does honesty need to be harsh? (page 8)

SixofNine

Herr Schtepf? No, I don't think he likes that at all!

hillary_step

Onacruse,

Anything will do - some days I wish I had chosen an easier psuedonym like Khumbu Icefall, Cyril Crampon or Chomolungma Outcrop.

HS

SixofNine

I was only pixels away from changing my posting name to "Norgay's Pratfall" when Hillary showed up in the forum and ruined my idea.

Ravyn

ok here's another log on this fire....LOL

OBJECTIVE honesty versus SUBJECTIVE honesty

objective-factually based that can be proven by empirical evidence

subjective-based on personal experience, opinion and values that cannot be proven by empirical evidence but is none-the-less valid

so if I call someone an idiot, I can say then that it is not a downgrading insult, but an honest opinion? where do we draw the line? how about at politeness and etiquette? or are they also too subjective? it is polite to burp after a meal in Hungary, but not in the US.....

where do individual 'rights' come into it? I have the 'right' to pick my nose. But I do not have the 'right' to flick my boogers onto the stranger in front of me. It is not polite to pick my nose in a public restaurant.

honestly, everyone needs to pick their nose sometimes. "don't pick your nose you ill-mannered inbred creton!" too harsh? ill-mannered could be an honest observation. inbred creton could also be true, therefore honest. appropriate? subjective? objective?

makes me think about how about 120 years ago it was stylish to have a 'smoking salon' that the men retired to after dinner to smoke and have a drink apart from the women. And if a man wanted to smoke in anyone's prescence anywhere else in the house he polite asked permission, "do you mind if I smoke?" Now smoking is a 'right' and is public and has become an issue with intense emotions on both sides. Objective Honesty says smoking is deadly to those who smoke and those who breathe in the smoke from others. So when someone is smoking in the non-smoking section of a restaurant--how do you respond? Do you politely ask the waiter to tell them it is not appropriate? Do you say something yourself to the smoker? Do you get up and change tables? Do you get up and change tables making a point of choking and snorting as you walk past the smoker and cast them a dirty look? Do you loudly tell them they can smoke their MFing cigarette in Hell for all you care? Do you get up and snap the offending cigarette in half as it dangles from their gaping mouths?(My father did this once.)

what are the modern lines we stay behind or dare to cross? The internet is a whole new world and it has happened faster than anyone thought it would. What are the new rules?

Ravyn

gumby

Sorry, no results were found containing "Norgay's Pratfall"

SEARCH TIPS

1) Check your spelling. Are the words in your query spelled correctly?

2) Try using synonyms. Maybe the site you're looking for uses slightly different words, like "film" instead of "movie".

3) Make your search more general. For example, instead of using specific product names, try using the generic product category

onacruse

LOL

Well then, perhaps "Hoc Sustinete, majus ne veniat malum" and "Senza Organo" will do?

DannyBear

hillary-step,

**** I feel that I have successfully argued that 'harshness' in the written word is sometimes justified in the validation of important issues. I have also argued that what is identified as an important issue to one person, may not be to another, hence hurt feelings when 'harshness' is used on online discussion boards in validating an issue.****

Although I agree that in matters concerning repressive regimes, cultic religious dogma, and telling someone who is standing on a railroad track in the face of an oncoming train, may in fact require harsh even boldly profane language....'Get the fu*k off the tracks a train is coming'.... adding the additional 'idiot' is superfluous to say the least.

We are not debating the necessity of harsh language per se, just the particular timing and place for such language ie: db's in particular.

As to whether harsh and insensitive words validate an issue, I beg to differ. The most endearing words to the mind and heart are those that carry power and force, with the compliment of words chosen that penetrate past personal status or fabricated self importance.

Abe Lincoln's Gettyburg address was one of those written masterpieces. That one speech can be credited with binding up deep wounds on both sides of the conflict.

No issue or point of view, has ever been validated by the destruction of anothers self worth or spirit.

Danny

teejay

Speaking honestly and hopefully not harshly TJ -- hillary_step

Your words were not harsh, HS.

If it seems that one person has been the focus of (our) comments, it's because that one is the ONLY one still remaining of a once larger band of posters -- most of whom are now long gone -- who subscribe to the belief that, owing to their singularly unique and gifted perception, the use of insulting, abusive speech has a proper place on this forum. As long as I've been here, I've disagreed with that perception and will continue to fight against it.

You may feel that you have satisfactorily argued the justification of using harsh wording, but I don't think you have made a compelling case at all. I put your defense of harsh language in the same category as I do Six's laudatory (but unfounded) comments. That is the reason why I challenged Six to provide some sort of evidence to support his assertion that Alan had been so successful in helping so many via his abusive technique -- a dubious claim at the very least. Do you consider my characterization of Six as a "fan of AlanF" overly harsh? If so, (which it IS NOT), then it might have helped a casual reader to put Six's ridiculous claim into the proper perspective. For there is no proof that abusive language has ever helped anyone, and Six's praise of Alan's methods can be attributed to one thing and one thing only... what I hinted at when I called him a fan. I doubt that he will even attempt to provide any empirical evidence -- none exists! Besides... what need does a fan have for empirical evidence? ;)

>>> I must suggest to you that when you argue issues on this Board you try to bury the past upsets that you have had with persons whom you have identified in the past in disparaging tones as the 'elite' on this Board and try to divorce personalities from your posts.

I am not one who holds grudges. If you think that is the impetus behind my ongoing "crusade" for civility and common courtesy, then you don't know me very well at all. While Alan and I have had our "battles," I can truthfully say that he has never injured me and doubt that he's ever tried. I simply believe that if something good can be accomplished by being harsh, something far better can be had by being something other than harsh. My thesis is just that simple.

>> A person may agree with AlanF because he happens to be right about an issue and disagree with you because you happen to be wrong.

That is true. It is an equally valid point that there are those who agree with Alan (or me) simply because they like Alan (or me), not because he is right. And vice versa! The issue, HS, is larger than the affection different ones hold for this or that personality. Really... the validity of my argument has nothing to with personality--to me, it would be just as wrong for my closest friends to use abusive language--as much as it has to do with principle. On that principle I cannot seem to bend nor see any need to do so.

SixofNine

Not to be harsh, but you're such a pussy with a little man complex, teejay. The evidence, while not empirical, convinces me nonetheless.

teejay

Such harsh words, Sixy!!

tj ~ who's @ Too-Easy-Sixy

does honesty need to be harsh?

Share this