c4countdown

Sorry to interject again, but I've just remembered another great story from my childhood. I was in the car with my dad at a young age, maybe like 6 or something again, and I saw a bumper sticker saying something like "Beware: Driver Masturbating". I said to my dad, "what is masturbating". Pretty tough question for any father to have to answer, you might think. Well, not my dad. He told me "it means he's having a wank". I didn't pursue the point.

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:I was talking about an individual case, your daughter. Suppose we were family friends and you, your daughter and I enjoyed playing scrabble together, when would you deem it ok for me to play the word cunt?

She's seven FFS, so definitely not yet. Can't you see that it doesn't make sense to give you an exact date now beyond "not yet"? Seriously I think you're a bit fucked up to ever consider it necessary during childhood tbh.

Here's another similar example. She has Dr Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? on her Nintendo DS, which is advertised as being suitable for ages 3+. In one of the games, it shows you a big list of (random) 4-letter words, and you have to memorise as many as you can in two minutes, and then you get another couple of minutes to enter as many as you can remember. If you were supplying the list of 4 letter words for use in this game, would you have any qualms about including "FUCK", "SHIT" and "CUNT"?

But if not yet, when. That's my question? What difference does it make if she's seven or twenty seven? I'm willing to accept I'm wrong but no one can explain why I am. I can't get my head around it. And no I would have a problem with it. I have scrabble on the DS which is rated 3+ and swear words come up on that.

Mark James wrote:But if not yet, when. That's my question? What difference does it make if she's seven or twenty seven?

Do you apply this logic to everything, or just language?

Mark James wrote:And no I would have a problem with it. I have scrabble on the DS which is rated 3+ and swear words come up on that.

Crumbs. I don't think you'd last long in that particular job.

I don't have the Scrabble game, but I do recall it coming up in the papers - and the publisher explained that the game had a 'junior' mode which suppressed inappropriate words. What a clever idea.

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:But if not yet, when. That's my question? What difference does it make if she's seven or twenty seven?

Do you apply this logic to everything, or just language?

Yes. I apply it to everything. Now stop avoiding the question. If I can't play the word cunt in a game of scrabble against your daughter now as she's seven, when can I?

Mark James wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:But if not yet, when. That's my question? What difference does it make if she's seven or twenty seven?

Do you apply this logic to everything, or just language?

Yes. Now stop avoiding the question.

I'm not avoiding the question as such, I'm just not sure where to begin. You've just said that there is no difference between the way you treat a seven-year-old girl and a twenty-seven-year-old woman.

I think what Mark is getting at is that these things should be questioned. He's saying that, though it's considered abnormal for 1 27 year-old man to have sex with a 7 year-old, it's not necessarily intrinsically wrong. But we can question such an incident and come up with reasons why it is wrong quite easily - how could a 7 year-old consent, if they did do they know the emotional consequences, the physical consequences etc. Now he's (we're) questioning why something else which is not normal, like kids being exposed to swearing, should be considered so.

Jon Corby wrote: Here's another similar example. She has Dr Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? on her Nintendo DS, which is advertised as being suitable for ages 3+. In one of the games, it shows you a big list of (random) 4-letter words, and you have to memorise as many as you can in two minutes, and then you get another couple of minutes to enter as many as you can remember. If you were supplying the list of 4 letter words for use in this game, would you have any qualms about including "FUCK", "SHIT" and "CUNT"?

I would, yes, because I know that some people would object and I'm largely beholden to public pressure if I'm trying to sell a DS game. This doesn't apply to apterous. Plus removing some words from a memory test doesn't damage the game for everyone else, whereas it does in a game where the player is expected to supply the words themselves. So it's quite a different case.

Jon Corby wrote: I'm not avoiding the question as such, I'm just not sure where to begin. You've just said that there is no difference between the way you treat a seven-year-old girl and a twenty-seven-year-old woman.

I didn't quite say that but I guess in the end I'm gonna treat them both as human beings. What ways are there that I could treat a seven year old girl differently to the way I treat a twenty seven year old woman. Obviously I'm not gonna chat up a seven year old girl, beyond that I'm not sure what you mean.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Here's another similar example. She has Dr Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? on her Nintendo DS, which is advertised as being suitable for ages 3+. In one of the games, it shows you a big list of (random) 4-letter words, and you have to memorise as many as you can in two minutes, and then you get another couple of minutes to enter as many as you can remember. If you were supplying the list of 4 letter words for use in this game, would you have any qualms about including "FUCK", "SHIT" and "CUNT"?

I would, yes, because I know that some people would object and I'm largely beholden to public pressure if I'm trying to sell a DS game. This doesn't apply to apterous. Plus removing some words from a memory test doesn't damage the game for everyone else, whereas it does in a game where the player is expected to supply the words themselves. So it's quite a different case.

Anyone else want to say the same thing as me?

A quick hypothetical for you Jon. Imagine your daughter is 27 and is playing apterous and dictionary Corner offers cunt as an alternative max. Is this ok? If you answer no please explain why. If you answer yes then imagine she's 26. Is this still ok. If yes keep imagining the same scenario until she has reached an age where you would deem it is not ok. Then explain why.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Anyone else want to say the same thing as me?

Haha, I expected a counterstrike for that. Obviously I wasn't saying the same thing as you but let's not allow that to obstruct the course of C4C justice.

Mark James wrote:A quick hypothetical for you Jon. Imagine your daughter is 27 and is playing apterous and dictionary Corner offers cunt as an alternative max. Is this ok? If you answer no please explain why. If you answer yes then imagine she's 26. Is this still ok. If yes keep imagining the same scenario until she has reached an age where you would deem it is not ok. Then explain why.

Obviously this is the sorites paradox and all the usual answers to that apply here. By the same logic I could turn your example of flirting with a 27 year old back on you. It doesn't really get us anywhere.

Mark James wrote:A quick hypothetical for you Jon. Imagine your daughter is 27 and is playing apterous and dictionary Corner offers cunt as an alternative max. Is this ok? If you answer no please explain why. If you answer yes then imagine she's 26. Is this still ok. If yes keep imagining the same scenario until she has reached an age where you would deem it is not ok. Then explain why.

Stop being retarded. Imagine a mate/partner/whatever steals £10m from you. Do you think they should go to prison? If you answer yes, imagine instead they steal £9,999,999.99. What about now? If yes, keep imagining the same scenario until you're down to 1p. Should somebody go to prison for stealing 1p? If not, at what exact point blah blah blah

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Here's another similar example. She has Dr Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain? on her Nintendo DS, which is advertised as being suitable for ages 3+. In one of the games, it shows you a big list of (random) 4-letter words, and you have to memorise as many as you can in two minutes, and then you get another couple of minutes to enter as many as you can remember. If you were supplying the list of 4 letter words for use in this game, would you have any qualms about including "FUCK", "SHIT" and "CUNT"?

I would, yes, because I know that some people would object and I'm largely beholden to public pressure if I'm trying to sell a DS game. This doesn't apply to apterous. Plus removing some words from a memory test doesn't damage the game for everyone else, whereas it does in a game where the player is expected to supply the words themselves. So it's quite a different case.

I agree (although the player doesn't supply words that come from DC, so you could argue it applies there). Essentially it comes down to "do I care if some people decide not to play (or let others play) because rude words might appear" which is entirely your call to make, and FWIW I would actually make (and kinda did make) the same call as you, it's too much hassle, isn't particularly straightforward, and at the end of the day it is just a computer coming up with the words without any meaning or context.

That said, I can also completely understand why you would want to be able to play the game with a sanitised dictionary.

I can see and understand both sides of the debate.

Incidentally, my kids have the DS version of the game, and as far as I can recall it has never played a naughty word - although it once played the [obviously invalid] CNUT against me. I don't know what to make of that

Jon Corby wrote:it once played the [obviously invalid] CNUT against me. I don't know what to make of that

Burn it.

Jon Corby wrote: I agree (although the player doesn't supply words that come from DC, so you could argue it applies there). Essentially it comes down to "do I care if some people decide not to play (or let others play) because rude words might appear" which is entirely your call to make, and FWIW I would actually make (and kinda did make) the same call as you, it's too much hassle, isn't particularly straightforward, and at the end of the day it is just a computer coming up with the words without any meaning or context.

Cool.

Jon Corby wrote:I can see and understand both sides of the debate.

...

Jon Corby wrote:Seriously I think you're a bit fucked up

Jon Corby wrote:I can't work out whether you're just being obtuse for the sake of it, playing devil's advocate, or are genuinely retarded.

Jon Corby wrote:Cool, option three it is then.

Jon Corby wrote:Stop being retarded.

Charlie Reams wrote: Obviously this is the sorites paradox and all the usual answers to that apply here. By the same logic I could turn your example of flirting with a 27 year old back on you. It doesn't really get us anywhere.

Fair enough. I'd just like to say at this point I have no problem with Jon's approach to parenthood. I don't have kids but I can appreciate how difficult a job it is and he sounds like a great dad who has his daughters best interest at heart. Maybe if I have kids my attitude will change but for now, for me, words are just words. I don't like **** in place of letters, I don't like bleeps, except where it makes a situation funnier like the Father Ted Eurovision episode, (JUST PLAY THE BLEEPING NOTE!) and I don't like words being removed from a game where the object of the game is to find words. Even non sweary words that they remove from the dictionary just because they're no longer in use.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I can see and understand both sides of the debate.

...

Jon Corby wrote:Seriously I think you're a bit fucked up

Jon Corby wrote:I can't work out whether you're just being obtuse for the sake of it, playing devil's advocate, or are genuinely retarded.

Jon Corby wrote:Stop being retarded.

Yeah?

I can understand:

Side 1: It doesn't matter, they're just words generated by a computer. If you don't like it, don't play (or let your kids play).
Side 2: I'd like to be able to play the game without encountering these words.

I don't understand:

Side 3: It doesn't matter, all words (and anything) should be fair game in front of adults and children alike. There's no difference whatsoever between adults and children.

Mark James wrote:Fair enough.

Cool. Unfortunately when I get a bit frustrated I do get quite sweary (but if you've been around here long you'll know that), and to be told "kids don't need to be protected from anything at any age" is, to me, a ridiculous and baffling stance to take, with or without experience of parenthood.

Just because you don't understand someone's view, doesn't mean you should call them retarded and fucked up. I still think the question of WHY you shield your kids from these words is an interesting and valid one, and I find it bewildering that you can't see that it is an interesting and valid question. Nobody's questioning your parenting so I don't know why you've taken it to heart enough to start insulting people. We can ask "why do you do this" without implying "ur doing it wrong".

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I can see and understand both sides of the debate.

...

Jon Corby wrote:Seriously I think you're a bit fucked up

Jon Corby wrote:I can't work out whether you're just being obtuse for the sake of it, playing devil's advocate, or are genuinely retarded.

Jon Corby wrote:Cool, option three it is then.

Jon Corby wrote:Stop being retarded.

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:Fair enough.

Cool. Unfortunately when I get a bit frustrated I do get quite sweary (but if you've been around here long you'll know that), and to be told "kids don't need to be protected from anything at any age" is, to me, a ridiculous and baffling stance to take, with or without experience of parenthood.

I'd protect my hypothetical kids from paedos, weirdos and Richard Brittain. Why is a kid knowing swear words bad? WHY? WHY????

Jon O'Neill wrote:I'd protect my hypothetical kids from paedos, weirdos and Richard Brittain. Why is a kid knowing swear words bad? WHY? WHY????

Why did you recoil at the thought (earlier in the thread) of playing 'cunt' in a game of Scrabble with an OAP and a child then?

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:A quick hypothetical for you Jon. Imagine your daughter is 27 and is playing apterous and dictionary Corner offers cunt as an alternative max. Is this ok? If you answer no please explain why. If you answer yes then imagine she's 26. Is this still ok. If yes keep imagining the same scenario until she has reached an age where you would deem it is not ok. Then explain why.

Stop being retarded. Imagine a mate/partner/whatever steals £10m from you. Do you think they should go to prison? If you answer yes, imagine instead they steal £9,999,999.99. What about now? If yes, keep imagining the same scenario until you're down to 1p. Should somebody go to prison for stealing 1p? If not, at what exact point blah blah blah

Ok. I have imagined it. Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p. Why shouldn't they? Stealing is stealing, it's against the law and when you break the law you should be sent to prison. After all if you allowed someone to steal a penny every day eventually they'll have stolen £10m (well ok they wouldn't unless they discovered how to live for a very long time). It works both ways. The difference here is I can give a reason why you shouldn't steal. You have still to give a reason why children should not be exposed to certain words. If you were against the word altogether, even for adults, I could understand.

Mark James wrote:Ok. I have imagined it. Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p.

Bitchin'.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I'd protect my hypothetical kids from paedos, weirdos and Richard Brittain. Why is a kid knowing swear words bad? WHY? WHY????

Why did you recoil at the thought (earlier in the thread) of playing 'cunt' in a game of Scrabble with an OAP and a child then?

Yes, good question! Now do you see how it's not a personal issue? I'm not holding myself up as Mr. Logic here, I do illogical stuff all the time, and logical stuff without considering whether it might or might not be logical, and it's interesting to examine why we do it, like

I probably wouldn't play it against a kid who I thought didn't know the word in case they were one of these troublemakers who knows they can get a rise out of their parents from saying a word they know to be naughty. Or if they went to their dad (who may well have anger issues) and said, "daddy, what does cunt mean, that man in the duffel coat and fingerless gloves just taught me it". I probably wouldn't play cunt even in a Scrabble tournament against an oldie because I wouldn't want to offend them.

Mark James wrote:Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mark James wrote:Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p.

Constructive.

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:Ok. I have imagined it. Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p.

Bitchin'.

Constructive.

How about making a counter-argument instead?

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:Ok. I have imagined it. Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p.

Bitchin'.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mark James wrote:Yes you should go to prison for stealing 1p.

I'd like to say I personally don't think you should be sent to prison for stealing 1p, what I was doing was showing there's an argument for it. I've yet to hear the argument for why children should not be exposed to certain words beyond "because they just shouldn't", which is not an argument.

Jon O'Neill wrote:How about making a counter-argument instead?

Essentially, Mark James cannot distinguish between a child and an adult, and thinks they should both be treated the same wrt all things. I really don't have the time nor inclination to do this one. Sorry if that disappoints.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:How about making a counter-argument instead?

Essentially, Mark James cannot distinguish between a child and an adult, and thinks they should both be treated the same wrt all things. I really don't have the time nor inclination to do this one. Sorry if that disappoints.

It is fucking disappointing, this thread is highly frustrating.

Jon Corby wrote: Incidentally, my kids have the DS version of the game, and as far as I can recall it has never played a naughty word - although it once played the [obviously invalid] CNUT against me. I don't know what to make of that

Erm... I've played CUNT 4 times and I'm not bothered, but fuck or shit hasn't come up yet.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Incidentally, my kids have the DS version of the game, and as far as I can recall it has never played a naughty word - although it once played the [obviously invalid] CNUT against me. I don't know what to make of that

Erm... I've played CUNT 4 times and I'm not bothered, but fuck or shit hasn't come up yet.

I think he is more worried about the compuer playing it. His daughter doesn't know that word yet.

Jon O'Neill wrote:How about making a counter-argument instead?

Mark's position is probably internally consistent, although it'd be a miserable world if anyone lived by it (and you can bet he doesn't himself). If you have someone who won't entertain any idea of relative wrong then that's the end of the discussion, you might as well try to give a logical argument for the validity of logic. As far as I'm concerned the objective in an argument is to get the other guy to accept this his argument leads to a ridiculous conclusion (or that they are mistaken, but of course that won't happen), and that's now happened. Call it a TKO.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I still think the question of WHY you shield your kids from these words is an interesting and valid one, and I find it bewildering that you can't see that it is an interesting and valid question.

No-one else has tried to answer this so I thought I'd try to give my humble (not stolen) two penn'orth.

I think children need to be protected from some of the vulgarities in language as they are still learning about themselves and other people, and generally obscenities are insulting. To use the word 'cunt' is firstly one of the strongest ones in the English language, and children need to learn to gauge the strength of what they say as well as the grammar and vocabulary. They also need to learn where it's appropriate, so start with words acceptable to everyone before you interject more offensive ones.

That particular word (as well as many, many others) is an extremely base description of female genitalia, and children need to learn to respect both their own bodies and the opposite sex's, which by describing them in in such base terms inhibits that and jeopardises their relationships with people who may think that their company is unacceptable for their peers in being allowed to use such a word, or that it leaves them open to other more subtle abuses by being perceived as older than they are. I wouldn't let my son play with other children that use that word, and it's a shame for the child that's allowed to use it.

Once children are old enough to feel secure in themselves and have an idea of what they like / dislike, how to express themselves, to be in control of what they say and their emotions, and have a good respect for other people can be a time to allow them to express themselves more freely, and will vary from child to child and family to family. There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but it should be done with love and discipline (in the teaching sense, not the whips and chains sense ) so it's in everyone's interest.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:How about making a counter-argument instead?

Mark's position is probably internally consistent, although it'd be a miserable world if anyone lived by it (and you can bet he doesn't himself). If you have someone who won't entertain any idea of relative wrong then that's the end of the discussion, you might as well try to give a logical argument for the validity of logic. As far as I'm concerned the objective in an argument is to get the other guy to accept this his argument leads to a ridiculous conclusion (or that they are mistaken, but of course that won't happen), and that's now happened. Call it a TKO.

That's better, I'm not sure how the rest of the forum were supposed to infer that from but there we go.

Lesley Hines wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I still think the question of WHY you shield your kids from these words is an interesting and valid one, and I find it bewildering that you can't see that it is an interesting and valid question.

No-one else has tried to answer this so I thought I'd try to give my humble (not stolen) two penn'orth.

I think children need to be protected from some of the vulgarities in language as they are still learning about themselves and other people, and generally obscenities are insulting. To use the word 'cunt' is firstly one of the strongest ones in the English language, and children need to learn to gauge the strength of what they say as well as the grammar and vocabulary. They also need to learn where it's appropriate, so start with words acceptable to everyone before you interject more offensive ones.

That particular word (as well as many, many others) is an extremely base description of female genitalia, and children need to learn to respect both their own bodies and the opposite sex's, which by describing them in in such base terms inhibits that and jeopardises their relationships with people who may think that their company is unacceptable for their peers in being allowed to use such a word, or that it leaves them open to other more subtle abuses by being perceived as older than they are. I wouldn't let my son play with other children that use that word, and it's a shame for the child that's allowed to use it.

Once children are old enough to feel secure in themselves and have an idea of what they like / dislike, how to express themselves, to be in control of what they say and their emotions, and have a good respect for other people can be a time to allow them to express themselves more freely, and will vary from child to child and family to family. There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but it should be done with love and discipline (in the teaching sense, not the whips and chains sense ) so it's in everyone's interest.

That all sounds pretty fair, I guess the way language and reality interact has been philosophised about a thousand times before (maybe even on this forum at some point?) but it's quite interesting.

But if my kid came home and called me a cunt I wouldn't be that troubled. I wouldn't feel it necessary to castigate them, just educate them (maybe I will show them your post). I think going mad about this sort of thing makes the problem worse.

Love and discipline - a great combination.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I still think the question of WHY you shield your kids from these words is an interesting and valid one, and I find it bewildering that you can't see that it is an interesting and valid question.

No-one else has tried to answer this so I thought I'd try to give my humble (not stolen) two penn'orth.

I think children need to be protected from some of the vulgarities in language as they are still learning about themselves and other people, and generally obscenities are insulting. To use the word 'cunt' is firstly one of the strongest ones in the English language, and children need to learn to gauge the strength of what they say as well as the grammar and vocabulary. They also need to learn where it's appropriate, so start with words acceptable to everyone before you interject more offensive ones.

That particular word (as well as many, many others) is an extremely base description of female genitalia, and children need to learn to respect both their own bodies and the opposite sex's, which by describing them in in such base terms inhibits that and jeopardises their relationships with people who may think that their company is unacceptable for their peers in being allowed to use such a word, or that it leaves them open to other more subtle abuses by being perceived as older than they are. I wouldn't let my son play with other children that use that word, and it's a shame for the child that's allowed to use it.

Once children are old enough to feel secure in themselves and have an idea of what they like / dislike, how to express themselves, to be in control of what they say and their emotions, and have a good respect for other people can be a time to allow them to express themselves more freely, and will vary from child to child and family to family. There shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but it should be done with love and discipline (in the teaching sense, not the whips and chains sense ) so it's in everyone's interest.

That all sounds pretty fair, I guess the way language and reality interact has been philosophised about a thousand times before (maybe even on this forum at some point?) but it's quite interesting.

But if my kid came home and called me a cunt I wouldn't be that troubled. I wouldn't feel it necessary to castigate them, just educate them (maybe I will show them your post). I think going mad about this sort of thing makes the problem worse.

Love and discipline - a great combination.

All this.

I'm not against teaching kids how to use and not abuse language. I agree with most of Lesley's post. My point is that I don't agree with shielding children from these words in the first place. Why shouldn't a seven year old be able to see the word cunt written down or perhaps expressed in an art form such as a tv drama/comedy where it makes contextual sense? They have to know the word before they can know not to use it. Yes, a child may come across a word and then use it, it may even be a word you don't want them to use, but my question still stands, why does it matter if this happens when the child is seven months (unlikely I know) seven years or twenty seven years?

Mark James wrote:I'm not against teaching kids how to use and not abuse language. I agree with most of Lesley's post. My point is that I don't agree with shielding children from these words in the first place. Why shouldn't a seven year old be able to see the word cunt written down or perhaps expressed in an art form such as a tv drama/comedy where it makes contextual sense? They have to know the word before they can know not to use it. Yes, a child may come across a word and then use it, it may even be a word you don't want them to use, but my question still stands, why does it matter if this happens when the child is seven months (unlikely I know) seven years or twenty seven years?

I had something similar in my head to Lesley's post while I was cycling home, so I won't particularly go over that bit again. Suffice to say that children swearing is unpleasant in the same way (or worse) that a child (or anyone) not saying "please" or "thank you" is unpleasant. Yes, they're all just words, and why they mean so much is presumably something that has evolved since language began. But, that's the way it is. And nobody wants to raise rude children. Rude children will probably not generally get on as well as polite children, become rude/unproductive adults, and so on.

Mark, (somehow) what you fail to be appreciating is that children have very little experience and knowledge, and therefore don't make very good decisions. Therefore, as their parents, you do your best to help them make these decisions, or where they're really not well-enough equipped yet, make them for them. Education is all well and good, but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll still make good decisions. I can explain all I like how 'cunt' is a bad word, but that still might not discourage a mischievous child blurting it out in class, or showing off to their friends with it. So the best and easiest thing to do is not 'give' them the word at all. I can drum into my kid all I like about how hammers are dangerous and can damage items and people easily, but that doesn't mean I should then leave them with a hammer. Kids are curious and adventurous. If you don't want a child to use a hammer, the best thing to do is not let them have a hammer in the first place.

It's pretty basic stuff this, it's stupid that it needs saying.

Oh, and remember people, garbage goes in the garbage can - I can't stress that enough.

Jon Corby wrote:

Mark James wrote:Fair enough.

Cool. Unfortunately when I get a bit frustrated I do get quite sweary (but if you've been around here long you'll know that), and to be told "kids don't need to be protected from anything at any age" is, to me, a ridiculous and baffling stance to take, with or without experience of parenthood.

Sorry Jon. This isn't what I meant. I'm fining it hard to put in words what I meant to be honest. I kind of meant that the things kids need protection from adults need protection from too. Obviously adults have more ability to protect themselves, so I see where you're coming from but I don't include language as something that either children or adults need protection from if that makes sense. As I was writing this I notice you added another post, and again I agree with most of it. The thing I still have trouble with is when you say children swearing is unpleasant. For me either swearing is unpleasant or it's not. Whether it's a child or adult swearing shouldn't make a difference as far as I'm concerned. Also declaring a swear word in a word game, be it an adult or a child doing the declaring, isn't swearing in my opinion.

Mark James wrote:The thing I still have trouble with is when you say children swearing is unpleasant. For me either swearing is unpleasant or it's not. Whether it's a child or adult swearing shouldn't make a difference as far as I'm concerned. Also declaring a swear word in a word game, be it an adult or a child doing the declaring, isn't swearing in my opinion.

Fair enough, that is a personal thing I suppose, although I admit that I did think my views were pretty mainstream. I find children swearing really unpleasant. For sure, there are occasions when an adult swearing is unpleasant too, but for me there are also times when it's okay. I honestly can't imagine a situation where I think it's okay for a (young) kid to swear. As I said, they're just words, but they are afforded special status, in the same way as "please" and "thank you" at the other end of the scale.

I agree that using "FUCK" in a game of Countdown is different to using it as a word in general - my "objection" is to exposing (young) children to the word unnecessarily (and them missing out on being able to play the game because of this).

I've just spent 20 years reading all of that. Corby, your daughter is now 27. None of this is relevant any more. Thread locked.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I've just spent 20 years reading all of that. Corby, your daughter is now 27. None of this is relevant any more. Thread locked.

Lols.


I dedicate my role in this thread to Jack Hurst btw.

Nobody's fallen out or flounced off the forum in a huff. What's going on here?!

Ian Volante wrote:Nobody's fallen out or flounced off the forum in a huff. What's going on here?!

Screw you fucker. I can't believe these bastards only agreed with some of what I said. Watch your backs and your inboxes - consider this a warning that I'm gonna be sending you threats of death threats! Remember - I have no idea where any of you live and you were the most offensive of all, Volante.

<3 <3 <3 really, innit?! Big lols

Lesley Hines wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Nobody's fallen out or flounced off the forum in a huff. What's going on here?!

Screw you fucker. I can't believe these bastards only agreed with some of what I said. Watch your backs and your inboxes - consider this a warning that I'm gonna be sending you threats of death threats! Remember - I have no idea where any of you live and you were the most offensive of all, Volante.

<3 <3 <3 really, innit?! Big lols

Yeah, I'm gonna run off and start my own forum. It will be wall to wall profanity and for kids only.

Mark James wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Nobody's fallen out or flounced off the forum in a huff. What's going on here?!

Screw you fucker. I can't believe these bastards only agreed with some of what I said. Watch your backs and your inboxes - consider this a warning that I'm gonna be sending you threats of death threats! Remember - I have no idea where any of you live and you were the most offensive of all, Volante.

<3 <3 <3 really, innit?! Big lols

Yeah, I'm gonna run off and start my own forum. It will be wall to wall profanity and for kids only.

But all in a learning context of course.

Ian Volante wrote:Nobody's fallen out or flounced off the forum in a huff. What's going on here?!

Don't blame me, I tried my best. I'm clearly losing my touch