When you say “Fuck you!” to someone, are you hoping that they get laid?
That’s all very interesting, but how does it demonstrate that the Religious Right has the FCC under it’s thumb?
It doesn’t. It simply shows that the RR tries to wield influence over what should or should not be shown on TV. They’re hardly alone in that regard, which is one reason why you don’t have cigarette ads on TV anymore.
Again, how does this show that the RCC has them under their thumb? It doesn’t. Quite the contrary; since they frequently do not acquiesce, this suggests that the RR does not wield ultimate power over the FCC, as as you claimed they did.
Most profanity is like that. Does anybody really think about the literal meaning of “son of a bitch,” or “bastard” when they say it?
“Fuck you” doesn’t even parse to anything semantically sensible.
That’s why I always say unfuck you.
I know a woman who says that “fuck you” is actually expressing a desire that the person addressed be violently raped.
I honestly can’t remember the last time I said “fuck you” to anybody. It was decades ago, most likely when I was a college student. I don’t say it because (a) it’s semantically meaningless and (b) it’s grossly overused.
[raising hand]Yep. I do.
I remember once when I got in my argument with my brother. It got quite heated, and he called me a son of a bitch. I started laughing. He asked why, and I told him, think about it! He started laughing, too, and the argument ended.
I understand that. It’s all in the spelling.
“dam” or “damn” = frustration or anger, as in “No, dammit, I don’t want to buy your damned extended warranty.”
“dayum” = awe, as in “Willya look at that girl? Dayum!”
This article appears to support my statement (from 2005): FCC hires Religious Right activist to serve as 'decency advisor'. - Free Online Library
So they’re taking the Lord’s name in vain when they say it?
One would have to first agree that there IS a lord for that to happen. They’d also have to define what “in vain” means. There’s a whole can of worms to deal with there.
That’s an interesting question – can you take the name of a fictional character in vain?
Of course, those people who make the request don’t think that’s what you’re doing.
Can we leave aside the question of God’s existence here? I get it, some of you are atheists and don’t think that taking the Lord’s name in vain is a problem because you don’t believe in him. That’s really not relevant here.
As to what it means to take his name in vain, I think dictionary.com covers it pretty well:
I bolded the relevant passage.
Well I think that’s precisely what’s relevant. It’s your belief; not mine.
It’s very relevant.
Why are Christians not supposed to take the Lord’s name in vain? Because the Ten Commandments forbid it. They don’t say it’s a sin to stand next to somebody else who does it, though.
No, it doesn’t. It says that the FCC got themselves an advisor from the Religious Right. Even if we assume that claim to be 100% accurate, it only means that they’re considering the Right’s point of view. It does not mean that said advisor wields ultimate power over the FCC with a big honkin’ hammer.
Not as far as it relates to the OP, it isn’t. Unless you’re saying that you wouldn’t attempt to not say it in that person’s presence solely because you don’t believe in God, which is fine.
BTW, I understand that people do not have the right to not be offended. But assuming someone asked politely and isn’t a pain in the ass, why not just to keep the peace? Seriously, is it really that big a deal?
If anyone in this thread is arguing that you should respect the request because the Ten Commandments require it directly or indirectly of you, or even because the requester believes the TC make such a request of you, please cite it. Otherwise, can we drop this miserable canard?
I’m not suggesting I’d respect the request for any remotely religious reason. I’d respect the request because it does me no harm and it helps someone else avoid discomfort. The reasons for their discomfort are only relevant to me insofar as I don’t in this case think the discomfort is salutary.
Daniel
It isn’t a miserable canard. They are making the request precisely because they are asking you to obey the 3rd commandment in their presence. There is absolutely no other reason for such a request. I have no obligation, or even desire, to obey their bullshit language restrictions.
OTOH, if they asked my to respect the 1st Commandment and not kill anyone in their presence, I would comply. At least the benefit of being codified in laws I am obliged to obey, aside from the fact that I do not deal death on a regular basis anyway.
I take it to mean that the FCC is the Religious Right. Can’t get any more intertwined than that!
I didn’t say to repeat the canard, I said to cite anyone making it as a serious argument.
Say what you want. You characterized it as a miserable canard, presumably off-point. But it is explicitly on point, because the religious connection simply cannot be avoided.
:smack: