It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by BO XIAN
I understand the frustration. I am purposefully being controversial on this subject.
But let's discuss this a little further philosophically without appealing to authority too quickly.
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 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.
If words hurt, the very act of speaking them would cause pain to the one who spoke them.
Now in the case of verbal abuse, which you did indeed provide sufficient evidence for, was it the words that did the damage?
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.
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.
This raises questions:
How can an insult hurt one person but not another when the exact same words were used?
Why do some words hurt but others do not?
Strange new accusations you make when you believe lies and slander [which are done with words which you claimed do not hurt].
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.
reply to post by BO XIAN
How does a bunch of letters cause physical harm?
How come when we verbally abuse someone who doesn't understand the language, they don't feel pain?
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.
reply to post by BDBinc
. . . 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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
More evidence of Attachment Disorder, in my book.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
This is NOT
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.
Oh, Dear. More absurd questions. Why do some like Vanilla and some Chocolate???
FOR A LIST OF REASONS.
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?
MORE ABSURDITY. See above. Sigh.
What a stinking pile of straw dogs and red herrings.
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!
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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 baseless diagnosis.
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.
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.
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.
So now it is the intention that hurts? Why didn't you just say so? You even capitalized it for emphasis.
Is it absurd because you cannot answer it?
So it is the agreed upon meaning that hurts now? This is becoming a witch hunt.
So it is still the agreed upon meaning that hurts?
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.
Time will tell. It's not hard to notice when a duck walks like a duck; swims like a duck; lays duck eggs . . .
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.
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.
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
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