My Clementine wasn't like that either, as previously stated. Which is all the more reason why I have serious concerns with her character dev… moreelopment. I can understand slight changes in her character, I really can. But for her to be completely different in the matter of two years, is bizarre. That's really all. Either way, I respect your opinion on this subject matter.
My Clementine wasn't like that either, as previously stated. Which is all the more reason why I have serious concerns with her character dev… moreelopment. I can understand slight changes in her character, I really can. But for her to be completely different in the matter of two years, is bizarre. That's really all. Either way, I respect your opinion on this subject matter.
"There are other ways to alleviate stress than to use profanity. That's a proven fact."
Swearing is effective, and is one of the ways to do that. There is no reason to not use it. Only reason people dont like swearing is because of social norms. And frankly - i heard that when any apocalypse occurs, social norms tend to drastically drop.
"I strongly disagree with you. If you can honestly say that murder is only subjectively wrong, then I don't really know what to say for you. Murder being objectively wrong (among other things) isn't one of those things based on emotions, or dependent on one's own mind. It's an objective moral based on something more."
Killing is a part of surviving. It is only subjectively wrong. Because there is no objective wrongs or rights.
"Do you know why you would be angry with the person who killed your family? That's called, "righteous indignation". Because something inside of you tells you that it's wrong. That's called, "your conscience"."
Subjective emotions.
"An accident is an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally, but again, an accident can still result in harm, injury, damage, or loss. It doesn't mean that someone or something wasn't harmed, injured, damaged, or loss, but that it happened on accident and not by intention. I'm just thinking with a rational mind without having an overemotional perspective."
And Clementine's intentions weren't to kill him, but only scare him.
"As sarcastic as you're being right now, suggesting that I haven't heard the concept of threatening, I'm going to still answer your question. Yes, I have heard of the concept of threatening, but there are different ways to go about it. You put yourself in the line of danger by rash actions, like pointing a gun at someone with the intention of "threatening" them. That's not a wise decision."
It wasn't the best thing she could do, but it was an option.
"That's debatable. This is just how you have been conditioned to believe, because of how movies (and such) have depicted the zombie apocalypse. As for your grammar, I can't help but point out the flaws as I see them, not knowing previously how much sleep you had gotten."
What i said would be valid in most if not all kind of apocalypses.
TL:DR
Swearing isn't bad. It doesn't matter how you feel about it.
Game-design wise - it only shows how much a zombie apocalypse affected that innocent little girl. And i like it. Because someone who survived 4 years in a reality like that, will most likely not be all that innocent.
You really don't have to care about what I said. But the fact of the matter is that your care (or lack thereof) for truth, doesn't change it… more.
There are other ways to alleviate stress than to use profanity. That's a proven fact.
I know exactly what you said, which is also exactly what I said. Clementine is a young child in a bad environment, but that's not an excuse for her to act out of character (not for her specifically necessarily).
I strongly disagree with you. If you can honestly say that murder is only subjectively wrong, then I don't really know what to say for you. Murder being objectively wrong (among other things) isn't one of those things based on emotions, or dependent on one's own mind. It's an objective moral based on something more.
Do you know why you would be angry with the person who killed your family? That's called, "righteous indignation". Because something inside of you tells you that it's wrong. That's calle… [view original content]
You're making a wild accusation that's not based on logic and reason. I have already stated a case for how other avenues could be used to alleviate stress and whatnot. In short, there are better methods to use that accomplish the same purpose. That's not the only reason why people choose to not use profanity, and you're limiting your understanding if that's what you think. And besides, have you heard your average individual? Most people absolutely love using profanity, it's not a social norm. A social norm is defined as something that's socially normal. If majority of Americans (among others) are using profanity on a daily basis, the contrary belief isn't normal socially.
In the picture that I painted, murder wasn't for the survival of others, it was for the sheer enjoyment of killing another person. Whether or not you think that profanity is wrong, is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact of the matter. You're one of the many who don't believe the truth. But one day you will know the truth, though. That goes for there being objective moral values, meaning that things are objectively right and wrong, too. Your argument defeats itself anyways. Because, if I subjectively say that something is objectively wrong, how can you say that my subjective is wrong, if it's all subjective anyways? See, you're not making any sense.
Subjective emotions? I have heard it all from you now. sigh
Clementine's intentions may have not been to murder the man who attacked Javier, but like I said, an accident can still result in harm, injury, damage, or loss. This includes but is not limited to murder.
Finally, we can agree on something. Yes, it was an option, but it wasn't a wise decision. You don't do something without rationally thinking, or else you will face the consequences of your actions. Clementine should have known better than to point a gun, which could have been loaded with at least one working round, and that if it happens to go off would result in the death of another person, therefore causing unnecessary conflict between her and others, putting herself and anyone close to her at risk. It's a very foolish and selfish decision.
If it's too long for you to read, then you shouldn't have even responded to it in all honesty, because otherwise a proper discussion cannot be had. And according to your logic, to say that would happen in most apocalypses (of any kind) is subjective. Therefore, it doesn't hold any weight if it's based on personal whim, because I could say the exact opposite and be equally as right, which while having two different answers to the same question is illogical. Ask any mathematician if two plus two can equal anything but four. It's illogical to think otherwise. Again, your argument defeats itself. Profanity is definitively wrong. It doesn't matter how you feel about it either. Your opinion means little in the grand scheme of things, if what you say doesn't have a foundation to be structured on.
"There are other ways to alleviate stress than to use profanity. That's a proven fact."
Swearing is effective, and is one of the ways to … moredo that. There is no reason to not use it. Only reason people dont like swearing is because of social norms. And frankly - i heard that when any apocalypse occurs, social norms tend to drastically drop.
"I strongly disagree with you. If you can honestly say that murder is only subjectively wrong, then I don't really know what to say for you. Murder being objectively wrong (among other things) isn't one of those things based on emotions, or dependent on one's own mind. It's an objective moral based on something more."
Killing is a part of surviving. It is only subjectively wrong. Because there is no objective wrongs or rights.
"Do you know why you would be angry with the person who killed your family? That's called, "righteous indignation". Because something inside of you tells you that it's wrong… [view original content]
"You're making a wild accusation that's not based on logic and reason. I have already stated a case for how other avenues could be used to alleviate stress and whatnot. In short, there are better methods to use that accomplish the same purpose. That's not the only reason why people choose to not use profanity, and you're limiting your understanding if that's what you think. And besides, have you heard your average individual? Most people absolutely love using profanity, it's not a social norm. A social norm is defined as something that's socially normal. If majority of Americans (among others) are using profanity on a daily basis, the contrary belief isn't normal socially."
Just because there are better methods doesn't make this method bad. You haven't gave me or anyone here a good reason to why not swear.
"In the picture that I painted, murder wasn't for the survival of others, it was for the sheer enjoyment of killing another person. Whether or not you think that profanity is wrong, is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact of the matter. You're one of the many who don't believe the truth. But one day you will know the truth, though. That goes for there being objective moral values, meaning that things are objectively right and wrong, too. Your argument defeats itself anyways. Because, if I subjectively say that something is objectively wrong, how can you say that my subjective is wrong, if it's all subjective anyways? See, you're not making any sense."
Because subjective is subjective. My subjective is different from your subjective. All we have are our perspectives. There is no ultimate truths, but you seem to believe there are.
Also, like i said - IF it was for pure enjoyment then that's objectively wrong. If people were running around killing each other our specie wouldn't make it. This is why it's wrong. Not because killing as an act is wrong - it's about why you killed and what impact it will have on the world.
"Subjective emotions? I have heard it all from you now. sigh"
All emotions are subjective.
"Finally, we can agree on something. Yes, it was an option, but it wasn't a wise decision. You don't do something without rationally thinking, or else you will face the consequences of your actions. Clementine should have known better than to point a gun, which could have been loaded with at least one working round, and that if it happens to go off would result in the death of another person, therefore causing unnecessary conflict between her and others, putting herself and anyone close to her at risk. It's a very foolish and selfish decision."
What you think is reasonable may not be reasonable to others. Like i said - it's all about the perspective. You have your values, i have my values.
Besides, like i said before - we are all human. We often don't make sense. It's easy to sit behind your monitor screen and analyze and judge others. If you were in that same situation, however, i'm sure you wouldn't do exactly what you think you would do. Emotions come to play. She was pissed. And after all she saw, i wouldn't be surprised if she had anger issues.
"If it's too long for you to read, then you shouldn't have even responded to it in all honesty, because otherwise a proper discussion cannot be had. And according to your logic, to say that would happen in most apocalypses (of any kind) is subjective. Therefore, it doesn't hold any weight if it's based on personal whim, because I could say the exact opposite and be equally as right, which while having two different answers to the same question is illogical. Ask any mathematician if two plus two can equal anything but four. It's illogical to think otherwise. Again, your argument defeats itself. Profanity is definitively wrong. It doesn't matter how you feel about it either. Your opinion means little in the grand scheme of things, if what you say doesn't have a foundation to be structured on."
Ah, sorry, bad habit of using 'tl:dr' that way. What i meant by that, is 'in general'.
Anyway, you feel swearing is definitively wrong. I say swearing is a natural reaction, and because it doesn't harm anybody, there is no point in claiming it as wrong and keeping away from it.
In my logic, things are 'wrong' because they have a potential of affecting someone or something negatively. Swearing alone, does not harm anybody.
You can say swearing is bad when faced towards someone, but if that's the case - it's not about the words you use but about the message you are trying to get across with those words. Saying non-swear words that hurt like "i hate you" would hurt as much if not even more than "fuck you" or any other swear words.
Yelling 'fuck' when hurt or stressed is objectively not bad.
Also, about subjective/objective. I said all things are subjective, yes. But it's only because our brains are closed systems. Therefore, what i meant by that is that what you think is true doesn't have to be true. Nothing have to be true either. When i say something is 'objective', i mean i think i came to that conclusion using my logic values rather than emotions values.
Also, i'm at least willing to admit we are merely lost children with only capability of thinking something works as it works.
You're making a wild accusation that's not based on logic and reason. I have already stated a case for how other avenues could be used to al… moreleviate stress and whatnot. In short, there are better methods to use that accomplish the same purpose. That's not the only reason why people choose to not use profanity, and you're limiting your understanding if that's what you think. And besides, have you heard your average individual? Most people absolutely love using profanity, it's not a social norm. A social norm is defined as something that's socially normal. If majority of Americans (among others) are using profanity on a daily basis, the contrary belief isn't normal socially.
In the picture that I painted, murder wasn't for the survival of others, it was for the sheer enjoyment of killing another person. Whether or not you think that profanity is wrong, is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact of the matter. You're one of the many who… [view original content]
I don't really have much else to say. I wasn't originally intending to reply either. But what I will say, is that if there's any such thing as "subjective", then there has to be a counterpart. Meaning, that where there is subjectivity, there is also objectivity. It's no different than how there's good and how there's bad, how there's light and how there's darkness. For you to even describe something as subjective, that means the complete opposite exists as well. This is simple logic. As for legitimate reasons to not use profanity, foul language has become as much a part of our society as smoking or drinking. Do you know what they all have in common? They first produce an inward change which later develops into an outward behavior. It all comes from a dark place, often used against others for their hurt (emotionally speaking). There's power in your tongue. You may not see how it could affect someone, but every careless word that you speak has power, power of both life and death. You can speak words of life, or words of death. I have personally experienced being a witness to heated arguments that were started over careless words being used, including but not limited to profanity. It only causes trouble.
"You're making a wild accusation that's not based on logic and reason. I have already stated a case for how other avenues could be used to a… morelleviate stress and whatnot. In short, there are better methods to use that accomplish the same purpose. That's not the only reason why people choose to not use profanity, and you're limiting your understanding if that's what you think. And besides, have you heard your average individual? Most people absolutely love using profanity, it's not a social norm. A social norm is defined as something that's socially normal. If majority of Americans (among others) are using profanity on a daily basis, the contrary belief isn't normal socially."
Just because there are better methods doesn't make this method bad. You haven't gave me or anyone here a good reason to why not swear.
"In the picture that I painted, murder wasn't for the survival of others, it was for the sheer enjoyment of killing another person. … [view original content]
I don't understand how Clem's swearing is such a big deal ._. I mean, I didnt even notice that she was swearing that much, oh wait, maybe It's because she only swears like three times in S3? Atleast in my playthrough. But seriously, almost everyone swears sometimes, me too. So the bigger question here is for me: Have you never seen a teenager swear? .-.
Swear words are not the problem. People who treat swear words like a huge deal are the problem. People like you. You started discussions with many people over something so unimportant.
And that whole 'swearing leads to a dark side'? Bullshit. I swear a lot, yet, i don't smoke, i don't drink. And i'm not planning to. Most of the people who do smoke and drink USE swear words, but that doesn't mean people who swear also drink and smoke. You got it all backwards.
ANY words used carelessly have a potential of starting arguments.
"But what I will say, is that if there's any such thing as "subjective", then there has to be a counterpart."
That's simple logic. But more complex logic tells us that even what we call objective, aka based on facts, is also subjective to some point, because our reasoning and emotions are not totally separated from each other + our brains are closed systems, therefore we can't possibly know if the information we gain and theories we form are correct or not.
Swear words are just words like any other. The context you use them in matters, not the words alone. People getting triggered over justified swearing are people who contribute to this huge illogical taboo.
I don't really have much else to say. I wasn't originally intending to reply either. But what I will say, is that if there's any such thing … moreas "subjective", then there has to be a counterpart. Meaning, that where there is subjectivity, there is also objectivity. It's no different than how there's good and how there's bad, how there's light and how there's darkness. For you to even describe something as subjective, that means the complete opposite exists as well. This is simple logic. As for legitimate reasons to not use profanity, foul language has become as much a part of our society as smoking or drinking. Do you know what they all have in common? They first produce an inward change which later develops into an outward behavior. It all comes from a dark place, often used against others for their hurt (emotionally speaking). There's power in your tongue. You may not see how it could affect someone, but every careless word that you speak has … [view original content]
All of your comments are subjective, right? Since truth is subjective in your mind, I'm equally as right in saying that people like you are the problem. This is an open forum where I can start discussions as I please. You can easily go elsewhere if you don't like it. Besides, you replied to my comment if you remember. I made a simple comment which led to others replying, like yourself. And if that's what you took from my comment, then you have it all wrong. I never once said the things that you're beginning to suggest. You're putting words in my mouth right now. But of course, any careless words used can start an argument. That's not what's up for discussion.
Call it what you want. That is logic simply. If an external source provides the information, which has no bias towards our emotions, then it's an accurate statement to suggest that certain things are objectively wrong. You can dance around it all that you want, but the truth is the truth even if you don't believe it. While the given context is important, foul language is still morally wrong, and that's an objective statement. If your words are meant for encouraging someone, then they shouldn't have been said. Period. The profanity used isn't justified, and I'm not getting "triggered". It's as simple as that. Like I said before, you will find out one day. Either way, you can believe what you want.
Swear words are not the problem. People who treat swear words like a huge deal are the problem. People like you. You started discussions wit… moreh many people over something so unimportant.
And that whole 'swearing leads to a dark side'? Bullshit. I swear a lot, yet, i don't smoke, i don't drink. And i'm not planning to. Most of the people who do smoke and drink USE swear words, but that doesn't mean people who swear also drink and smoke. You got it all backwards.
ANY words used carelessly have a potential of starting arguments.
"But what I will say, is that if there's any such thing as "subjective", then there has to be a counterpart."
That's simple logic. But more complex logic tells us that even what we call objective, aka based on facts, is also subjective to some point, because our reasoning and emotions are not totally separated from each other + our brains are closed systems, therefore we can't possibly know if the information w… [view original content]
"All of your comments are subjective, right? Since truth is subjective in your mind, I'm equally as right in saying that people like you are the problem. "
Yes. But only for an unbiased, mentally unlimited observer. From my perspective, i think you are wrong.
"This is an open forum where I can start discussions as I please. You can easily go elsewhere if you don't like it. "
Never said you can't. That doesn't mean i can't criticize your actions.
"While the given context is important, foul language is still morally wrong, and that's an objective statement. "
Issue is, morality isn't objective. Different people have different morals.
At this point, we're both telling each other that we're wrong, without bringing anything new to the discussion. So it's the end for me.
All of your comments are subjective, right? Since truth is subjective in your mind, I'm equally as right in saying that people like you are … morethe problem. This is an open forum where I can start discussions as I please. You can easily go elsewhere if you don't like it. Besides, you replied to my comment if you remember. I made a simple comment which led to others replying, like yourself. And if that's what you took from my comment, then you have it all wrong. I never once said the things that you're beginning to suggest. You're putting words in my mouth right now. But of course, any careless words used can start an argument. That's not what's up for discussion.
Call it what you want. That is logic simply. If an external source provides the information, which has no bias towards our emotions, then it's an accurate statement to suggest that certain things are objectively wrong. You can dance around it all that you want, but the truth is the tr… [view original content]
No, it's absolutely right for all persons, according to your very own logic. If morality is subjective, then your comments are also. You can only say that from your perspective that I'm wrong. From my perspective, I can definitively say that you're wrong, because I believe in objective morals.
You can criticize me all you want, I don't really care, but at least be honest with yourself. I'm just saying that if my comments were about something so unimportant (as you said), then you could have easily remained silent. Since it's not important, right?
Issue is, you can't objectively say that. Different people may have different morals, but it doesn't mean that their morals are objectively right. That's all I'm saying. Yes, at this point, we're beating a dead horse with the vain repetition. This is the end for me, too.
"All of your comments are subjective, right? Since truth is subjective in your mind, I'm equally as right in saying that people like you are… more the problem. "
Yes. But only for an unbiased, mentally unlimited observer. From my perspective, i think you are wrong.
"This is an open forum where I can start discussions as I please. You can easily go elsewhere if you don't like it. "
Never said you can't. That doesn't mean i can't criticize your actions.
"While the given context is important, foul language is still morally wrong, and that's an objective statement. "
Issue is, morality isn't objective. Different people have different morals.
At this point, we're both telling each other that we're wrong, without bringing anything new to the discussion. So it's the end for me.
Eh, I don't mind. Even though I don't swear myself, bad language doesn't phase me that much. Honestly, it amused me when she dropped the f-bomb. But, they could have made it so she doesn't swear if you taught her not too, that would have been a nice touch and helped players see in her their Clem.
Comments
stop stop stop stop stop stop stop
Shit, you're right. I'm retarded.
This thread went from swearing to... periods. How'd we get here?
This are the consequences of the choices.
They fucking ruined it. And you all just come up with an excuse to them,
aint gonna lie bout that, it cringes me too
Why am I double posting?
Well, Im glad that we can respectfully disagree.
"There are other ways to alleviate stress than to use profanity. That's a proven fact."
Swearing is effective, and is one of the ways to do that. There is no reason to not use it. Only reason people dont like swearing is because of social norms. And frankly - i heard that when any apocalypse occurs, social norms tend to drastically drop.
"I strongly disagree with you. If you can honestly say that murder is only subjectively wrong, then I don't really know what to say for you. Murder being objectively wrong (among other things) isn't one of those things based on emotions, or dependent on one's own mind. It's an objective moral based on something more."
Killing is a part of surviving. It is only subjectively wrong. Because there is no objective wrongs or rights.
"Do you know why you would be angry with the person who killed your family? That's called, "righteous indignation". Because something inside of you tells you that it's wrong. That's called, "your conscience"."
Subjective emotions.
"An accident is an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally, but again, an accident can still result in harm, injury, damage, or loss. It doesn't mean that someone or something wasn't harmed, injured, damaged, or loss, but that it happened on accident and not by intention. I'm just thinking with a rational mind without having an overemotional perspective."
And Clementine's intentions weren't to kill him, but only scare him.
"As sarcastic as you're being right now, suggesting that I haven't heard the concept of threatening, I'm going to still answer your question. Yes, I have heard of the concept of threatening, but there are different ways to go about it. You put yourself in the line of danger by rash actions, like pointing a gun at someone with the intention of "threatening" them. That's not a wise decision."
It wasn't the best thing she could do, but it was an option.
"That's debatable. This is just how you have been conditioned to believe, because of how movies (and such) have depicted the zombie apocalypse. As for your grammar, I can't help but point out the flaws as I see them, not knowing previously how much sleep you had gotten."
What i said would be valid in most if not all kind of apocalypses.
TL:DR
Swearing isn't bad. It doesn't matter how you feel about it.
Game-design wise - it only shows how much a zombie apocalypse affected that innocent little girl. And i like it. Because someone who survived 4 years in a reality like that, will most likely not be all that innocent.
Sees deleted responses
Really mods? Really? The replies where even things that happened in real life, it's natural in fact...
That isn't being stressed out.
(?) Dojo will remember that.
I will be that guy even though I feel like an ass.
The past simple of the verb swear is swore—not sweared.
You're making a wild accusation that's not based on logic and reason. I have already stated a case for how other avenues could be used to alleviate stress and whatnot. In short, there are better methods to use that accomplish the same purpose. That's not the only reason why people choose to not use profanity, and you're limiting your understanding if that's what you think. And besides, have you heard your average individual? Most people absolutely love using profanity, it's not a social norm. A social norm is defined as something that's socially normal. If majority of Americans (among others) are using profanity on a daily basis, the contrary belief isn't normal socially.
In the picture that I painted, murder wasn't for the survival of others, it was for the sheer enjoyment of killing another person. Whether or not you think that profanity is wrong, is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact of the matter. You're one of the many who don't believe the truth. But one day you will know the truth, though. That goes for there being objective moral values, meaning that things are objectively right and wrong, too. Your argument defeats itself anyways. Because, if I subjectively say that something is objectively wrong, how can you say that my subjective is wrong, if it's all subjective anyways? See, you're not making any sense.
Subjective emotions? I have heard it all from you now. sigh
Clementine's intentions may have not been to murder the man who attacked Javier, but like I said, an accident can still result in harm, injury, damage, or loss. This includes but is not limited to murder.
Finally, we can agree on something. Yes, it was an option, but it wasn't a wise decision. You don't do something without rationally thinking, or else you will face the consequences of your actions. Clementine should have known better than to point a gun, which could have been loaded with at least one working round, and that if it happens to go off would result in the death of another person, therefore causing unnecessary conflict between her and others, putting herself and anyone close to her at risk. It's a very foolish and selfish decision.
If it's too long for you to read, then you shouldn't have even responded to it in all honesty, because otherwise a proper discussion cannot be had. And according to your logic, to say that would happen in most apocalypses (of any kind) is subjective. Therefore, it doesn't hold any weight if it's based on personal whim, because I could say the exact opposite and be equally as right, which while having two different answers to the same question is illogical. Ask any mathematician if two plus two can equal anything but four. It's illogical to think otherwise. Again, your argument defeats itself. Profanity is definitively wrong. It doesn't matter how you feel about it either. Your opinion means little in the grand scheme of things, if what you say doesn't have a foundation to be structured on.
Personally I love it. Sassy Clem is the best Clem.
"You're making a wild accusation that's not based on logic and reason. I have already stated a case for how other avenues could be used to alleviate stress and whatnot. In short, there are better methods to use that accomplish the same purpose. That's not the only reason why people choose to not use profanity, and you're limiting your understanding if that's what you think. And besides, have you heard your average individual? Most people absolutely love using profanity, it's not a social norm. A social norm is defined as something that's socially normal. If majority of Americans (among others) are using profanity on a daily basis, the contrary belief isn't normal socially."
Just because there are better methods doesn't make this method bad. You haven't gave me or anyone here a good reason to why not swear.
"In the picture that I painted, murder wasn't for the survival of others, it was for the sheer enjoyment of killing another person. Whether or not you think that profanity is wrong, is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact of the matter. You're one of the many who don't believe the truth. But one day you will know the truth, though. That goes for there being objective moral values, meaning that things are objectively right and wrong, too. Your argument defeats itself anyways. Because, if I subjectively say that something is objectively wrong, how can you say that my subjective is wrong, if it's all subjective anyways? See, you're not making any sense."
Because subjective is subjective. My subjective is different from your subjective. All we have are our perspectives. There is no ultimate truths, but you seem to believe there are.
Also, like i said - IF it was for pure enjoyment then that's objectively wrong. If people were running around killing each other our specie wouldn't make it. This is why it's wrong. Not because killing as an act is wrong - it's about why you killed and what impact it will have on the world.
"Subjective emotions? I have heard it all from you now. sigh"
All emotions are subjective.
"Finally, we can agree on something. Yes, it was an option, but it wasn't a wise decision. You don't do something without rationally thinking, or else you will face the consequences of your actions. Clementine should have known better than to point a gun, which could have been loaded with at least one working round, and that if it happens to go off would result in the death of another person, therefore causing unnecessary conflict between her and others, putting herself and anyone close to her at risk. It's a very foolish and selfish decision."
What you think is reasonable may not be reasonable to others. Like i said - it's all about the perspective. You have your values, i have my values.
Besides, like i said before - we are all human. We often don't make sense. It's easy to sit behind your monitor screen and analyze and judge others. If you were in that same situation, however, i'm sure you wouldn't do exactly what you think you would do. Emotions come to play. She was pissed. And after all she saw, i wouldn't be surprised if she had anger issues.
"If it's too long for you to read, then you shouldn't have even responded to it in all honesty, because otherwise a proper discussion cannot be had. And according to your logic, to say that would happen in most apocalypses (of any kind) is subjective. Therefore, it doesn't hold any weight if it's based on personal whim, because I could say the exact opposite and be equally as right, which while having two different answers to the same question is illogical. Ask any mathematician if two plus two can equal anything but four. It's illogical to think otherwise. Again, your argument defeats itself. Profanity is definitively wrong. It doesn't matter how you feel about it either. Your opinion means little in the grand scheme of things, if what you say doesn't have a foundation to be structured on."
Ah, sorry, bad habit of using 'tl:dr' that way. What i meant by that, is 'in general'.
Anyway, you feel swearing is definitively wrong. I say swearing is a natural reaction, and because it doesn't harm anybody, there is no point in claiming it as wrong and keeping away from it.
In my logic, things are 'wrong' because they have a potential of affecting someone or something negatively. Swearing alone, does not harm anybody.
You can say swearing is bad when faced towards someone, but if that's the case - it's not about the words you use but about the message you are trying to get across with those words. Saying non-swear words that hurt like "i hate you" would hurt as much if not even more than "fuck you" or any other swear words.
Yelling 'fuck' when hurt or stressed is objectively not bad.
Also, about subjective/objective. I said all things are subjective, yes. But it's only because our brains are closed systems. Therefore, what i meant by that is that what you think is true doesn't have to be true. Nothing have to be true either. When i say something is 'objective', i mean i think i came to that conclusion using my logic values rather than emotions values.
Also, i'm at least willing to admit we are merely lost children with only capability of thinking something works as it works.
I don't really have much else to say. I wasn't originally intending to reply either. But what I will say, is that if there's any such thing as "subjective", then there has to be a counterpart. Meaning, that where there is subjectivity, there is also objectivity. It's no different than how there's good and how there's bad, how there's light and how there's darkness. For you to even describe something as subjective, that means the complete opposite exists as well. This is simple logic. As for legitimate reasons to not use profanity, foul language has become as much a part of our society as smoking or drinking. Do you know what they all have in common? They first produce an inward change which later develops into an outward behavior. It all comes from a dark place, often used against others for their hurt (emotionally speaking). There's power in your tongue. You may not see how it could affect someone, but every careless word that you speak has power, power of both life and death. You can speak words of life, or words of death. I have personally experienced being a witness to heated arguments that were started over careless words being used, including but not limited to profanity. It only causes trouble.
I really don't see why people don't like hearing kids cuss. They're gonna cuss sooner or later any fucking way.
I don't understand how Clem's swearing is such a big deal ._. I mean, I didnt even notice that she was swearing that much, oh wait, maybe It's because she only swears like three times in S3? Atleast in my playthrough. But seriously, almost everyone swears sometimes, me too. So the bigger question here is for me: Have you never seen a teenager swear? .-.
He also said when someone pisses her off.
"God damn it, Clem! You need to watch your fucking language, you little shit!"
Swear words are not the problem. People who treat swear words like a huge deal are the problem. People like you. You started discussions with many people over something so unimportant.
And that whole 'swearing leads to a dark side'? Bullshit. I swear a lot, yet, i don't smoke, i don't drink. And i'm not planning to. Most of the people who do smoke and drink USE swear words, but that doesn't mean people who swear also drink and smoke. You got it all backwards.
ANY words used carelessly have a potential of starting arguments.
"But what I will say, is that if there's any such thing as "subjective", then there has to be a counterpart."
That's simple logic. But more complex logic tells us that even what we call objective, aka based on facts, is also subjective to some point, because our reasoning and emotions are not totally separated from each other + our brains are closed systems, therefore we can't possibly know if the information we gain and theories we form are correct or not.
Swear words are just words like any other. The context you use them in matters, not the words alone. People getting triggered over justified swearing are people who contribute to this huge illogical taboo.
All of your comments are subjective, right? Since truth is subjective in your mind, I'm equally as right in saying that people like you are the problem. This is an open forum where I can start discussions as I please. You can easily go elsewhere if you don't like it. Besides, you replied to my comment if you remember. I made a simple comment which led to others replying, like yourself. And if that's what you took from my comment, then you have it all wrong. I never once said the things that you're beginning to suggest. You're putting words in my mouth right now. But of course, any careless words used can start an argument. That's not what's up for discussion.
Call it what you want. That is logic simply. If an external source provides the information, which has no bias towards our emotions, then it's an accurate statement to suggest that certain things are objectively wrong. You can dance around it all that you want, but the truth is the truth even if you don't believe it. While the given context is important, foul language is still morally wrong, and that's an objective statement. If your words are meant for encouraging someone, then they shouldn't have been said. Period. The profanity used isn't justified, and I'm not getting "triggered". It's as simple as that. Like I said before, you will find out one day. Either way, you can believe what you want.
"All of your comments are subjective, right? Since truth is subjective in your mind, I'm equally as right in saying that people like you are the problem. "
Yes. But only for an unbiased, mentally unlimited observer. From my perspective, i think you are wrong.
"This is an open forum where I can start discussions as I please. You can easily go elsewhere if you don't like it. "
Never said you can't. That doesn't mean i can't criticize your actions.
"While the given context is important, foul language is still morally wrong, and that's an objective statement. "
Issue is, morality isn't objective. Different people have different morals.
At this point, we're both telling each other that we're wrong, without bringing anything new to the discussion. So it's the end for me.
Well, we all change as we get older.
I took her swearing as more indicative of Clementine's lost innocence.
No, it's absolutely right for all persons, according to your very own logic. If morality is subjective, then your comments are also. You can only say that from your perspective that I'm wrong. From my perspective, I can definitively say that you're wrong, because I believe in objective morals.
You can criticize me all you want, I don't really care, but at least be honest with yourself. I'm just saying that if my comments were about something so unimportant (as you said), then you could have easily remained silent. Since it's not important, right?
Issue is, you can't objectively say that. Different people may have different morals, but it doesn't mean that their morals are objectively right. That's all I'm saying. Yes, at this point, we're beating a dead horse with the vain repetition. This is the end for me, too.
Eh, I don't mind. Even though I don't swear myself, bad language doesn't phase me that much. Honestly, it amused me when she dropped the f-bomb. But, they could have made it so she doesn't swear if you taught her not too, that would have been a nice touch and helped players see in her their Clem.