism to disturb the status quo.

Possibly some innate survival strategy that may or may not be effective depending on external conditions?

Not sure what it has to do with the concept of profanity though. Think


RSoul, forgive me for not welcoming you to the forum. I meant to do so, but got caught up in cogitating.

In considering your suggestion, I was reminded of the youthful energy of a young calf, colt, puppy, or kitten. The young of most mammals are exuberant in their energy levels. Usually, they are permitted to run free unless danger is present. This appears to the the evolutionary aspect.

The same appears to be true of humans also. But there usually comes a point when the adult puts a damper on that enthusiasm. As the young grow and learn more about their environment, they explore more, and in consequence, risk their safety more.

At the same time, they must be taught how to relate and get along with their fellow humans in their social group. This would appear to be part of the survival strategy, for a lone human is very often soon to be a dead human. So a contrary set of impulses are found to be operating: youthful energy and social restrictions - innate evolution and survival strategy.

I think it is the confluence of those two things that we see acted out. Some expressions of energy are carried out in approved ways, but there are also expressions that are unapproved - profanity being one of them. To what degree certain behaviors are met with approval is always in flux. Indeed, even the expressions themselves, since we see what may be permitted in one society may be condemned in another.


Thanks for the welcome.

I was conjecturing a more fundamental drive to upturn an existing societal order than just apparent youthful energy. Although I would suggest it is a more primal, unconscious and inchoate drive. If it exists of course. It probably has evolutionary benefits and drawbacks.

Profanity is an invented linguistic ontological convention. It doesn't even exist in some languages.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Romany
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:24:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,042
Neurons: 50,816
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

RS - (Did you choose the moniker based on this particular thread, or was that just a happy co-incidence?)

You expanded what I meant by "Maybe it's just because the idea of a word being "profane" is a concept that one doesn't expect to come across in 2019!" I shan't speak for Drago, but the idea of someone being 'profane' belongs in another age and is redolent with head-chopping & stake burning and being thrown in the Tower.

As to 'youthfull rebellion' being hard-wired to disturb the status quo? I rather think that. for the millions of years humankind has been around, with a life-span of only around three decades, this was unlikely to have been the case.

I think it slips some people's mind that "teenagers" have only only been around since the 1950s, Before this one was a babe, a child and then an adult: like a boy-King John, riding out to negotiate in the Peasant's revolt; or a seven-year old doing a days work in the fields,.Coupled with the fact that the Church ruled that their god had told them they could go to hell if they broke any the Ten Commandments; so that rebellion against one's own parents would have been unthinkable.

So no, I would think that the concept of teen-age rebellion still hasn't been around long enoug to have become "hard-wired" into us yet.



RSoul
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 5:18:45 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
Romany wrote:

RS - (Did you choose the moniker based on this particular thread, or was that just a happy co-incidence?)

I'm guessing coincidence.

[quote=Romany]
You expanded what I meant by "Maybe it's just because the idea of a word being "profane" is a concept that one doesn't expect to come across in 2019!" I shan't speak for Drago, but the idea of someone being 'profane' belongs in another age and is redolent with head-chopping & stake burning and being thrown in the Tower.


I believe it literally means 'in front of the temple'.

Romany wrote:

As to 'youthfull rebellion' being hard-wired to disturb the status quo? I rather think that. for the millions of years humankind has been around, with a life-span of only around three decades, this was unlikely to have been the case.


It's only an idea. It does seem a consistent theme in virtually all human societies though. Anatomically modern humans are only around three hundred thousand years old. I'm with Chomsky in that I believe language acquisition is hardwired. Humans seem to be hardwired to cultural acquisition and transmission. This is possibly an evolutionary gambit as cultural (tribal?) identification could bond a socially gregarious animal that is too complex to effectively bond totally instinctively.

Romany wrote:

I think it slips some people's mind that "teenagers" have only only been around since the 1950s, Before this one was a babe, a child and then an adult: like a boy-King John, riding out to negotiate in the Peasant's revolt; or a seven-year old doing a days work in the fields,.Coupled with the fact that the Church ruled that their god had told them they could go to hell if they broke any the Ten Commandments; so that rebellion against one's own parents would have been unthinkable.


Well, technically teenagers have been around about three hundred thousand years. The modern construct of 'teenagers' is artificial and relatively new though.

Romany wrote:

So no, I would think that the concept of teen-age rebellion still hasn't been around long enoug to have become "hard-wired" into us yet.


I think you have misunderstood my original conjecture. Modern humans have been around for three hundred thousand years (maybe slightly longer). We evolved to live in small tribal groups that were very probably mostly nomadic. Our innate and instinctive behaviour has evolved to survive in that environment. Cultural development (storytelling, myth making, skill transmissions) probably developed primarily as a survival strategy. Youth rebellion against an old order may be an instinctive drive to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Something that gave an advantage to Early Moderns that concomitant humans (Neanderthal, Denisovan) now extinct lacked. Although, it's more likely we killed and ate them all.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
BobShilling
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 5:51:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,420
Neurons: 7,616
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
RSoul wrote:
It [= youthful rebellion] does seem a consistent theme in virtually all human societies though.


Have you any evidence to support that claim?

Quote:
Youth rebellion against an old order may be an instinctive drive to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Something that gave an advantage to Early Moderns that concomitant humans.


And it may not be. We'd need some form of evidence that there has been 'youth rebellion' for millennia before we could pass judgement.
RSoul
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 6:55:46 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
BobShilling wrote:
RSoul wrote:
It [= youthful rebellion] does seem a consistent theme in virtually all human societies though.


Have you any evidence to support that claim?

Quote:
Youth rebellion against an old order may be an instinctive drive to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Something that gave an advantage to Early Moderns that concomitant humans.


And it may not be. We'd need some form of evidence that there has been 'youth rebellion' for millennia before we could pass judgement.


Well, in that case I wouldn't pass judgement then. When you use the first person plural 'we' does that mean you are talking on behalf of others, or are you a plurality or a collective?

I have no empirical data supporting 'youth' rebellion. There again, I have no empirical evidence that language itself is a hardwired gestalt rather than an artificially created tool or implement.

I have no empirical data or documentation to support a lot of things. I believe that is why I termed my proposition a 'conjecture'.

Do you have any data to refute my *hypothesis that any rebellion by a younger generation is an instinctive, and in most cases an inchoate, or primal response to an innate drive?

*Presuming the phenomena exists.



Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
BobShilling
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 7:20:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,420
Neurons: 7,616
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
BobShilling wrote:
We'd need some form of evidence that there has been 'youth rebellion' for millennia before we could pass judgement.

RSoul wrote:
Well, in that case I wouldn't pass judgement then.


Quite. That's why I said I couldn't.

Quote:
When you use the first person plural 'we' does that mean you are talking on behalf of others?

I was simply thinking of myself as one of those who respond here. If my use of 'we' appears to suggest that I am speaking on behalf of others, then let's change it to 'I'.

Quote:
Do you have any data to refute my *hypothesis that any rebellion by a younger generation is an instinctive, and in most cases an inchoate, or primal response to an innate drive?


Not a shred. I am making no attempt to refute it.
RSoul
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 8:08:00 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
BobShilling wrote:
BobShilling wrote:
We'd need some form of evidence that there has been 'youth rebellion' for millennia before we could pass judgement.

RSoul wrote:
Well, in that case I wouldn't pass judgement then.


Quite. That's why I said I couldn't.

Quote:
When you use the first person plural 'we' does that mean you are talking on behalf of others?

I was simply thinking of myself as one of those who respond here. If my use of 'we' appears to suggest that I am speaking on behalf of others, then let's change it to 'I'.

Quote:
Do you have any data to refute my *hypothesis that any rebellion by a younger generation is an instinctive, and in most cases an inchoate, or primal response to an innate drive?


Not a shred. I am making no attempt to refute it.


I was merely speculating that as there was anecdotal reporting of youthful rebellion even in antiquity, and many primitive human societies have definite youth 'rites of passage' to this day, it may be a recognised existent human phenomena.

In which case it may very well have an evolutionary purpose. Evolution (in my subjective opinion) is not a gradual improvement or increase in organic or behavioural complexity. Evolution is fundamentally bio-survival. Any complexity or errant (or otherwise) behaviour or development is a by product of genetic transmission. Essentially it is a roll of the dice by random mutation.

I have no empirical data to support this, of course, but I suspect it.

I also suspect that a recent update by Canonical has caused the optical drive on my Lenovo laptop to only work sporadically. Anecdotal data from other people running the 16.0.4 LTS operating system seems to support this assumption. On the Ubuntu forums however the general consensus is that this is a hardware problem. It very well could be. However, several people have reported that they can run an external optical drive (as I can) but their internal drive is sometimes not recognised. I have no empirical data to prove that this is primarily not a hardware problem, but there is an indication that a specific update has caused this on some machines.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Romany
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 11:33:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,042
Neurons: 50,816
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
RS - no, I didn't misunderstand you: - you were tossing an hypothesis around - I was merely responding with my own thoughts.

We can't, I don't think, impose modern constructions on past history. As you say, initition ceremonies were held to mark passage into women's or man's estate. They still are. But the difference is that in many contemporary societies these milestones have lost their original significance as passage into adult estate.

But when a girl has her first period people archly say "Now you're a woman." In reality, in our world-view, she is still just a kid and, period or no period, 12yr old girls(as an average age for the onset of menstruation)) are NOT women - and are usually not even in the world of dating, let alone the world of having sex and bringing forth babies which is what women do. A 16yr old boy who is considered adult enough to take charge of his own car is not considered old enough to lead men into battle.

But until recent times initiation onto adult estate everywhere meant exactly that: instant adulthood. There were no allowances made for a trainee period. As soon as she started menstuating a "woman" was able to be married and, royal or daughter of a starving peasant alike, hopefully a mother before her 14th birthday. And sixteen yr-old rulers of countries, states, kingdoms, clans, tribes were responsible for them - if the battle were lost they would be blamed; victorious they won unquestioning loyalty.

So when I said there were no teenagers of course I didn't mean that chronologically 'cos that would be bollocks. I meant conceptually.

Instead, I would argue the evidence is clear "youthful rebellion" is merely a societal construct. One which is niether universal nor yet habituated. So no, not embedded.

So, ok, if we look at recorded history, rather than conjecturing about earlier human development, we still have to take into consideration the fact that men went straight from boy to man; women from maid to mother, without any interim period of being cut some slack as they transitioned from one to the other.

History is replete with tales of rebellion - but I think that to try to go through them and seperate these (usually) major milestones in our collective past experiences around age parameters, doesn't necessarily back up your suggested thesis. What I do think history bears out, though, is that rebellions were equally fomented by those come newly to a position;those with wide & long experience; idealists and self-servers. Chronological age was not a determining factor.

It would seem that changed perceptions of young adults, which had begun in the late 19th century,solidified in the 1950s. Not randomly either, but in the wake of two world wars where an entire generation was either wiped out or left impaired mentally and/or physically. From then on we Western countries led the march to infantalising our young. We began making them less and less responsible, while pushing them further and further back into childhood, so that 18yr-olds can be referred to as "children" in some press circles, thus enforcing public perceptions.

But then, "Youthful rebellion" today doesn't really refer to rebellion against oppressive regimes/powers though, does it? It's become a blanket-term to dismiss bad and irresponsible behaviour.

A teenager leads a revolt against the catering company at their school. Youthful rebellion.
A teenager takes a parents car-keys buys a 6-pack, takes their mates out, totals the car. Youthful rebellion.
Henry VIII at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Youthful rebellion.

EDITED To fix lay-out.












FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 12:21:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,198
Neurons: 60,589
In contemplating the use of profanity, there can be little doubt, I think, that it satisfies one desire for the person who uses it — profanity draws attention to the person who expresses it.

The desire to stand out from the crowd, to be seen as an individual, and to have value placed on one’s existence can be seen as a strong motivation for rebellion in all its forms. Changing the forms of what is considered the “norm” in behavior may also be part of the rebellious instinct, if we can call it that.

It certainly appears to be true that each generation sees itself as the progenitor of “The Way It Ought to Be” as they come of decision-making age, usually much to the consternation of the older generation.

In years past, profanity was considered to be the language of the poorly educated, lower-class group of people in society. That began to change in the last century here in the U.S. with comedians like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin with his, “Seven words You Can Never Say on Television”.

Today, profanity is ubiquitous in ordinary conversations and in entertainment, and the seven words are used daily in movies that can be seen on television. Perhaps future generations will rebel against that, and demand a more demure style of speech. Who knows?

Or it may be that many common forms of profanity will become the acceptable words to use. The word “vagina” means “sheath”. It may be apocryphal, but I read once that the word was used by Roman soldiers as a ribald joke. The word “penis” means “tail”, which seems very odd since no creature I’ve ever heard of has a tail on the front of its body, but — whatever. Today, it would appear that a ribald joke and a word for “tail” are the “proper” medical terms for those body parts.

But it seems that profanity is currently “acceptable” language for a large number of people in the social matrix. Seventy-five to one hundred years ago, tattoos and piercings would have been the province of “strange, weird, and odd-ball” people. Today it is seen as part of the norm. Eventually, there will be a rebellion against that, and no doubt, a new form of what will be considered “strange, weird, and odd-ball” expression will take form. And the cycle repeats itself, with perhaps, profanity becoming profane once again, in its proletariat definition, and used as it has always been used — to draw attention to to those who express it, for good or ill.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
RSoul
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 2:13:44 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
RS - no, I didn't misunderstand you: - you were tossing an hypothesis around - I was merely responding with my own thoughts.

Either way, I believe we are talking about a different thing.

We can't, I don't think, impose modern constructions on past history. As you say, initition ceremonies were held to mark passage into women's or man's estate. They still are. But the difference is that in many contemporary societies these milestones have lost their original significance as passage into adult estate.

I’m not imposing any constructions on past history. I think we are looking at this from different ends. I’m not trying to impose a constructed ceremonial framework on any human behaviour patterns. I am suggesting that very ancient, atavistic and instinctive drives can have effects on modern behaviour. A domesticated cat will play with a ball of string, stalk birds or mark territory by defecation, marking or spraying. These are purely instinctive acts and essentially have no relevance to a pampered and well fed pet cat that doesn’t need to fight for territory and kill to eat. Human beings are a primate and we must have similar primal and atavistic primate drives that are now no longer relevant even to our present stage of evolution. These drives are most likely to surface during puberty and territorial primate behaviour is often displayed by hormone and angst ridden teenage girls and boys.

But when a girl has her first period people archly say "Now you're a woman." In reality, in our world-view, she is still just a kid and, period or no period, 12yr old girls(as an average age for the onset of menstruation)) are NOT women - and are usually not even in the world of dating, let alone the world of having sex and bringing forth babies which is what women do. A 16yr old boy who is considered adult enough to take charge of his own car is not considered old enough to lead men into battle.

I suppose it all depends on if you are standing on an African savannah three hundred thousand years ago, with a very short life expectancy, or not.

But until recent times initiation onto adult estate everywhere meant exactly that: instant adulthood. There were no allowances made for a trainee period. As soon as she started menstuating a "woman" was able to be married and, royal or daughter of a starving peasant alike, hopefully a mother before her 14th birthday. And sixteen yr-old rulers of countries, states, kingdoms, clans, tribes were responsible for them - if the battle were lost they would be blamed; victorious they won unquestioning loyalty.

This sounds anecdotal, although I’m not contesting it didn’t happen ever. I only mentioned initiation ceremonies as they may originally have been some sort of tribal ameliorating coping strategy. A way of sublimating rebellious pubescent behaviour initiated by the effects of hormonal triggers. Young wolves and wild dogs live gregariously in their respective packs but will eventually challenge older alpha males and females. My contention is that this behaviour is also possibly deeply rooted in human societies, although it has become in the main unconscious and is an atavism from a violent hominid past.

So when I said there were no teenagers of course I didn't mean that chronologically 'cos that would be bollocks. I meant conceptually.

I think being hung up on the term ‘teenagers’ and any semiotic baggage it has is what’s caused the confusion. James Dean may be responsible for this. He should have listened to Obi Wan about driving that car.

Instead, I would argue the evidence is clear "youthful rebellion" is merely a societal construct. One which is niether universal nor yet habituated. So no, not embedded.

I should imagine it is indeed a construct, possibly invented by Hollywood. I’m not discussing teenage rebellion however. I was more concerned with primal and atavistic evolutionary drives influencing modern behaviour. It seems to me that this is a distinct possibility.

So, ok, if we look at recorded history, rather than conjecturing about earlier human development, we still have to take into consideration the fact that men went straight from boy to man; women from maid to mother, without any interim period of being cut some slack as they transitioned from one to the other.

History is replete with tales of rebellion - but I think that to try to go through them and seperate these (usually) major milestones in our collective past experiences around age parameters, doesn't necessarily back up your suggested thesis. What I do think history bears out, though, is that rebellions were equally fomented by those come newly to a position;those with wide & long experience; idealists and self-servers. Chronological age was not a determining factor.

It would seem that changed perceptions of young adults, which had begun in the late 19th century,solidified in the 1950s. Not randomly either, but in the wake of two world wars where an entire generation was either wiped out or left impaired mentally and/or physically. From then on we Western countries led the march to infantalising our young. We began making them less and less responsible, while pushing them further and further back into childhood, so that 18yr-olds can be referred to as "children" in some press circles, thus enforcing public perceptions.

But then, "Youthful rebellion" today doesn't really refer to rebellion against oppressive regimes/powers though, does it? It's become a blanket-term to dismiss bad and irresponsible behaviour.

A teenager leads a revolt against the catering company at their school. Youthful rebellion.
A teenager takes a parents car-keys buys a 6-pack, takes their mates out, totals the car. Youthful rebellion.
Henry VIII at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Youthful rebellion.


Recorded history wasn’t the basis of my original speculation though. I read once that the Neanderthals used the same design tools for millennia. I am not sure how true this is. The same toolmaking skills were passed on unchanged for generations. From what I can ascertain they were also ambush hunters as well as gatherers. One of the differences between our Neanderthal cousins and us was that our ancestors were apparently consistently modifying the tools, weapons and hunting strategies or tactics they used over generations. I’ve often wondered what promoted this behaviour as it seems a bit energy and work intensive. As we’re still here and the Neanderthals are toast I’ve pondered whether our survival had something to do with an innate human behaviour which helped us to adapt. Some human behaviour, particularly at the onset of puberty (continuing into late teens and early twenties), seems indicative of this. But, as I told the collective earlier, I have no empirical and biological data to prove this outright.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
RSoul
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 2:23:42 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
FounDit wrote:
[size=6]The word “penis” means “tail”,


I thought 'tail' in Latin was 'cauda'. Penis is most probably related to penetrare, penitus (inner) and penus (interior of a house).

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:22:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,198
Neurons: 60,589
RSoul wrote:
FounDit wrote:
[size=6]The word “penis” means “tail”,


I thought 'tail' in Latin was 'cauda'. Penis is most probably related to penetrare, penitus (inner) and penus (interior of a house).


Now that you mention it, I recall having explored this many years ago when I first came across "cauda". I found that there seems to be a bifurcation of thought concerning mammals between zoological species and so-called "higher vertebrates".

From TFD:

cauda (ˈkɔːdə)
n
1. (Zoology) zoology the area behind the anus of an animal; tail
2. (Anatomy) anatomy
a. any tail-like structure
b. the posterior part of an organ

pe•nis (ˈpi nɪs)

n., pl. -nis•es, -nes (-nēz).
the male organ of copulation and, in mammals, of urinary excretion.
[1685–95; < Latin pēnis tail, penis]

Granted, my current source only goes back approximately 330 years, but seems to indicate some historical research as having been done, so when I first read this definition in my youth, I thought it might be accurate, and accepted it as true.

BTW, your comment on Neanderthals and their disappearance made me laugh. Modern DNA research has it that all of us contain some DNA from Neanderthals, suggesting that we interbred with them. The idea we killed and ate them all provided an amusing idea of how that DNA within us came to be.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
RSoul
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:34:55 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
FounDit wrote:
RSoul wrote:
FounDit wrote:
[size=6]The word “penis” means “tail”,


I thought 'tail' in Latin was 'cauda'. Penis is most probably related to penetrare, penitus (inner) and penus (interior of a house).


Now that you mention it, I recall having explored this many years ago when I first came across "cauda". I found that there seems to be a bifurcation of thought concerning mammals between zoological species and so-called "higher vertebrates".

From TFD:

cauda (ˈkɔːdə)
n
1. (Zoology) zoology the area behind the anus of an animal; tail
2. (Anatomy) anatomy
a. any tail-like structure
b. the posterior part of an organ

pe•nis (ˈpi nɪs)

n., pl. -nis•es, -nes (-nēz).
the male organ of copulation and, in mammals, of urinary excretion.
[1685–95; < Latin pēnis tail, penis]

Granted, my current source only goes back approximately 330 years, but seems to indicate some historical research as having been done, so when I first read this definition in my youth, I thought it might be accurate, and accepted it as true.

BTW, your comment on Neanderthals and their disappearance made me laugh. Modern DNA research has it that all of us contain some DNA from Neanderthals, suggesting that we interbred with them. The idea we killed and ate them all provided an amusing idea of how that DNA within us came to be.


Yeah, I often spend hours trying to discover the origins of words. The word penis could be used for 'tail' I reckon. Probably has some obscure Indo-European root as well.

Here's a dictionary for you: http://www.bosworthtoller.com/

I think we probably had the Denosivans as a second course lol.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Y111
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2019 11:15:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 351
Neurons: 1,739
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
RSoul wrote:
I think we probably had the Denosivans as a second course lol.

We will be eaten by some artificial forms of humans, I think. Our natural evolution has ended.
RSoul
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 6:03:28 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
Y111 wrote:
RSoul wrote:
I think we probably had the Denosivans as a second course lol.

We will be eaten by some artificial forms of humans, I think. Our natural evolution has ended.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMt3SzAH_i0

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Y111
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 7:48:43 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 351
Neurons: 1,739
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
RSoul wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMt3SzAH_i0

Well, that's not quite what I meant, if I understood it correctly. :) I think humans will inevitably begin to improve themselves genetically, and this process may lead them very far from what they are now. Why would they stick to the current form? What is the advantage? It's transitory anyway.
RSoul
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 8:11:31 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
Y111 wrote:
RSoul wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMt3SzAH_i0

Well, that's not quite what I meant, if I understood it correctly. :) I think humans will inevitably begin to improve themselves genetically, and this process may lead them very far from what they are now. Why would they stick to the current form? What is the advantage? It's transitory anyway.


It's an interesting notion that natural evolution has ended. I doubt it, somehow, but evolution is not about becoming more complex or gradual improvement. It's just biosurvival. Anything else is a by-product.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Y111
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 9:59:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 351
Neurons: 1,739
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
RSoul wrote:
It's an interesting notion that natural evolution has ended. I doubt it, somehow, but evolution is not about becoming more complex or gradual improvement. It's just biosurvival. Anything else is a by-product.

I don't mean it has stopped working, only that its speed is so low in comparison with possible artificial changes to our genes that its influence is negligible. That is, our further development will be in our hands rather than in the hands of nature. Maybe it won't happen tomorrow but I don't see why it shouldn't happen at all. What is so sacred about our current form? Why should we stick to it? Suppose we decide to terraform Mars and live there, its low gravity will cause problems for us, and we can't change it. But we could change ourselves, maybe creating a Martian race of humans.
RSoul
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 10:27:12 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
Y111 wrote:
RSoul wrote:
It's an interesting notion that natural evolution has ended. I doubt it, somehow, but evolution is not about becoming more complex or gradual improvement. It's just biosurvival. Anything else is a by-product.

I don't mean it has stopped working, only that its speed is so low in comparison with possible artificial changes to our genes that its influence is negligible. That is, our further development will be in our hands rather than in the hands of nature. Maybe it won't happen tomorrow but I don't see why it shouldn't happen at all. What is so sacred about our current form? Why should we stick to it? Suppose we decide to terraform Mars and live there, its low gravity will cause problems for us, and we can't change it. But we could change ourselves, maybe creating a Martian race of humans.


But that's the thing about evolution; it's slow. Living fossils haven't needed to change really. That's all evolution is; biosurvival.

I don't know about genetic engineering or terraforming on Mars. The lower gravity seemed to suit John Carter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlvYKl1fjBI&t=5s

Many say that this was a rip off of Star Wars.

It wasn't ... https://www.gutenberg.org/files/604/604-h/604-h.htm

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Y111
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 11:11:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 351
Neurons: 1,739
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
RSoul wrote:
But that's the thing about evolution; it's slow.

Yes, and that's why we can't rely on it anymore. We need a faster vehicle.

RSoul wrote:
The lower gravity seemed to suit John Carter.

He didn't live there long enough, I guess, and also was a fictional character. That helps a lot. Take for example the Borg woman from your video — she could speak without lungs. Neither you nor I can do it. You might say that she could have spoken through a built-in loudspeaker, but then, why were her lips moving? No, no, she just took advantage of being fictional.
RSoul
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 12:50:37 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
Y111 wrote:
Yes, and that's why we can't rely on it anymore. We need a faster vehicle.


I'm not sure why we need anything faster. We manipulate our own environment now, more or less, which may have some evolutionary effect. Unless you're referring to climate change. There is an answer to that, but nobody wants to implement it. It's probably too late. As I told the collective earlier we're only 300, 000 years old as a species, basically talking monkeys. Rapid evolution isn't going to help with a greenhouse effect caused by burning all those fossil fuels. I don't think planetary settlement is a viable alternative and exoplanets are too far away.

Y111 wrote:
He didn't live there long enough, I guess, and also was a fictional character. That helps a lot. Take for example the Borg woman from your video — she could speak without lungs. Neither you nor I can do it. You might say that she could have spoken through a built-in loudspeaker, but then, why were her lips moving? No, no, she just took advantage of being fictional.


I doubt Mars would be a good place to colonise. With virtually no magnetic field low gravity would be the least of your problems. Even if you could subsist on potatoes grown in crap the extremes of temperature and overall weather conditions would make human life incredibly difficult.

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Y111
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 2:39:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 351
Neurons: 1,739
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
RSoul wrote:
I doubt Mars would be a good place to colonise.

I used it to illustrate how changing ourselves could help us. It seems this idea is alien to you. For some reason you seem to be afraid of that change. This is what I don't understand, and I have already asked this question: what is so sacred about our current form? Why should we stick to it? Is this form perfect? But since you say it's a talking monkey, you apparently don't think so.

This monkey not only talks but is also coming close to understanding how to make itself into something better, not having to wait another 300,000 years, maybe in vain.

Changing the environment was the only option in the past. Our nature was a constant. But it will cease to be a constant in the foreseeable future. We will be able to adapt ourselves to the environment. So, my question is: should we do so? If not, why? Personally I think it's inevitable. Remaining a talking monkey forever just looks absurd.
RSoul
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2019 3:12:56 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/29/2019
Posts: 133
Neurons: 557
Y111 wrote:
RSoul wrote:
I doubt Mars would be a good place to colonise.

I used it to illustrate how changing ourselves could help us. It seems this idea is alien to you. For some reason you seem to be afraid of that change. This is what I don't understand, and I have already asked this question: what is so sacred about our current form? Why should we stick to it? Is this form perfect? But since you say it's a talking monkey, you apparently don't think so.

This monkey not only talks but is also coming close to understanding how to make itself into something better, not having to wait another 300,000 years, maybe in vain.

Changing the environment was the only option in the past. Our nature was a constant. But it will cease to be a constant in the foreseeable future. We will be able to adapt ourselves to the environment. So, my question is: should we do so? If not, why? Personally I think it's inevitable. Remaining a talking monkey forever just looks absurd.


I wouldn't say the idea is alien to me, but it doesn't seem a practical or viable solution. I don't want to get all Mary Shelley about it, but it took millions of years for the talking monkey to evolve, and it's far from perfect.

However, I believe it is a hubris to believe science can drastically improve the talking monkey. I'm not talking about curative medicine or healing illnesses as these are obviously beneficial. But drastically altering the monkey itself for some adaptive reason sounds like asking for trouble.

This isn't about the sacred or the profane but about knowledge and wisdom. I think it took around four billion years to go from stromatolites to talking monkeys capable of inventing frozen pizza. We need to learn more before we start getting all 'Seedling Stars'.

Here's a couple of books you may like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_and_First_Men

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seedling_Stars

Ubuntu isn't Swahili for 'can't install Debian'.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.