4 ms·
> one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people Interesting. That's neither how I use it nor how I see it used around me. To me the main uses seem to be
by gjm11 10y ago
> one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people
Interesting. That's neither how I use it nor how I see it used around me. To me the main uses seem to be to express brief but intense emotion (your thumb/hammer case, but note that similar uses can convey surprise, awe, etc. as well as pain or annoyance), to add emphasis ("shit, that thing's fucking huge", "of course he can afford it -- this is Bill bloody Gates we're talking about", etc.), and to express disapproval ("don't buy that phone, it's a piece of shit").
The last of those can be used to insult ("you arsehole!") but perhaps I move in particularly civilized circles because it's quite rare and almost always applied to people who aren't present (politicians, leaders of predatory businesses, etc.) which you'll notice is the opposite of one thing the insults Jesus is talking about have in common.
Swearing can also be used as an expression of fairly pure hostility ("fuck you"). Again, maybe my friends and colleagues are unusually nice because in my experience this is rare and essentially never meant seriously (perhaps the commonest use is to mean something like "the proposal you have just made is obviously unreasonable and I think you know that as well as I do").
When I hear people object to swearing on religious grounds (which, admittedly, is not very often) they are never objecting only to insults and expressions of hostility and, e.g., objections to swearing on television are never concerned only with such cases.
> I guess those are implied, as people of the era would know anyway
OK, so tell me what you know about the moral norms surrounding language use in the 1st-century Roman-occupied Middle East, and how that enables you to know that saying "shit" or "fuck" today is the equivalent of what Jesus and St Paul were talking about.
> in all societies for millennia
That's a very sweeping claim. I suppose it could be true by definition (i.e., call something "swearing" only if it is commonly regarded as defiling and unwholesome) but then the difficult thing is to establish the link between whatever uses of language Jesus and St Paul regarded as "defiling and unwholesome" and what we call swearing today.
The most promising approach for you, I think, would be to say that the general principle they were aiming at was something like "if some kind of language use is widely regarded by those around you as immoral, don't do it". I can see St Paul taking that line (cf. the business about eating food that's been "offered to idols") but it seems to me exactly not the sort of thing Jesus ever says.
- coldtea 10y ago> one of the main uses of swearing is insulting people >Interesting. That's neither how I use it nor how I see it used around me. To me the main uses seem to be to express brief but intense emotion (your thumb/hammer case, but note that similar uses can convey surprise, awe, etc. as well as pain or annoyance), to add emphasis ("shit, that thing's fucking huge", "of course he can afford it -- this is Bill bloody Gates we're talking about", etc.), and to express disapproval ("don't buy that phone, it's a piece of shit"). Hence, "one of the main cases", not just the sole one. Besides, the latter case "it's a piece of shit" is still for insulting, just not a person but a product/company. It's not a critique or neutral disapproval, it's a dis. >The last of those can be used to insult ("you arsehole!") but perhaps I move in particularly civilized circles because it's quite rare and almost always applied to people who aren't present (politicians, leaders of predatory businesses, etc.) Not so sure about "civilized circles" -- except if we're talking about full California/Whole Foods/sandals and candlesticks kind of civilized. In my experience, you'll find those insults every day in any kind of circle, from the upper echelons of banking and Wall Street (heck, especially there), to truck drivers. >When I hear people object to swearing on religious grounds (which, admittedly, is not very often) they are never objecting only to insults and expressions of hostility and, e.g., objections to swearing on television are never concerned only with such cases. Perhaps, but they emphasized such cases, not merely hitting your thumb cases. >OK, so tell me what you know about the moral norms surrounding language use in the 1st-century Roman-occupied Middle East, and how that enables you to know that saying "shit" or "fuck" today is the equivalent of what Jesus and St Paul were talking about. Quite a lot. Reading history books can do that to a person. I'm not even sure what you're asking though. Jesus explicitly mentioned some expressions that are exact equivalents of today's swear words ("idiot", "jerk", etc). Of course not all of them, but we can easily extrapolate the others. Besides, we have lists of what's considered swearing, rules against swearing etc in Ancient Greece, Ancient Roman Empire, the Byzantium, China, Medieval Europe, etc. Maybe read a tome on the history of profanity and swearing and the cultural norms around them? There are several, both regional and all-around surveys. Here's a recent one in English: https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sh-Brief-History-Swearing/dp/0199742677 https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sh-Brief-History-Swearing/dp/019... >but it seems to me exactly not the sort of thing Jesus ever says What do you mean? Jesus explicitly says in Matthew: "who calls his brother an idiot" will be condemned etc.