It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Words Hurt?

page: 18
33
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Excellent points.

IT's incredibly mystifying to me . . . one of the strangest bunch of posts I've observed here in all my years on ATS.

It's kind of like a cat owner who loves to dress in black and carry a cat around in their arms--denying that there's cat hair on their clothing.

I've been pondering and pondering what on earth would lead to--foster such a person making such outrageous claims.

Perhaps there's an intense level of denial of being hurt . . . whether out of pride or cynicism or reflexive defensive denial or whatever . . . then the rationalizing or explaining away has to set in and then becomes entrenched. I don't know, certainly. But it's challenging to even hypothesize WHY someone would say such absurd things--all the more so when there's a bunch of obviously RAD [Reactive Attachment Disorder] tinged communications and communicating style in the mix.

It's kind of like an addicted runner who insists on running after the Doc says their running is tearing their knees up. They keep running and then insist to the doc that running doesn't hurt their knees at all.

Go figure.




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


LM's separation of words from their meaning, their isolation from the mind (which they are the tools of) is idea of changing words into imaginary letters in isolation of the mind, the person, a crazy concept that which is meaningless ( and not at all in reference to the thread eg suicide following verbal abuse).
I agree with you in being passionate that he does not spread the idea/meme that hateful and hurtful words don't hurt the person and that its the hearers fault that they are hurt by horrible verbal abuse.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


I understand the frustration. I am purposefully being controversial on this subject.


WHY?

Does your DNA include an abundance of "contrarian genes?"

Is this "purposefully being controversial" another evidence (among many) of AD?

Are you typically obtuse and contrary in most of your social interactions and relationships?

Do you get a dopamine high from being socially cross-ways with most others in the group?

What?




But let's discuss this a little further philosophically without appealing to authority too quickly.


First you demand authority references then you wish to avoid them.

More evidence of Attachment Disorder, in my book.




Here's why I'm not so willing to accept the principle that words hurt:

Do you believe that if you were to verbally assault a cat they would feel pain? Surely if it was the words that hurt, that cat would feel pain.


Do you own the company "ABSURDITY INC?"

Cats can be trained to understand some words.

Cats can certainly be trained to be sensitive to tone.

However, I know of no evidence that cats have a significant vocabulary and certainly no understanding of complex grammar, biting satire etc.

So your question is absurd from the git-go.

Words--MUST HAVE MEANING--AGREED-UPON MEANING--BETWEEN THE SENDER AND THE RECEIVER.

Given that the cat has NO COMPREHENSION OF THE WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS--ON THE WHOLE--IT IS ABSURD TO THINK A CAT WOULD REGISTER PAIN OR ANYTHING ELSE regarding words it did not understand and COULD NOT comprehend to any significant degree.

IIRC, this has been discussed in the thread already. Why you insist on ignoring THAT FACT is beyond me. Sounds like more evidence of ATTACHMENT DISORDER that you are insisting on creating your own fantasy world and then DEMANDING that everyone else agree with you about its construction. Sheesh.



Do you believe that if you were to verbally assault someone who didn't understand what you were saying, that they would feel pain? If it was the words that hurt, they would feel pain despite not knowing what you were saying.


Another off the wall and absurd assertion.

OF COURSE WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS TO THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE THE WORDS ARE PART OF! SHEESH!

That's the largest pack of straw dogs . . . the largest school of red herrings ever.

What an absolutely NONSENSICAL argument from the git-go.



If words hurt, the very act of speaking them would cause pain to the one who spoke them.


I'm beginning to wonder if we are on the same planet or even the same galactic cluster.

That's like saying that the murder's knife hurt the murderer just as much as the murdered.



Now in the case of verbal abuse, which you did indeed provide sufficient evidence for, was it the words that did the damage?


Thanks for that acknowledgement.

Yes. It was the words that did the damage.

"You're a worthless pile of ####" said relentlessly during early childhood imprints on the mind that sense of worthless and causes incalculable pain and life long damage. That's JUST A FACT in millions of lifes around the world.

Counselors hear that pain at great length constantly. We see the damage to the psyche, to the relationships, to the personhood extensively.



It is difficult to say "no" in this instance because it makes me out to be a proponent of abuse, a bully, and mentally disturbed, as you an others have been quick to paint me with.


A mere initial disagreement or an initial "No" on that score is not what has resulted in the inferences of a mental disconnect or a significant measure of ATTACHMENT DISORDER. AT least, not with me.

It is an ABUNDANCE of other nuances; word choices; style and stances in the discussion on this thread that leave me NO CHOICE but to make such an observation, such an assessment.



However, that doesn't make me wrong. I believe saying it is the words that do the damage is entirely superficial, because words mean different things to different people.


IF THE WORDS mean something TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DIFFERENT, then there is NO COMMUNICATION taking place.

It is BECAUSE THE WORDS MEAN ROUGHLY SIMILAR TO THE SAME THINGS

TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER THAT ALLOWS FOR, FOSTERS, SUPPORTS ANY COMMUNICATION AT ALL.

Why does someone abuse someone else WITH WORDS? Because they KNOW that the words are a hurtful stab at the other person! And in their twisted, vengeful, inner hurt themselves, they are striking out and hurting those near them. Hurt and pain breeds hurt and pain--MOST OFTEN--WITH WORDS.



This raises questions:

How can an insult hurt one person but not another when the exact same words were used?


This is NOT

THAT difficult.

OF COURSE words can have different impacts . . . even between twins in the same family. One twin knows inherently and/or by their own personal inner strength--genetic and otherwise--that the sender of THE PAINFUL HURTFUL WORDS is a PAINED JERK THEMSELVES and thereby, NOT WORTH LISTENING TO OR GIVING THE TIME OF DAY TO--REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY ARE.

While the other twin is genetically [yes identical twins do have sufficient DIFFERENCES in DNA to foster a lot of NON-IDENTICAL factors in their make-up and interactions . . . while the other twin is genetically hyper-sensitive and VULNERABLE to being devastated by deliberately or otherwise painful, hurtful words.

And, it is likely that the parental sender of the painful words INTENDS for one child to be MORE HURT than the other child. And the hurt child knows that and is thereby MORE hurt than they even would be otherwise.




Why do some words hurt but others do not?


Oh, Dear. More absurd questions. Why do some like Vanilla and some Chocolate???

FOR A LIST OF REASONS.

However, I'm about late for an appointment.

Later.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


INDEED.

There's some evidence that words to the infant in the womb can be hurtful.

Regardless of that, or not . . .

There IS ABUNDANT evidence that words the first 6-8 years of life can be life-long devastating.

Where is the child supposed to learn how to resist the devastations of such words from mother, father, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, bully's at school?

MOST children do NOT come out of the womb with such resilience. They have to be taught it and it can be a long hard row to learn it.

It tends to take a rebuilding--painstakingly slow rebuilding or building from scratch . . .

--A SENSE OF WORTH
--A SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT
--A SENSE OF OPTIONS
--A SENSE OF CHOICES
--A SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING THEIR PART VS AN ABUSER'S PART

etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for your kind reply.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 





Strange new accusations you make when you believe lies and slander [which are done with words which you claimed do not hurt].

This makes more sense. It is the belief in words, and not the words. I've already pointed out that there is a superstition of words, which you yourself have indicated finally as the cause. This is my point all along.



You have not debated you seem to be denying your own personal experience of the effect of abusive and hurtful words. All that just to try to convince others that abusive and hurtful words don't hurt or abuse a person ....when I reckon you know they do.


No I am affirming my own personal experiences by being honest about them.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


How does a bunch of letters cause physical harm?


UHHHHHHHHHHHHH Hello?

BECAUSE OF THE AGREED-UPON-WITHIN-THAT-LANGUAGE-GROUP

THE AGREED UPON MEANING invested in those words, in that collection of letters in that pattern.

This is NOT THAT difficult.

IF there was NO meaning ascribed to the words thrown like daggers into the emotional, psychological, spiritual heart of the victim, the perpetrator would NOT USE THEM!

Why do they CHOOSE PAINFUL, HURTFUL WORDS INSTEAD OF WORDS THAT BUILD UP, ENCOURAGE, ENHANCE?

WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS?



How come when we verbally abuse someone who doesn't understand the language, they don't feel pain?


MORE ABSURDITY. See above. Sigh.

What a stinking pile of straw dogs and red herrings.



No one has yet articulated why words hurt; they go on to say it is the memory of the experience that does the lasting damage, or other inferences along those lines. Sure, words are a correlation to such events, but that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.


Another set of absurd sentences.

I think causation in this case has been firmly established. The MRI studies alone have confirmed that.

Why do the words hurt?

1. They were INTENDED TO HURT by the sender!
2. They were DESIGNED TO HURT by the sender!
.

3.They were said/written IN THE MOST HURTFUL WAYS the sender could devise--deliberately or reflexively!
4.They struck to the core of the receiver's 'heart', essence, key realities in a way deliberately designed to do the MOST DAMAGE to the already bewildered and hurting receiver.
.

5. They were a further acting out of probably generations of learned abuse wherein hurt people hurt other people around them.
6. The word choices themselves were chose as the MOST HURTFUL WORDS available to hurl into the sender's psyche, spirit, heart, emotional being.
.

7. The tones with which the words were hurled were also as hurtful as possible.
8. The murderous anger with which the words were hurled was received as it was sent--the full devastating force.
.

9. The receivers were inherently in their make-up MOST VULNERABLE to exactly those words spoken by those sender perpetrators hurled in exactly those ways over exactly those issues.

If you can't understand the above, I don't know that there's a shred of usefulness to even TRYING to dialogue with you.

If you carried on in classes as you have in this thread . . . you must have had a LOT of teachers ready to throw you out to end their extreme exasperation at trying to teach you a shred of anything. I see no evidence of any desire for genuine dialogue nor for sincere learning.

Virtually all I observe is obnoxious, obtuse, obstructionist contrariness.

Where does THAT come from?

I'm beginning to form a hypothesis . . . perhaps one or both parents were however or whatever degree of neglectful, cold, distant, harsh etc.

and your major defense was to throw up massive dust clouds of . . . . drum roll . . .

WORDS

as your major defense.

Only in your case, the words you used were obtuse, absurdly joined; irrational, mystifying, confusing, convoluted, . . . carefully constructed consciously or unconsciously TO PREVENT REAL COMMUNICATION, DIALOGUE. The parents would have likely chased rabbit trail after rabbit trail with you all over the countryside to great futility and exasperation. Nothing would have been achieved by their effort. But you'd smugly have felt twistedly comforted that you WON over them or at least prevented a harsher punishment or verbal abuse.

Cute.

But not quite.

It's only a hypothesis. I could be well wrong. But I don't have a better one.

BTW, I've owned my own serious degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER on ATS many many times. I've met few people who didn't have a significant amount of it and probably more than half in our era have very serious degrees of it. Thankfully, I've MOSTLY worked much of mine through to a place of healing and more solid functioning than the first 30 years or so.

I bother telling you about it because I think it's the most loving thing to do. It's a real b**ch to go through life ignorant of such a horrific set of patterns tearing up one's life and relationships . . . or at a minimum, preventing the joy, fulfillment and peace that could be.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc
 


. . . It is the belief in words, and not the words.


What an utterly NONSENSICAL assertion.

WITHOUT AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, BELIEF that a word means XYZ in a given language

there would BE NO SUCH WORD in that language!

You're asserting nonsense.

Put another way . . .

BELIEF IN A WORD = THE WORD = BRINGS THE WORD INTO EXISTENCE.

Pretending that there is a distinction between the word and the belief in the word is absurd, in this case, in this sense.



I've already pointed out that there is a superstition of words, which you yourself have indicated finally as the cause. This is my point all along.


NONSENSE. Fabricating nonsense and pretending it makes useful sense is absurd.

Certainly there can be superstitions around words. The business about salt etc. could be a case in point.

However, pretending that words causing lifelong pain is merely a problem of a superstition on the part of the receiver is absurd.

It is akin to a Christian Scientist walking up to you and slapping you in the face with a ball bat. Then when you get up bleeding and bruised, the Christian Scientist asserts that your problem is merely a superstition about the blood running down your face, your broken nose and your bruised cheeks.

I'm sure you'd be real impressed with their assertion about superstition quite in keeping with your use of it in this thread.

When a father says dozens of times a day for 6-8 years that his son is a WORTHLESS S**T, it is NOT SUPERSTITION ON THE PART OF THE SON to think, believe that THE FATHER REALLY FEELS THAT WAY!

And therein lies the hurt. The father sent the hurt quite congruently and accurately to the father's intent.

The son received the hurt packaged in those words exactly as the father intended. There was NO SUPERSTITION involved. It was painfully plain and clear meaning sent and painfully plain and clear meaning RECEIVED.

.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
galadofwarthethird
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



VHB
There are many possibles, dimensions, futures. They will pop into being when enough decide (energywise) it happens. In another thread (should have responded to) someone said things just occure or happen/stance. No, it take concerted energy to manefest architypes, and or destroy them (champion of that me here). Prison planet (the worst of what this world was relegated to put up with) is an interesting idea to me, as long as its soul resides in another bodyform. A new shiny earth; (thats me speaking as a naive 6 year old).



galadof3
Nothing in all of existence just happens and everything is generally maintained by someone or something, when that someone or something moves on, then whatever it maintained will follow. And speaking of prisons. I mean if you were to make a prison here on earth to keep, house, and maintain some of the most sick and twisted individuals till such a time as they have learned there lesson how would you do it. It would no doubt involve a building somewhere far away from the general populous and island maybe far at sea were no one can come and go and were they would have to learn to keep things going or die.


The entire earth would be the prison; I suppose pediphiles in one separate place, serial killers in another and on and on free to feast upon one another but separate from other criminals. A free for all; but their prey is/are exactly the beings they are themselves (makes the stalking of one similar in intent or purpose much harder, trickier).


galadof3
Well funny not that this earth shares many of such similarities, smack dam in the middle of nowhere, with the chances of getting off slim to none, but if you do get off some sort of corroborations is involved. And even when you do get off, were would you go?


Ive thought about why Earth was isolated in the first place, not only its local but the fact its three dimensional gross matter in form, not gaseous or frozen gas, Mars is the only other one but lost its atmosphere. I have no idea where we would go living in this low frequency. We'd have to rise (become lighter) or Earth forces us to as the prime generator of a higher vibration; that could be ugly resulting in many lives lost.


galadof3
Lets say humans get off earth and colonize mars, terraform and all that. Well what then? OK so lets say, they get off mars and colonize other planets, and the same things and patterns tough a bit different ensue. Well OK, so you have just colonized a bunch of worlds. But what then? So lets say they colonize the whole galaxy, imagine all that you see now only on every planet? I mean how many variations on life do you think humans are capable of doing. But lets say you reach the ends of this physical universe, which is not likely...The question still remains....What then?


Some believe Mars was a colony long ago and destroyed itself as a warring planet, much like the native americans could not get along with themselves, add the tweak of federal calvery armies, gone. We have seen every variation of life play out in history on this planet. Its astounding to think so many different civilizations have manifested here AT THE SAME TIME in different quarters on this planet. I think we have to be nearing a tipping point, that weve done it all, expirenced EVERY breakthough, strife, calamity imaginable. Science Fiction writing or parable is doing this without it actually having to happen as it happens virtually and not needed to happen in the actual.


VHB
You would be surprised why the insects are here, they rule this planet, always have and why are they here? You would think all of our creators are human in form, they are not (some of them look like giant grasshoppers, and the other creator beings are lizards). Planet of the Apes was one of those 'insert' idea movies that the human had to witness 'a possibilty of occurance'. This was one of the better ones.



galadof3
It is quite evident that insects and other such critters in a few billions of years would be able to surpass mankind in many things. This place is a sort of breeding ground also, so yes you can say with some certaintiy that the cockroach will be around for a long long time. As for lizards and all that, even by human history and logic they seem to have had a headstart on evolution by a few millions if not billion years.


I really do believe this entire planet was set up a 'living library' for many off planet beings to create freeform creature replicas of their own desire perhaps mimicking there own existance. These beings do not live in gross matter, they are of the etheral. We do the same thing today as humans with the film industry; we are them mirroring themselves. You would bring up the domestic chicken! Pet or edible foodstuff some 'God Ostrich of all feathered' decided to give to us as good joke, "Behold the meek as they will inherit the earth (be damned those humans with Emu and Ostrich ranches". This response should be a 2 parter; hopefully I can get back to some of your more subtle points.

edit on 25-11-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


'So what?' So what about anything, really? If my comment sounded like purposeful ignorance to your point, then whatever, you know? I personally thought what I said had a fair amount of merit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





WHY?

Does your DNA include an abundance of "contrarian genes?"

Is this "purposefully being controversial" another evidence (among many) of AD?

Are you typically obtuse and contrary in most of your social interactions and relationships?

Do you get a dopamine high from being socially cross-ways with most others in the group?

What?



Whatever paints your opponent in a bad way. Call me obtuse. Tell me I have AD. Say I'm socially cross-ways. Tell me how I've been abused. Tell me how I'm a bully. Call me smug. Call me irrational. These words come out of your mouth and fall flat on the floor. This shows more about you, your irrationality, than it does me.

Your opinions about me as a person (whom you've never met), your "hypothesis", are so far beyond truth that it's quite telling. I have to wonder what other baseless conclusions you jump to.




More evidence of Attachment Disorder, in my book.


More evidence of baseless diagnosis.





Cats can be trained to understand some words.

Cats can certainly be trained to be sensitive to tone.

However, I know of no evidence that cats have a significant vocabulary and certainly no understanding of complex grammar, biting satire etc.

So your question is absurd from the git-go.

Words--MUST HAVE MEANING--AGREED-UPON MEANING--BETWEEN THE SENDER AND THE RECEIVER.

Given that the cat has NO COMPREHENSION OF THE WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS--ON THE WHOLE--IT IS ABSURD TO THINK A CAT WOULD REGISTER PAIN OR ANYTHING ELSE regarding words it did not understand and COULD NOT comprehend to any significant degree.

IIRC, this has been discussed in the thread already. Why you insist on ignoring THAT FACT is beyond me. Sounds like more evidence of ATTACHMENT DISORDER that you are insisting on creating your own fantasy world and then DEMANDING that everyone else agree with you about its construction. Sheesh.


Now you're letting the cat out of the bag! Finally some honesty.

So it is the tone that hurts? So it is the comprehension that hurts? So it is the meaning that hurts? It seems you're beginning to agree with me.




Another off the wall and absurd assertion.

OF COURSE WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS TO THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE THE WORDS ARE PART OF! SHEESH!

That's the largest pack of straw dogs . . . the largest school of red herrings ever.

What an absolutely NONSENSICAL argument from the git-go.


So if words are meaningless, then it isn't the words that hurt is it? You are merely affirming what I've been saying all along. Welcome to the dark side.



I'm beginning to wonder if we are on the same planet or even the same galactic cluster.

That's like saying that the murder's knife hurt the murderer just as much as the murdered.


Do you blame the knife for when you cut yourself on your planet? Do they hold knives on trial in cases where someone is stabbed on your planet?



"You're a worthless pile of ####" said relentlessly during early childhood imprints on the mind that sense of worthless and causes incalculable pain and life long damage. That's JUST A FACT in millions of lifes around the world.

Counselors hear that pain at great length constantly. We see the damage to the psyche, to the relationships, to the personhood extensively.


Yes I agree with this, but it is because they hold a superstition to words, they cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. Would you teach them that words hurt and that they should avoid them at all costs? Or would you teach them the difference between opinion and truth? By saying words hurt, you weaken them and give that power to the ones who would try to use words to cause harm.



This is NOT

THAT difficult.

OF COURSE words can have different impacts . . . even between twins in the same family. One twin knows inherently and/or by their own personal inner strength--genetic and otherwise--that the sender of THE PAINFUL HURTFUL WORDS is a PAINED JERK THEMSELVES and thereby, NOT WORTH LISTENING TO OR GIVING THE TIME OF DAY TO--REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY ARE.

While the other twin is genetically [yes identical twins do have sufficient DIFFERENCES in DNA to foster a lot of NON-IDENTICAL factors in their make-up and interactions . . . while the other twin is genetically hyper-sensitive and VULNERABLE to being devastated by deliberately or otherwise painful, hurtful words.

And, it is likely that the parental sender of the painful words INTENDS for one child to be MORE HURT than the other child. And the hurt child knows that and is thereby MORE hurt than they even would be otherwise.
.

So now it is the intention that hurts? Why didn't you just say so? You even capitalized it for emphasis.



Oh, Dear. More absurd questions. Why do some like Vanilla and some Chocolate???

FOR A LIST OF REASONS.


Is it absurd because you cannot answer it?




UHHHHHHHHHHHHH Hello?

BECAUSE OF THE AGREED-UPON-WITHIN-THAT-LANGUAGE-GROUP

THE AGREED UPON MEANING invested in those words, in that collection of letters in that pattern.

This is NOT THAT difficult.

IF there was NO meaning ascribed to the words thrown like daggers into the emotional, psychological, spiritual heart of the victim, the perpetrator would NOT USE THEM!

Why do they CHOOSE PAINFUL, HURTFUL WORDS INSTEAD OF WORDS THAT BUILD UP, ENCOURAGE, ENHANCE?

WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS?



So it is the agreed upon meaning that hurts now? This is becoming a witch hunt.




MORE ABSURDITY. See above. Sigh.

What a stinking pile of straw dogs and red herrings.



So it is still the agreed upon meaning that hurts?




nother set of absurd sentences.

I think causation in this case has been firmly established. The MRI studies alone have confirmed that.

Why do the words hurt?

1. They were INTENDED TO HURT by the sender!
2. They were DESIGNED TO HURT by the sender!
.


So it is the intention of the sender that hurts?


3.They were said/written IN THE MOST HURTFUL WAYS the sender could devise--deliberately or reflexively!


So it is the hurtful ways of the sender that hurts?


4.They struck to the core of the receiver's 'heart', essence, key realities in a way deliberately designed to do the MOST DAMAGE to the already bewildered and hurting receiver.


It is how our essence receives words that causes pain? You've arrived at more conclusions than I ever have.
.

6. The word choices themselves were chose as the MOST HURTFUL WORDS available to hurl into the sender's psyche, spirit, heart, emotional being.


So then it is how the words are chosen that hurt? How many scapegoats do you actually need?



7. The tones with which the words were hurled were also as hurtful as possible.
8. The murderous anger with which the words were hurled was received as it was sent--the full devastating force.


So now it's murderous anger and tone that hurts....ok.


9. The receivers were inherently in their make-up MOST VULNERABLE to exactly those words spoken by those sender perpetrators hurled in exactly those ways over exactly those issues.


Now it is the vulnerability of the receiver that causes pain....

The trend remains the same.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EllaMarina
 





'So what?' So what about anything, really? If my comment sounded like purposeful ignorance to your point, then whatever, you know? I personally thought what I said had a fair amount of merit.


You're correct. I apologize for that. I assumed the comment was directed at me, which implies that I've never been verbally abused before. I agree that one would have to be on the receiving end to understand that experience.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


You are still affirming that you have no experience of what you are talking about. as you say you have never been hurt by abusive and hurtful words.
It does not add to your credibility.
It happens to other persons, it happened to me. If it doesn't happen ever to you then what do you know about something you have no experience of.
If I say I have experienced suffering from verbal abuse, hurtful words directed at me are you saying I am a lier or that I am "superstitious".

You aside,the example you gave was of verbal abuse which is suffered by others (such as the e.g you gave of online verbal abuse ending in a suicide case). You are now saying they were just "superstitious" and that is why the verbal abuse/words hurt them.
Not the hurtful words that were said to them, just that they have a belief of using words!!?? Crazy stuff.
Do you want me to think " Bad verbal abuse victim they use words(believe in words) and if they use them they should be hurt/abused by others, as its their belief in using words that hurts themselves"

Another ludicrous suggestion from you- it is not a case of a "belief" in words that hurts a person.
I, as a person, believe in words , I use them to communicate with other persons and that does not make me "superstitious" .

The verbally abused person is not "superstitious" they simply understand what the hateful and abusive words directed at them mean.
Words are tools of the mind.







posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BO XIAN
 



Whatever paints your opponent in a bad way. Call me obtuse. Tell me I have AD. Say I'm socially cross-ways. Tell me how I've been abused. Tell me how I'm a bully. Call me smug. Call me irrational. These words come out of your mouth and fall flat on the floor. This shows more about you, your irrationality, than it does me.


LOLOLOL

NOPE.

Says you.

My groping to explain your observable behavior from my background in such matters is just that.

You can dodge; throw out fancy dancing-around-the-issues-in-convoluted-mystifying-ways nonsense until the cows come home. It still doesn't wash.



Your opinions about me as a person (whom you've never met), your "hypothesis", are so far beyond truth that it's quite telling. I have to wonder what other baseless conclusions you jump to.


Can I be wrong? Certainly. Been wrong tons in my life. However, in this case, I'm far less likely to believe your protestations than I am my tried and generally true assessments.

You are beginning to feel like Jr Olivet without his version of ET nonsense.



More evidence of baseless diagnosis.


Time will tell. It's not hard to notice when a duck walks like a duck; swims like a duck; lays duck eggs . . .



Now you're letting the cat out of the bag! Finally some honesty.

So it is the tone that hurts? So it is the comprehension that hurts? So it is the meaning that hurts? It seems you're beginning to agree with me.


Not in my book. I merely note the whole basket of factors contributing to the pain. You seem fixated on peripheral factors.




So if words are meaningless, then it isn't the words that hurt is it? You are merely affirming what I've been saying all along. Welcome to the dark side.


I'm beginning to think that we don't share enough of a common dictionary to have a meaningful authentic dialogue.

I did not say that words are meaningless. PLEASE avoid putting your nonsense in my fingers, thank you very much! Sheesh.

I said that WHEN . . .

as in

IN THE CONTEXT OF A CERTAIN TIME FRAME; IN A CERTAIN CONTEXT BOUNDED BY TIME, PERSONS AND PLACE

WHEREIN

A given sequence of sounds or letters are NOT part of that LANGUAGE . . . THEN

as in AT THAT TIME

IN THAT CONTEXT

WITH THOSE CONTINGENCIES

TO THOSE FOLKS NOT USING THAT LANGUAGE, said sound sequences or letter sequences would be meaningless.

THAT IS NOT REMOTELY the same thing as a father speaking a common language to a son using painful hurtful words in a shared language to deliberately inflict emotional abusive pain on the son.

But I think you knew that. You were evidently merely being obtuse, contrarian, spewing more evidence of Attachment Disorder. Cute. Not.

Now to go to the other half of that post. Sigh. . . . probably more of an exercise in futility. This is rapidly becoming a worthless exercise.

Maybe some onlookers can learn something.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Yes I agree with this, but it is because they hold a superstition to words, they cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. Would you teach them that words hurt and that they should avoid them at all costs? Or would you teach them the difference between opinion and truth? By saying words hurt, you weaken them and give that power to the ones who would try to use words to cause harm.


Certainly it's worth teaching children and adults to assign proper blame and responsibility to those who've earned it. And, to avoid allowing bully's et al to strike to their heart, their bone marrow with

. . . HURTFUL WORDS successfully.

HOWEVER, THAT IS A PROCESS to learn such. Children 0-5 or even to 8 are highly unlikely to be able to wrap their understanding and reflexes inner and outer around such a concept very successfully at all.

Shoot, even my colleagues in our PhD program in Clinical Psych could not always manage such. IIRC only one of our marriages survived. That was in significant part because HURTFUL WORDS were STILL EFFECTIVE in doing their desired and designed dirty work in the other person.



So now it is the intention that hurts? Why didn't you just say so? You even capitalized it for emphasis.


Which word(s) in the following sentence do you not understand?

PAINFUL HURTFUL WORDS CHOSEN TO STRIKE TO THE HEART AND CORE OF ANOTHER PERSON ARE A KEY FACTOR IN THE VERY PAINFUL AND HURTFUL COMMUNICATION.

Which word(s) in the following sentence do you not understand?

TONES, BODY LANGUAGE, FACIAL EXPRESSIONS ETC.
ALSO COMMUNICATE HARSH AND PAINFUL ASSAULTIVENESS TOWARD THE RECEIVER WHEN PAINFUL DESTRUCTIVE WORDS ARE USED.






Is it absurd because you cannot answer it?


No. It's absurd because it was a nonsensical, absurd, meaningless question. It's like asking if God can create a rock too big for God to move. It is INHERENTLY absurd.





So it is the agreed upon meaning that hurts now? This is becoming a witch hunt.


NOPE. It's evidently a sick game where one side is pretending to try and communicate while responding in extremely absurd and non-communicative ways.



So it is still the agreed upon meaning that hurts?


See the sentences in Teal above . . . not that it'll do any good but re-reading them might increase slightly the chance that something would register.

If you ever decide to have a genuine dialogue with meaningful rational responses . . . perhaps I'll bother trying again.

Until then . . . I invite you to go chase a duck.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





My groping to explain your observable behavior from my background in such matters is just that.

You can dodge; throw out fancy dancing-around-the-issues-in-convoluted-mystifying-ways nonsense until the cows come home. It still doesn't wash.


Neither does your magical ability to diagnose people through the internet. Please continue, it merely serves as fodder for the rest of your fodder. Everyone loves to hear how you can weave a tail with such a vivid imagination.

I suppose you could drop more hints about how you're more of an authority than I.



Time will tell. It's not hard to notice when a duck walks like a duck; swims like a duck; lays duck eggs . . .


You mean types like a duck? That's really all you have to go off of. Let me guess, you employ other such deductions to your ethics and your logic. A bible man I would imagine; seduced by ancient scribes and more words. That's called credulity and superstition in my eyes, but in hindsight, goes along with what I'm trying to prove.



PAINFUL HURTFUL WORDS CHOSEN TO STRIKE TO THE HEART AND CORE OF ANOTHER PERSON ARE A KEY FACTOR IN THE VERY PAINFUL AND HURTFUL COMMUNICATION.


Where do you get this stuff? "Core of another person"? Where would that be? In the middle of someone? The heart? Aren't you in a PhD program? More superstition, in caps-lock no less—I bet it would've looked better in teal. Let's start using terminology with some meaning here. Your words are striking only your own heart.

Your opinion of what "painful hurtful words" are does not prove that words hurt. Have you heard loggers speak to each other? They make the foulest comments at each other—for fun. Their "hurtful communication", their "painful destructive words" is but a game.



Which word(s) in the following sentence do you not understand?

TONES, BODY LANGUAGE, FACIAL EXPRESSIONS ETC. ALSO COMMUNICATE HARSH AND PAINFUL ASSAULTIVENESS TOWARD THE RECEIVER WHEN PAINFUL DESTRUCTIVE WORDS ARE USED.


"Harsh and painful assaultiveness"? I think you mean that we respond to threats. Yes, we respond to verbal and visible cues. All animals do. All animals feel stress when perceiving a threat. That is not under debate.



No. It's absurd because it was a nonsensical, absurd, meaningless question. It's like asking if God can create a rock too big for God to move. It is INHERENTLY absurd.


In philosophy there's a little thing called a thought experiment. And yes they are absurd, but they are designed to test our intuition and reason. This is the philosophy section of the website after all. If you can't manage a simple though experiment, then why bother?

Then I realized we're not even discussing philosophy any more. I'm watching you yell in teal and caps-lock to assert your point with nothing but ad hominem and personal attacks. Is this why you do it? Because you think your "painful hurtful words" are doing me damage? No wonder.

In that case, I accept your opinion about both me and my OP. Thanks for spending the time taking part in it. I'm sorry we couldn't keep it civil, but then again what do you expect from an absurd, convoluted, AD inflicted, nonsensical, duck like myself.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I am afraid this attempt at a philosophical discussion has taken a wrong turn. It seems like everyone is painting LesMis as an unfeeling monster that does not care about the effects his words have on others. However, this is not the case... I do not think he is trying to say we should go around saying ignorant and offensive things because words "do not hurt." No, I think he is just trying to dig into the Philosophy of Language and the extent to which our own conscience plays a role in the communication of words. I apologize to everyone if I am wrong as I have followed this thread since the beginning but I have not read through every post.

The issue at hand is not whether saying offensive things is bad... I think there are some moral justifications even removed from religion that say verbally abusing someone is wrong. However, we want to know how words work, how language works, and how we communicate.

Someone earlier likened words to a knife. This is not a fair analogy. It is universally true that if a human is stabbed by a knife, he will feel pain. However, words are different. Someone might try to insult me by calling me "'n-word'" but I would have no reason to be offended by this. However, call a black person this and he has much more reason and right to be offended.

This distinction between knives and words show that words do not have the universal hurting power that knives do. There is a subjective element of being hurt by words, where the person who is being insulted has to accept these words as an insult and then feel bad as a result. However, a person can also reject the insult and not feel anything. In light of this I would say it is not words themselves that hurt, but it is the subjective meaning a person attaches to words that hurt. The reason why certain words hurt is because of the existence of a painful truth that we would like to forget. Words remind us of this painful truth, and opens the door for this painful truth to hurt us again.

So words do not actually hurt; they serve as a key to open the door to the painful truths that we want to forget.
edit on 25-11-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Wang Tang
I am afraid this attempt at a philosophical discussion has taken a wrong turn. It seems like everyone is painting LesMis as an unfeeling monster that does not care about the effects his words have on others. However, this is not the case... I do not think he is trying to say we should go around saying ignorant and offensive things because words "do not hurt." No, I think he is just trying to dig into the Philosophy of Language and the extent to which our own conscience plays a role in the communication of words. I apologize to everyone if I am wrong as I have followed this thread since the beginning but I have not read through every post.

The issue at hand is not whether saying offensive things is bad... I think there are some moral justifications even removed from religion that say verbally abusing someone is wrong. However, we want to know how words work, how language works, and how we communicate.

Someone earlier likened words to a knife. This is not a fair analogy. It is universally true that if a human is stabbed by a knife, he will feel pain. However, words are different. Someone might try to insult me by calling me "'n-word'" but I would have no reason to be offended by this. However, call a black person this and he has much more reason and right to be offended.

This distinction between knives and words show that words do not have the universal hurting power that knives do. There is a subjective element of being hurt by words, where the person who is being insulted has to accept these words as an insult and then feel bad as a result. However, a person can also reject the insult and not feel anything. In light of this I would say it is not words themselves that hurt, but it is the subjective meaning a person attaches to words that hurt. The reason why certain words hurt is because of the existence of a painful truth that we would like to forget. Words remind us of this painful truth, and opens the door for this painful truth to hurt us again.

So words do not actually hurt; they serve as a key to open the door to the painful truths that we want to forget.
edit on 25-11-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret

No, the context of the thread was that words don't hurt and like LM you are trying to remove the meaning and the mind from the word.
They are not separate, when the reference case for the discussion was a case of verbal abuse online to a depressed person who then suicided. Verbal abuse is not always 'subjective' it was not in the example.
I am not saying that ALL words hurt, I am just arguing that hurtful verbal abuse hurts, that these hateful hurtful words can and do hurt persons . We should not blame the verbally abused person for what the verbal abuser did and say their subjective meaning of F8*ck * big fat sa*k of s*&t was wrong as though it was not clear that it was wrong, abusive and hurtful thing to say!
If we use a knife on others it can hurt others, if we use hurtful speech to others it can hurt them and cause them suffering.


The subjective meaning of words is in the mind in which the word appears.
They are not separate. Words are the tools of the mind.

Without mind no duality no person no words no hurt.
But that was not the subject of the thread.


edit on 26-11-2013 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2013 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


I don't deny that hurtful words hurt. My stance is regarding how they hurt. Hurtful words are hurtful because they make us aware of these painful truths that we carry with us, but it is not the words themselves that hurt us. It is the painful truths that hurt us. Words have a part in the process, no doubt, but it is not the direct cause of pain, as words only serve to trigger our awareness of a painful fact. If someone causes pain in another through their words whether intentional or unintentional the person who spoke the words certainly is at least partially responsible for triggering this pain. It certainly is not the fault of the victim of verbal abuse, as this person has no control over what painful truths and memories he carries.

I think a relatable example is someone with PTSD. A Soldier who has PTSD as a result of extensive combat has certain triggers that cause him to have painful visions and flashbacks. For example, sudden loud noises coming from nearby construction might trigger painful memories of a firefight. It seems wrong to say it is the fault of the nearby construction that this Soldier had a flashback. What I'm trying to say is "hurtful words" are only hurtful in certain contexts, so these words do not carry the inherent property of being pain-causing.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself too clearly, but it seemed like you guys were arguing past each other and then resorting to personal attacks when both sides didn't seem to engage the other's argument, so I'm just trying to bring us back to reasoned arguments.
edit on 26-11-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Wang Tang
reply to post by BDBinc
 


I don't deny that hurtful words hurt. My stance is regarding how they hurt. Hurtful words are hurtful because they make us aware of these painful truths that we carry with us, but it is not the words themselves that hurt us. It is the painful truths that hurt us. Words have a part in the process, no doubt, but it is not the direct cause of pain, as words only serve to trigger our awareness of a painful fact. If someone causes pain in another through their words whether intentional or unintentional the person who spoke the words certainly is at least partially responsible for triggering this pain. It certainly is not the fault of the victim of verbal abuse, as this person has no control over what painful truths and memories he carries.

I think a relatable example is someone with PTSD. A Soldier who has PTSD as a result of extensive combat has certain triggers that cause him to have painful visions and flashbacks. For example, sudden loud noises coming from nearby construction might trigger painful memories of a firefight. It seems wrong to say it is the fault of the nearby construction that this Soldier had a flashback. What I'm trying to say is "hurtful words" are only hurtful in certain contexts, so these words do not carry the inherent property of being pain-causing.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself too clearly, but it seemed like you guys were arguing past each other and then resorting to personal attacks when both sides didn't seem to engage the other's argument, so I'm just trying to bring us back to reasoned arguments.
edit on 26-11-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret

We then only agree that words hurt.

NEXT a different thread could be 'WHY words can hurt'. Not 'do words hurt" except for LM most persons know they can and they do.
People who verbally abuse and use hurtful words are not "being taken out of context" .
Again like LM's argument you are separating meaning from words, trying to take them as letters without meanings to be taken out of context.
Sorry but yours is not a reasoned argument as you just copied his point, imagining words void of meanings and context & speaker and hearer. As though you want me to believe that when bully vindictively use words to hurt the words they use, intention and context is just misunderstood. Poor poor bully never mind his victim, is that the sort of thinking you want to engender?


edit on 26-11-2013 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


It was worth a try to have a reasonable argument on this topic but clearly this is impossible. You are just twisting the meaning of my words to suit your point of view. I suppose I am partially to blame for not articulating my view with enough clarity. Regardless you are clearly entrenched in your view and no expression of sound logical reasoning will move you so I'll take this as my cue to remove myself from this discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join