Aaaand, just when you thought liberal white women couldn't be dumber, Sally Field said.....

[Cecilie1200]

Pogo's argument about the c-word is highly speculative, making assumptions about things that are unknown. Cecilie1200's argument is presented using known definitions and usage of the word.

Want a road map, Newcomer? Watch this.

If you call somebody, say, "asshole" -- how is that an insult? It's an insult because you're suggesting they're an outlet of, or covered in, fecal matter. Waste material.

There's your reasoning for "asshole" being an insult.

If you call someone "moron" --- as Cecile just did to me --- it's an insult because she's disparaging my level of intelligence. Which is a bit ironic since she knows better and had admitted as much, but there you have the reason why "moron" is a insult.

Now if you call someone a "****" --- or, for that matter a "dick" -- the reason it's an insult is.............................?

See how this works? "Because you've always been told it is" is not sufficient here.

You would already have the answer, had you bothered to actually READ any of my posts, rather than just skimming the first sentence and then posting whatever it was you had already written, because you're apparently conversing with yourself.

Third time for the thinking-impaired: calling a human being a word - particularly a vulgar or crude word - for genitalia is an insult because it is intended to reduce their existence and identity as a person to basest component, particularly in a society where common decency has long held that it is crass and low-class to discuss sex and other personal acts.

Furthermore, I don't know anyone - including Sally Field - who actually applies that word to a person WITHOUT meaning it as an insult. She - and you - can argue otherwise until your faces turn blue. Don't care. Neither one of you has EVER called someone a c-t without intending it to be offensive, and intent and context are quite important in communication.

For the record, I can also assure you that if you call a woman a vagina, you're just about as likely to get slapped.

Now. Perhaps you can feel like you have accomplished something deep and scholarly and meaningful by demanding a detailed, illustrated explanation of something so painfully obvious my 3rd grader wouldn't have had to ask; I can't imagine why, but then, I'm not you.

You seem to have no clue what Circular Reasoning is, yet your every post depends on it like oxygen.

Again -- : "it is because it is" is not an answer. It's a cop-out. "It's painfully obvious" is not an answer. "Everybody knows" is not an answer. "Go try it and see what it gets you" is not an answer.

Zevia has been consumed, however reluctantly. I'm back to work. Aloha.

I have yet to say "it is because it is". That's what you HEAR, because that's what you want me to say so that you can feel like you won something. Likewise with "everybody knows" and "go try it and see what it gets you".

Oh, and "painfully obvious to a child, but not to you" wasn't intended to be an answer. It was intended as an insult FOLLOWING the answer. I'm beginning to see why this whole concept foxes you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I demonstrated that you're a frigging moron if you have to actually have the answer explained, and that sane people are flabbergasted when leftists try this whole "nothing has any real meaning" bullshit.

Look, Spanky, words have meanings. That's their entire purpose for existing. They have denotations and connotations (and if you don't know what THOSE are, look them the eff up). They are created specifically for the purpose of verbally symbolizing both of them.

The word "c-t" was created to mean "vagina" (its denotation) and to be used in rather crude circumstances (its connotation). The connotation of it as a vulgar, low-class word has been strengthened and reinforced greatly since the 19th century or so, in large part because most modern-day societies tend to view discussion of genitals to be impolite to start with. But there's also the fact that THAT particular word now very much DENOTES the lowest and most vulgar reference to a vagina that one can make. That usage is the word's purpose for existence in our society.

And again, I don't think you're ever going to successfully convince women at large that being referred to as their genital organ - by ANY name - is a compliment.

Pogo demonstrates his imbecility enough that no one really needs to point it out any more, but good job anyway.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo's argument about the c-word is highly speculative, making assumptions about things that are unknown. Cecilie1200's argument is presented using known definitions and usage of the word.

Want a road map, Newcomer? Watch this.

If you call somebody, say, "asshole" -- how is that an insult? It's an insult because you're suggesting they're an outlet of, or covered in, fecal matter. Waste material.

There's your reasoning for "asshole" being an insult.

If you call someone "moron" --- as Cecile just did to me --- it's an insult because she's disparaging my level of intelligence. Which is a bit ironic since she knows better and had admitted as much, but there you have the reason why "moron" is a insult.

Now if you call someone a "****" --- or, for that matter a "dick" -- the reason it's an insult is.............................?

See how this works? "Because you've always been told it is" is not sufficient here.

You would already have the answer, had you bothered to actually READ any of my posts, rather than just skimming the first sentence and then posting whatever it was you had already written, because you're apparently conversing with yourself.

Third time for the thinking-impaired: calling a human being a word - particularly a vulgar or crude word - for genitalia is an insult because it is intended to reduce their existence and identity as a person to basest component, particularly in a society where common decency has long held that it is crass and low-class to discuss sex and other personal acts.

Furthermore, I don't know anyone - including Sally Field - who actually applies that word to a person WITHOUT meaning it as an insult. She - and you - can argue otherwise until your faces turn blue. Don't care. Neither one of you has EVER called someone a c-t without intending it to be offensive, and intent and context are quite important in communication.

For the record, I can also assure you that if you call a woman a vagina, you're just about as likely to get slapped.

Now. Perhaps you can feel like you have accomplished something deep and scholarly and meaningful by demanding a detailed, illustrated explanation of something so painfully obvious my 3rd grader wouldn't have had to ask; I can't imagine why, but then, I'm not you.

You seem to have no clue what Circular Reasoning is, yet your every post depends on it like oxygen.

Again -- : "it is because it is" is not an answer. It's a cop-out. "It's painfully obvious" is not an answer. "Everybody knows" is not an answer. "Go try it and see what it gets you" is not an answer.

Zevia has been consumed, however reluctantly. I'm back to work. Aloha.

I have yet to say "it is because it is". That's what you HEAR, because that's what you want me to say so that you can feel like you won something. Likewise with "everybody knows" and "go try it and see what it gets you".

Oh, and "painfully obvious to a child, but not to you" wasn't intended to be an answer. It was intended as an insult FOLLOWING the answer. I'm beginning to see why this whole concept foxes you.

That's OK, I warned you there's no good answer to this. And that is indeed the whole point --- there's no good answer.

Here's last week's exploration revisited --- first the etymology of May 31:

Language has some weird workings. We say "**** you" as if it were an attack instead of a positive wish for the other party to have a good time. And we denigrate good ol' Anglo-Saxon terms just because they're not French

**** (n.)
female intercrural foramen," or, as some 18c. writers refer to it, "the monosyllable," Middle English cunte "female genitalia," by early 14c. (in Hendyng's "Proverbs" -- ʒeve þi cunte to cunni[n]g, And crave affetir wedding), akin to Old Norse kunta, Old Frisian, Middle Dutch, and Middle Low German kunte, from Proto-Germanic *kunton, which is of uncertain origin. Some suggest a link with Latin cuneus "wedge," others to PIE root *geu- "hollow place," still others to PIE root *gwen- "woman."

The form is similar to Latin cunnus "female pudenda" (also, vulgarly, "a woman"), which is likewise of disputed origin, perhaps literally "gash, slit," from PIE *sker- (1) "to cut," or [Watkins] literally "sheath," from PIE *kut-no-, from root *(s)keu- "to conceal, hide."

Hec vulva: a ****. Hic cunnus: idem est. [from Londesborough Illustrated Nominale, c. 1500, in "Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies," eds. Wright and Wülcker, vol. 1, 1884]
First known reference in English apparently is in a compound, Oxford street name Gropecuntlane cited from c. 1230 (and attested through late 14c.) in "Place-Names of Oxfordshire" (Gelling & Stenton, 1953), presumably a haunt of prostitutes. Used in medical writing c. 1400, but avoided in public speech since 15c.; considered obscene since 17c.

in Middle English also conte, counte, and sometimes queinte, queynte (for this, see Q).

Chaucer used quaint and queynte in "Canterbury Tales" (late 14c.), and Andrew Marvell might be punning on quaint in "To His Coy Mistress" (1650).

"What eyleth yow to grucche thus and grone? Is it for ye wolde haue my queynte allone?" [Wife of Bath's Tale]

---- OED ​

​

--- It's also related to the word "Queen" (see "Gwen" above). And next time you meet someone named "Gwen" you've got a conversation starter. Or she does.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =​

And on the development, from the same thread:

After reviewing 160 plus of the comments can someone tell me where this "evil" word Ka Un TT came from ?

Good ol' Anglo-Saxon Englisshe. I did a whole thing on it backthread.

Once William the Conqueror conquered England with his William, the language of those with power was Norman French while the commoners kept the Olde Englisshe. Over time a shitload of French words merged with already existing Old English ones that meant the same thing in a way that the original Anglo-Saxon terms, the language of the real people, became the despised or so-called "obscene" ones, which is why we now say urine in 'polite' company (the French term) instead of 'piss' (the Anglo-Saxon meaning the same thing). Exactly the same meanings, separated only by classism.

Anglo-Saxon words were the straight-ahead, no bullshit, down-to-earth terms where the French ones became (in England, not France) the more lofty, indirect, pretentious synonyms for "formal" use. So where Old English would ask, the French would inquire. And of course the basic biological functions were the most widely separated -- where French used copulate or intercourse, Old English simply and directly said **** without beating around the bush.

That's the hole '****' went down. No logical reason other than that a lot of people mutually agreed to be offended by it. In other words it's a highly concentrated PC pill.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =​

So there ya have it. Anglo-Saxon words tended to be associated with the "lower" classes especially when a French one was available for circumlocution. That's all I've come up with for any reasoning on why "****" should have degraded, i.e. classism. Nothing having to do with definitions or what it sounds like; simple habitual classist associations. The same reason "polite" speech calls for the French urine and abhors the Anglo-Saxon piss --- even though they both mean exactly the same thing.

 

[Pogo]

No, I demonstrated that you're a frigging moron if you have to actually have the answer explained, and that sane people are flabbergasted when leftists try this whole "nothing has any real meaning" bullshit.

Look, Spanky, words have meanings. That's their entire purpose for existing. They have denotations and connotations (and if you don't know what THOSE are, look them the eff up). They are created specifically for the purpose of verbally symbolizing both of them.

The word "c-t" was created to mean "vagina" (its denotation) and to be used in rather crude circumstances (its connotation). The connotation of it as a vulgar, low-class word has been strengthened and reinforced greatly since the 19th century or so, in large part because most modern-day societies tend to view discussion of genitals to be impolite to start with. But there's also the fact that THAT particular word now very much DENOTES the lowest and most vulgar reference to a vagina that one can make. That usage is the word's purpose for existence in our society.

And again, I don't think you're ever going to successfully convince women at large that being referred to as their genital organ - by ANY name - is a compliment.

Pogo demonstrates his imbecility enough that no one really needs to point it out any more, but good job anyway.

You were one of the klowns who was unable to come up with anything but still yet more circular arguments Hunior. I even made a list of them upthread mocking those crippled arguments.

You're outta your league here little man.

 

[Pogo]

Because "dick" isn't as vulgar a word as "c-t".

And yet you *STILL* can't explain why. What, because men are bigger?
Once again, "it is because it is" --- is not an answer. Never will be.

This entire exercise has completely sailed over your head.

I get why this resistance to confront the question. It's because I'm forcing you to abandon a purely emotional attachment and look with hard rationality. And you're just not up to it. Hey, all I can do is lead you to the water.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because "dick" isn't as vulgar a word as "c-t".

And yet you *STILL* can't explain why. What, because men are bigger?
Once again, "it is because it is" --- is not an answer. Never will be.

This entire exercise has completely sailed over your head.

I get why this resistance to confront the question. It's because I'm forcing you to abandon a purely emotional attachment and look with hard rationality. And you're just not up to it. Hey, all I can do is lead you to the water.

I just DID explain it. It's not as vulgar. Same reason that "poop" is more acceptable than "crap", which is more acceptable than "shit".

For the fourth or fifth time, words are created with specific meanings, for specific purposes. For some of them, their purpose is to be crude,vulgar, and offensive. "Dick" happens to be more on the level of "*****" in terms of low-class slang.

This entire exercise "sails over my head" because it has all the weight of a taco fart in a wind tunnel. It's a pointless, empty attempt on your part to try to pretend that "c-t" isn't what it is, an extremely offensive insult. You are TRYING to force me to abandon "emotional attachment", aka awareness of the word's meaning and purpose for existing, and to accept your "words are meaningless sounds, to be interpreted however I like to suit my agenda du jour" as "hard rationality". But the REAL hard rationality is that we are talking about communication. When you call a woman a "c-t", you are communicating a nasty denigration about her. You can give me long, boring, meaningless lectures about etymology that I scroll right past all you like, but if you try to pretend that you have EVER used that word to mean anything else, I will call you a damned liar. You are issuing it as an insult, and she is receiving it as an insult. That is communication happening, and that is the word's purpose for existing fulfilled.

So no, I'm not up to denying reality in favor of pretending that I can wave a magic wand and wish into being whatever suits me at the moment, and then poof! Wish something else into being five minutes from now when THAT suits me.

 

[Pogo]

I just DID explain it. It's not as vulgar. Same reason that "poop" is more acceptable than "crap", which is more acceptable than "shit".

And yet --- for the four thousandth time --- you can't explain WHY. Are they random? Mix 'n' match? Did some Language God set up a dartboard and just fling it? Why wouldn't "crap" be more acceptable than "poop"? Can you play in a "poop" game is Las Vegas?

This entire exercise "sails over my head" because it has all the weight of a taco fart in a wind tunnel. It's a pointless, empty attempt on your part to try to pretend that "c-t" isn't what it is, an extremely offensive insult.

Except I made no such qualitative analysis. You just invented it. I'm merely asking for the derivation of this judgment.
And you already know why I ask that question --- so that you will.

When you call a woman a "c-t", you are communicating a nasty denigration about her.

Why?

More to the point, why, when you call a man a "dick" are you NOT doing exactly the same thing? Wherein lieth the difference?

Where's the denigration? Is it "denigrating" to be a female? There are several wags on these pages who, when I'm besting them on some point, start referring to me in the third person as "she" and "her". Am I supposed to be 'offended'? Am I supposed to be 'denigrated'? Does it make whatever my argument was less worthy? Why?

if you try to pretend that you have EVER used that word to mean anything else, I will call you a damned liar.

Eric Idle: I saw your advert in the Bolour supplement.

Michael Palin: the Colour supplement?

Idle: Yes, I'm sorry, I can't say the letter 'B' .

Michael Palin: "C"?

Idle: Yes that's right. It goes babk to when I was a sboolboy.

Palin: can you say the letter K?

Idle: Oh yes, kind, kipper, Kuwait, King's Bollege Bainbridge...

Palin: Why don't you just say K instead of C?

Idle: What, spell "bolour" with a K?

Palin: Yes.

Idle: "Kolour" ... Oh thank you! I never thought of that. What a silly bunt.​

Go ahead -- play dumb and pretend you think he's talking about a baseball game....

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just DID explain it. It's not as vulgar. Same reason that "poop" is more acceptable than "crap", which is more acceptable than "shit".

And yet --- for the four thousandth time --- you can't explain WHY. Are they random? Mix 'n' match? Did some Language God set up a dartboard and just fling it? Why wouldn't "crap" be more acceptable than "poop"? Can you play in a "poop" game is Las Vegas?

This entire exercise "sails over my head" because it has all the weight of a taco fart in a wind tunnel. It's a pointless, empty attempt on your part to try to pretend that "c-t" isn't what it is, an extremely offensive insult.

Except I made no such qualitative analysis. You just invented it. I'm merely asking for the derivation of this judgment.
And you already know why I ask that question --- so that you will.

When you call a woman a "c-t", you are communicating a nasty denigration about her.

Why?

More to the point, why, when you call a man a "dick" are you NOT doing exactly the same thing? Wherein lieth the difference?

if you try to pretend that you have EVER used that word to mean anything else, I will call you a damned liar.

Eric Idle: I saw your advert in the Bolour supplement.

Michael Palin: the Colour supplement?

Idle: Yes, I'm sorry, I can't say the letter 'B' .

Michael Palin: "C"?

Idle: Yes that's right. It goes babk to when I was a sboolboy.

Palin: can you say the letter K?

Idle: Oh yes, kind, kipper, Kuwait, King's Bollege Bainbridge...

Palin: Why don't you just say K instead of C?

Idle: What, spell "bolour" with a K?

Palin: Yes.

Idle: "Kolour" ... Oh thank you! I never thought of that. What a silly bunt.


Go ahead -- play dumb and pretend you think he's talking about a baseball game....

It's interesting that you keep carefully cutting and pasting around the answer in order to continue telling me I can't answer.

Oh, wait, no it's not. It's dishonest, and lies are never interesting.

 

[Pogo]

"Dick" happens to be more on the level of "*****" in terms of low-class slang.

Actually I find "p***y far more offensive than "****" --- but what's revealing here is that you didn't "scroll right past" my analysis at all. To wit: "low class".

 

[EverCurious]

I'm more than happy for us all to have unrestricted use of every vile word in the English language back and if people get offended by it then tough shit - just as Bee says. Though I have a feeling the pussies on the left won't handle the return to vocal freedom very well - remember it was their idea to ban offensive words in the first place; micro-aggression and bullshit.


Personally, I think it's wonderful that the left keeps showing the entire world just how hypocritical and unprincipled they really are.

 

[Pogo]

Here's where all of this is ultimately going....

Where's the denigration? Is it "denigrating" to be a female? There are several wags on these pages who, when I'm besting them on some point, start referring to me in the third person as "she" and "her". Am I supposed to be 'offended'? Am I supposed to be 'denigrated'? Does it make whatever my argument was less worthy? Why?

Given that "offensive" words require agreement on their value/meaning between both sender and receiver ---- isn't the agreement on the receiving party, in effect capitulation to the idea that "female" means "weak", "inferior", etc?

Think about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Dick" happens to be more on the level of "*****" in terms of low-class slang.

Actually I find "p***y far more offensive than "****" --- but what's revealing here is that you didn't "scroll right past" my analysis at all. To wit: "low class".

Actually, I did scroll past your "analysis". The only parts of your post I read were the quotes you were responding to. That's how I know you cut the actual answer out of my post when you quoted it.

Unlike you, I don't lie.

 

[kwc57]

Waaaaaaaah ! "Some people don't like me !"


a589f

Were she and Hillary separated at birth? They're both butt ugly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's where all of this is ultimately going....

Where's the denigration? Is it "denigrating" to be a female? There are several wags on these pages who, when I'm besting them on some point, start referring to me in the third person as "she" and "her". Am I supposed to be 'offended'? Am I supposed to be 'denigrated'? Does it make whatever my argument was less worthy? Why?

Given that "offensive" words require agreement on their value/meaning between both sender and receiver ---- isn't the agreement on the receiving party, in effect capitulation to the idea that "female" means "weak", "inferior", etc?

Think about it.

So what you're saying, in equating the word "c-t" with the word "female", is that you think women are nothing more than their genitals.

No one has said a word about female meaning weak or inferior. No one has said anything about weak and inferior at all. I have said, so many times that I have lost count, that the offensiveness in calling a woman ANY name for her genitals lies, at least in part, in reducing her identity and femaleness to nothing BUT her genitals.

Which you then did yourself. Congratulations.