Originally posted by KazetNagorraI saw and recognized the typo and didn't make an issue out of it. He went on to defend it as not being that bad a thing in his next post.
Quackquack's typo is rather unfortunate; of course he meant to say that he tries [b]not to curse in front of four-year olds. It's rather telling that you would seriously think that any person would actively try to curse in front of four-year olds, although it does produce amusing visuals.[/b]
Got it?
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15KN is correct (1) I intended to say I try NOT to curse in front of four year olds.
I saw and recognized the typo and didn't make an issue out of it. He went on to defend it as not being that bad a thing in his next post.
Got it?
(2) someone seeking to curse in front of four-year-olds does produce a more amusing visual.
In the general scheme of what goes on in the world, cursing isn't really a serious issue. We have children without homes, kids subjected to domestic violence, without adequate food, fresh drinking or sufficient clothing, there are kids who are orphans, have parents who use serious drugs or simply have parents who do not care about them, there are children exposed to dangerous chemicals or live in war zones or other violent areas, some kids are physically safe but do not have sufficient opportunities to educate themselves. In fact the list of terrible things four year old on our planet are subjected to is virtually endless.
So, to summarize quickly: cursing in front of a four year old a not good idea; however, when you look at it holistically cursing ain't that big a deal either.
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackLike I said:
KN is correct (1) I intended to say I try NOT to curse in front of four year olds.
(
In the general scheme of what goes on in the world, cursing isn't really a serious issue. W
So, to summarize quickly: cursing in front of a four year old a not good idea; however, when you look at it holistically cursing ain't that big a deal either.
I saw the typo and din't make an issue out of it but you just kept on saying it was no big deal. You still are. I say it IS a big deal.
So what exactly are you and KN arguing with me about?
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15I couldn't disagree with you more. Homelessness, violence, inadequate food and water, substandard parents are problems four year olds face. While cursing is a negative, there are a lot more serious things facing four year olds than hearing a word like the f-word or "a-hole"
Like I said:
I saw the typo and din't make an issue out of it but you just kept on saying it was no big deal. You still are. I say it IS a big deal.
So what exactly are you and KN arguing with me about?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15why mention woman in with children? do you see man and woman as different in regards to hearing bad language?
Hearing a few, right.
But it's attitudes like yours that lead to it becoming a continual stream of such filth in front of women and children to the point where people don't bat an eye at it.
Why don't you see that?
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes its really quite interesting and I think it stems from the chivalric code of the middle ages where ladies were somewhat rather more esteemed than they are today with respect to manners and proper etiquette. Even now in Scotland there is a different tone that young men take in the presence of young women than among the company of their peers.
why mention woman in with children? do you see man and woman as different in regards to hearing bad language?
In days gone by once Europe had realised that the Greeks were wrong in their evaluation of the fairer sex and that women were not mere carnal creatures the troubadours of Europe elevated them to a position in which their virtues were deemed as worthy of imitation. Chastity and patience were honoured, felicity and modesty heralded. Added to this aura was the fact that throughout the colonies which had entered the 'New world', ladies became especially precious from their scarcity and I believe it was once a capital offence to 'put ones hand on a lady', even in America. To insult the honour of a lady any gentlemen was willing to duel; with French foils or pistols.
Alas this is all but gone in England, the English having lost their few redeeming features, their sense of etiquette and fair play and its only now seen in its last ragged vestiges among the nobility of Scotland and 1950's Disney movies. Farewell to a heroic age of virtue and temperance, of valour and glory, of men willing to stand up for a ladies honour safe in valour's glory!
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedIts rather interesting. In my own experience the thought of offending a lady by offering her assistance has never crossed my mind, indeed its offensive to all moral sensibilities to observe a lady struggle with a pram up a set of stairs or onto a bus. Our mothers brought us up to respect the fact, our fathers likewise. I don't think that there are many ladies except perhaps the most determined insensitive enough to take offence. One only has to observe women engaged in some little menial task together to realise that helping by even little degrees and small gestures is generally appreciated. Why the change from a tone of chivalry to one of mere expediency is hard to say. Is romance really dead? If you can throw any insight on the matter I would be rather interested.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat about a bloke struggling with a pram up a set of stairs or onto a bus?
Its rather interesting. In my own experience the thought of offending a lady by offering her assistance has never crossed my mind, indeed its offensive to all moral sensibilities to observe a lady struggle with a pram up a set of stairs or onto a bus. Our mothers brought us up to respect the fact, our fathers likewise. I don't think that there are ...[text shortened]... s romance really dead? If you can throw any insight on the matter I would be rather interested.