And your other word which women have decided is so vulgar and so awful is also having to do with the anatomy...
It has nothing to do with cunning (which is related to the verbs ken and can) and everything to do with what it means today: "female genitalia". C... is believed to derive from a Germanic root *kunton "female genitalia", which also gave rise to Old Norse kunta (ancestor of Norwegian and Swedish dialectical kunta and Danish dialectical kunte), Old Frisian, Middle Low German and Middle Dutch kunte, and the English doublet quaint. And, by the way, the word wasn't always considered derogatory, even though it is today. Be careful about assuming that a word's modern connotations must have governed its formation. By the way, no connection has been made between the Germanic words and Latin cunnus. The proto-Germanic root of c... is ku- "hollow place", while the Indo-European root of Latin cunnus is (s)keu- "to cover, to conceal", the etymological meaning of cunnus being "sheath".
Now if you wish to know where it started to go bad... It first shows up in a list of London street names of about 1230. That street name was, interestingly, Grope****elane, one of a warren of streets and alleyways all given over to the lowest forms of prostitution and bawdry. (yes grope that anatomical body part boulevard) It lay between Aldermanbury and Coleman Street (where the Swiss Bank stands today) and it belonged to one "William de Edmonton". Curiously, medieval Paris had a street name with an identical meaning - Rue Grattecon. Oxford and York apparently also had similar versions of that street name.
So it seems the word moves from anatomy to vulgarity, when it moves from defining a body part to defining the whole human. So whether we are male or female our job is to not act like a body part. ie rarely do I get called a glutumous maximus however folks refer to me as a mule often as they read my posts.
Evidently he thought better. Possibly tried other forums and found out the most friendly and tolerant bunch were still here.lol. That was the idea. I was being sarcastic.
C
ciberpy
Guest
I hope you agree though that the anatomy that the 'C' word refers to is secretly admired by many men, though spoken as derogatory.
In your support, I know that when Quahom1 called Shadow an 'ass' and a 'jerk', that he was not banned. You can call me the 'c' word, an 'ass', a 'jerk', and even a 'putz', or a 'non-Christian', and I will not ban you Wil. Just do not get caught derailing a thread.Wil said:
Nope, not even for that word. Do they ban people from the Highlands for that?
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Are you what I might call a "reincarnation" of former member cyberpi?
I noticed at some point that cyberpi had disappeared, and it seemed like he had just left of his own volition after a heated discussion with Quahom1, during which he said he'd had enough and wanted to leave. Quahom1 replied with something like "Fine. Go ahead. Leave."
I can't remember the thread where I saw that. But it seemed to be the last post I remember seeing him make.
C
ciberpy
Guest
Salt, I was a bit cut off. Banned a few times. The first time was for one week, for allegedly 'derailing a thread'. A week later it seemed the same person banned me within minutes after my last words. The third time was last December, and that was more of a pre-cog banning. I sent an email to inform someone that I was going to post a last time, but I was preemptively perma-banned before I posted anything. So it seems that it is the same here as it is everywhere else in the world in that you see what someone wanted you to see.
I was vocal here against banning and moderating from my first post, and I discussed other ways to handle it on many threads. In my personal experience what was claimed here about the behind-the-scenes moderating and banning was false. In response I have funded and started setting up a forum for the discussion of religion and politics, but where some public ways of handling the moderating and banning can be discussed and implemented. I recognize the planet as the real forum here, and a lot of politics and religion deals with how to moderate and ban each other from it. So I feel that any public cyber sub-forum likewise should include public methods of moderating and banning, most especially on one intended for the discussion of religion and politics.
Other than that, I have found this to be a forum with some interesting people and discussions. I returned recently for a few posts because someone asked me to.
I was vocal here against banning and moderating from my first post, and I discussed other ways to handle it on many threads. In my personal experience what was claimed here about the behind-the-scenes moderating and banning was false. In response I have funded and started setting up a forum for the discussion of religion and politics, but where some public ways of handling the moderating and banning can be discussed and implemented. I recognize the planet as the real forum here, and a lot of politics and religion deals with how to moderate and ban each other from it. So I feel that any public cyber sub-forum likewise should include public methods of moderating and banning, most especially on one intended for the discussion of religion and politics.
Other than that, I have found this to be a forum with some interesting people and discussions. I returned recently for a few posts because someone asked me to.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
N
Nick_A
Guest
You raise this interesting question that I confess not knowing the answer to. If your site can deal with it I wish you the best and let me know when it begins.
Interfaith on the one hand invites opinions. However the worth of these opinions is decided often by reaction rather than content. The desire of the site is to keep the peace so is often guided by reaction rather than content.
I experienced this with Beliefnet when I posted on Jewish hypocrisy in relation to denying recognition of the Armenian genocide when stressing the importance of the Holocaust as expressed in Yair Auron's book: "The Banality of Denial." Blind righteous indignation was supported by the site in preference to open minded contemplation so discussion was shouted down furthering genocide denial.
A site wants to support its regulars so in this case supports genocide denial. The same thing happened here to a lesser degree with sexting.
If you can come up with a solution, more power to you. But when the chips are down, emotional reaction seems more important then content which is also the way of the world. Get around this and I'll buy the next round.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
i've pointed out numerous times that i think it is the height of moral hypocrisy to for jews to deny the armenian genocide; however, i suspect that that is because i had an opinion on it before you arrived. is it at all possible that the chorus of indignation you experienced was the way you raised the issue? if you refer to something as "jewish hypocrisy" that is liable to get up people's noses.
nick, you may want to rethink this before you provoke another confrontation. that whole thing, as has been pointed out to you several times, is largely driven by your desire to make a scene. nobody is fundamentally in disagreement with you about child pornography, but the way you argue is both tendentious and clumsy. that is what upsets people, so i advise you not to open that can of worms again.
b'shalom
bananabrain
N
Nick_A
Guest
It's not a matter of provoking anything. It has passed. The question is how to understand this essential question of emotional reaction destroying substance and how to deal with it.
When I quote a distinguished Jewish Scholar like Yair Auron I will not feel guilty about raising the topic of hypocrisy, he did. But the question is again if we are guided by insult or substance. If substance, then we have to consciously abandon the refuge of insult. Easier said than done.
The banality of indifference ... - Google Book Search
You raise this interesting question that I confess not knowing the answer to. If your site can deal with it I wish you the best and let me know when it begins.
Interfaith on the one hand invites opinions. However the worth of these opinions is decided often by reaction rather than content. The desire of the site is to keep the peace so is often guided by reaction rather than content.
I experienced this with Beliefnet when I posted on Jewish hypocrisy in relation to denying recognition of the Armenian genocide when stressing the importance of the Holocaust as expressed in Yair Auron's book: "The Banality of Denial." Blind righteous indignation was supported by the site in preference to open minded contemplation so discussion was shouted down furthering genocide denial.
A site wants to support its regulars so in this case supports genocide denial. The same thing happened here to a lesser degree with sexting.
If you can come up with a solution, more power to you. But when the chips are down, emotional reaction seems more important then content which is also the way of the world. Get around this and I'll buy the next round.
Nick, your comments on genocide and sexting regarding this community are tiring - you make baseless claims and try and force your point on everything. Or, correction, you try and find some way to regurgitate Simone Weil into your discussions, to support what you see as a personal crusade, but to everybody else looks at tilting at windmills.
N
Nick_A
Guest
It would help to get the facts right. There has never been a problem on this site with denial of the Armenian Genocide. The problem with sexting just is indicative of a problem in real life where substance is sacrificed for style. You can be critical of Simone but at least she had the guts to see it and admit it. For this rare human quality, she has my gratitude.
As I said to ciberpy, I don't know if the problem is solvable but just know it exists and partially what is responsible for maintaining the "Great Beast" and the horrors in real life caused by this collective mindset you seem to see as "tilting windmills." If he can figure a meaningful way around it, I am willing to buy a round in celebration. I just don't know.
C
ciberpy
Guest
It looks to me like you are upset over mere words, and mere worms. You do not like worms, and I can appreciate that. However, I have discovered many fish in the sea and birds in the sky who do like them. Have you tried one? That sound you heard was me opening up a fresh can of words. You don't like it, then please consider that you are really just speaking for what you like and for what you do not like, and that if Nick speaks he is only speaking for what he likes and what he does not like, and if I speak then I am speaking for what I like and what I do not like. See a pattern there? You don't seriously think I can speak for what you like and do not like, do you? Well then neither can you speak for what I like and do not like.
I don't know if Nick gets that, but by your words you do not. You fundamentally are unable to speak for what I will choose to get upset over, and I hearby choose not to get upset over any of Nick's words, or anyone's mere words for that matter. That does not mean I won't respond and interact, it merely means that I recognize the choice of whether to respond, and I am going to take responsibility for my own choices rather than to limit someone else's. You can try to insist until your face turns red that I am a victim of Nick's words, and that you are my protective servant; however, I can see clearly that if I believe what you say then I will also be a victim of your words, and everyone else's for that matter. No thank you. I tell you honestly that most of your words have looked like vomit to me.
I think you are diseased, because you do not like a good can of worms. I appreciate and can understand that you do not like to open or see a can of worms. I am sorry if you choose to get upset and vomit at the mere sight of them. Please keep your vomit to yourself, because I really don't like the sight of your vomit any more than you like the sight of a fresh can of worms. Now you know something that I don't like to see, and you know something that I don't like. Please take a special note of something: I do not feel the need to threaten you. If you do vomit, because I have seen that you do, that is your choice. All I have to do is use the word 'Jew' in a sentence, and I'm relatively certain that you will vomit at the sight of my words. I have seen it many times before. You are welcome to vomit even as I have asked you not to, because I recognize that it might just be your nature to vomit whenever I use the word, 'you' in a sentence. I already have now so go ahead and do your thing. I'll look the other way if you prefer.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
*phew*
Did that scolding include 4 snaps in a 'Z' formation?
You could have just said, "Next time throw in an IMO."
Did that scolding include 4 snaps in a 'Z' formation?
You could have just said, "Next time throw in an IMO."
N
Nick_A
Guest
You are willing to understand what no one else seems open to. Are we willing to sacrifice substance for a politically correct style that is void of personal meaning? We value insult over substance. that is why IRL I'm so wary of people speaking of tolerance. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Those professing tolerance always seem to be extremely intolerant of a particular quality of thought and their insult suppresses substance. I applaud you for being open to this essential problem that IMO is a source of great human misery.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Yeah, whinges... Are also a source of human misery............. *blinks*
C
ciberpy
Guest
Someone a couple of weeks ago told me that I was NOT welcome in their country. My response is a big can of words here and everywhere, because I know that someone else's response could very well be with a sword. If and when that happens I will have a can of words for them too. Both a word and a sword can divide, but one is good for living and the other is good for death. I welcome anyone to my home to speak with me, but I will never speak for any country, not even the one I'm in. The lot can speak for themselves.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
It's a common response to meet aggression with aggression.
It's an inspiring response to meet aggression with compassion.
I've been thinking of trying it myself one day.
N
Nick_A
Guest
bb
nick, you may want to rethink this before you provoke another confrontation. that whole thing, as has been pointed out to you several times, is largely driven by your desire to make a scene. nobody is fundamentally in disagreement with you about child pornography, but the way you argue is both tendentious and clumsy. that is what upsets people, so i advise you not to open that can of worms again.
I've been thinking about this and if I just ignore it, it gives the impression somehow that I agree with it.
Of course there are fundamental disagreements.
Insult doesn't exist. One can intend to insult and another can allow themselves to be insulted but insult doesn't exist. If a person doesn't allow themselves to be consumed by pride, they won't be insulted so insult won't exist regardless of intent.
Yours is the typical name calling and shouting down tactic of a fool. To you, defending truths whether they be pertaining to Christianity or basic ethics that are outside your programmed thought is making a scene. Do the Jews make a scene by protesting the Holocaust? Of course not. They say what needs to be said. However, if it were said on a site filled with Jew haters it would be considered making a scene.
Because you cannot admit to human ignorance as it pertains to sex, sex energy, and the value of the body as well as the harm done to people due to this ignorance and need to transfer parental responsibility onto legal authorities at the cost of young lives, it doesn't mean that those having these concerns are making a scene.
Armenians including my ancestors were killed for making a scene. Some Russian ancestors of mine were killed coming out of church in Russia during the revolution for not denying the church and becoming Communists. They chose to protest and the killers would refer to such protests as making a scene.
The day comes when I back down to foolish name calling at the cost of defending human lives is the day it is time for me to hang it up. I'm sorry but there is nothing intimidating in your shallow response. I've been up against far worse in real life.