OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Yigal Chripun]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> You're attributing more to the idea of "words" than just "words". What
> you're describing is harassment. Yes, harassment involves words, but it's
> clearly more than just words. Such scenarios are not what I'm talking about.
> (Granted, the "sticks and stones" adage is traditionally used to pacify kids
> that were the victims of name-calling, so maybe describing it that way was
> inaccurate after all.)
>
> What I'm talking about is illustrated by this:
> On some show/song/game/etc., some character says:
> "Why can't I get my CPU fan to work?!?"
> "Why can't I get my dang CPU fan to work?!?"
> "Why can't I get my fucking CPU fan to work?!?"
>
> The intent, scenario, action, everything, is exactly the same. The only
> difference is the words. No one that tunes in, listens, and remains unharmed
> by one of those is ever going to be harmed by one of the others unless
> there's something seriously wrong with them.
>
> Sure, words can be used in ways that can harm, but the harm doesn't come
> from the words themselves. I can do hurtful things that involve words
> without ever going near profanity. For example, go up to someone who is
> insecure about their acne and use these particular words: "I'm surprised you
> are willing to show that face in public." Of course, one could argue that
> this particular *combination* of words is profane, but even that's not true:
> I could recite that exact same arrangement to a good friend with a good
> sense of humor, or to a mask-painter who's unveiling a piece from a private
> collection they had previously been very secretive about. Same arrangement,
> same words, different acceptability-levels. Conversely, I can use profanity
> in a way that doesn't harm anyone. "Oh, fuck, I almost overslept." Words
> like "that" can be used in ways that are highly offensive, and words like
> "fuck" can be used in ways that are completely benign - any word can be used
> either way. So clearly, the words themselves can't be inherently good or
> bad.
>

in other words: "Human languages are context-sensitive while programming 
languages are context-free". Except C++ of course, but that's a bad 
example of a programming language <g>

context-sensitive means that you need to have both the context and the 
language phrase to derive "semantic" meaning.

it's obvious that for a specific context, a phrase can indeed be hurtful 
much more than physical violence. Anyone who says otherwise, is lying to 
himself/herself. Like Don said, words can and did cause wars (under a 
specific context, of course)..

just my 2 golden-pieces..