J
JKop
Mabden posted:
Understood. But, regarding sociality, you could say this about absolutely
*aannyytthhiinngg*. It's just that in our own society, one thing that the
"posh" people hold dearly is that they don't curse, aledgely because they've
superior vocabulary and have no need to curse.
On the other hand, take LA gang members. They're the total opposite. Cursing
is the norm for them, while using alternate words in their place is what's
"frowned upon".
So if you want to "fit in" seemlessly with both groups, you've to behave
differently in their respective presences.
Again, the royalty will be saying this, while the gang members will not have
batted an eyelid.
In *their* eyes, yes.
No matter what way an argument goes, one party can say that *they* won,
while the other can say that _they_ won.
If neither will compromise, then there's is no resolution to the conflict.
Except violence ofcourse ( the laws of physics govern all! ).
I meant that they don't get an answer - not that the don't make one ponder.
-JKop
In my experience of using "bad" language all the time, I have found that
a curse word allows the person you are talking to to dismiss your point
out of hand.
Understood. But, regarding sociality, you could say this about absolutely
*aannyytthhiinngg*. It's just that in our own society, one thing that the
"posh" people hold dearly is that they don't curse, aledgely because they've
superior vocabulary and have no need to curse.
On the other hand, take LA gang members. They're the total opposite. Cursing
is the norm for them, while using alternate words in their place is what's
"frowned upon".
So if you want to "fit in" seemlessly with both groups, you've to behave
differently in their respective presences.
They can choose to make their particular "I'm outa here"
noise and/or gesture and quit the discussion. And they can then run to
the nearest spectator with a loud, "Did you just hear what I heard?!!!"
Again, the royalty will be saying this, while the gang members will not have
batted an eyelid.
This allows the onlookers and the "offended" person to hold the "moral
high ground" and by default win the argument, in their eyes.
In *their* eyes, yes.
No matter what way an argument goes, one party can say that *they* won,
while the other can say that _they_ won.
If neither will compromise, then there's is no resolution to the conflict.
Except violence ofcourse ( the laws of physics govern all! ).
Do you mean that?
I meant that they don't get an answer - not that the don't make one ponder.
-JKop