Batman Comic Profanity

Thoul wrote:

Not to defend them here, but the majority of comics aren't intended for kids these days. This particular series definitely isn't. Children are actually the smallest demographic when it comes to comic purchasers now. Most comics are aimed at teens or adults who were buying when they were children, but are now older and expect more "mature" books. Sadly, "mature" here usually means excessive violence and pointless nudity.

To give everyone a constant idea of the quality (or lack thereof) in this series, let me show you a semi-famous scene from issue #2. In this scene, the parents of Dick Grayson (the soon-to-be Robin) were just killed. Grayson is on the left, Batman on the right. This is the point where a lot of long time comic readers began considering the whole thing as a bad joke:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/ ... batman.jpg
In a later issue, Batman left Grayson alone in a cave and told him that if he got hungry, he should catch a rat.

Thanks for the link, Thoul. Shocking, is all I have to say. Batman is supposed to be a role model for kids and others. They are destroying the character and what he stands for, in my opinion. I wouldn't read this stuff or want my kids or anyone else to either.

[face=Times New Roman]

Silver_Surfer1 wrote:

I have to agree to disagree with you there on all points, especially the bit about violating the welfare of another person, and I along with many others, tend to think it is a moral issue as well.

You seem to be suggesting that swearing in general – as opposed to verbal abuse, which I specifically excluded – can violate the welfare of another person. I find your suggestion extraordinary. How on earth does it harm you to hear someone else cussing out of frustration? It might offend you, but so could a good many things that have no intrinsic impact on your welfare.

This comes down to Elliot Turiel’s domain theory, which distinguishes between actions within the “moral” and “social” domains. Actions within the moral domain have intrinsic effects upon the welfare of another individual, regardless of the nature of the social rules that might be in place regarding the action. An example would be striking someone (which can cause physical pain or injury) or unprovoked verbal aggression (which can cause emotional pain, and is generally intended to do so).

In contrast, actions in the social domain are a matter of convention and have no intrinsic interpersonal consequences. The classic example is forms of address. Calling a visiting dignitary by his first name does him no intrinsic harm. However, using his title is preferable because of arbitrary social rules. These conventions are undeniably important in promoting the smooth functioning of any social group, but they have no direct effects upon the well-being of other people.

Having said all that, domain theory has been widely disputed. Whether you are familiar with the psychological concepts or not, I get the impression that you choose not to draw a clear distinction between morality and social acceptability. If so, you are not alone; many notable psychologists feel that the dividing line is blurred. That would explain many of your views on the subject, including your support for censorship and your assertion that cussing is somehow related to the graver concerns that I raised.

Quote:

Okay, what do you recommend when those options fail?

What do punitive parents do when their measures fail? They reapply them. That’s why some kids get their mouths washed out with soap multiple times, and parents who spank tend to do so on repeated occasions.

Verbal discipline may also need to be repeated. If the actions were dangerous or harmful, then I’d also consider imposing logical consequences (distinct in behavioural psychology from punishment). However, if we’re talking about colourful language, then I’d simply reiterate my explanations and subsequently ignore the behaviour. But then again, I do not consider cussing to be inherently immoral, and one has to pick one’s battles.

I have serious reservations about punishment as a form of behavioural modification. But physical punishment – be it soapy washings or spanking – I consider fundamentally wrong. In fact, I feel the same way about physical punishment that you do about swearing. Unlike cussing out of frustration, stuffing soap into a child’s mouth or taking him over your knee are acts of violence, with considerable potential to cause physical and emotional harm.

This goes beyond the conservative/ liberal dichotomy. Our ideologies are so vastly different that we are almost speaking a different language.

Quote:

Logical and moral reasoning is all well and good, but there is still no guarantee they will make the right choices.

.

Neither does punishment offer any guarantee.

Quote:

Many times people who swear or use profanity may have learned and do know that it may be wrong, but they just don't care or they do it especially because it is wrong and they want to stand out from the crowd or some other nonsense

In general, people who swear do not consider it immoral to do so; that I can tell you with a high degree of certainty. They think of cussing, much as I do, as a “bad habit” and nothing worse than that. This is one respect in which British culture differs starkly from the US. In this country, swearing is more common than not, even in middle class and professional circles.

The gulf between us is so vast that there is no way to bridge the gap. Any form of constructive discussion requires at least some common ground. Here there is none. So yes, we agree to disagree. But I enjoyed talking to you nonetheless.
[/face]

Srijita wrote:

[face=Times New Roman]
However, if we’re talking about colourful language, then I’d simply reiterate my explanations and subsequently ignore the behaviour. But then again, I do not consider cussing to be inherently immoral,

Ignoring the situation, or any possible problematic situation whether it be bad behaviour, cussing, or whatever, even when other options fail, does not seem to help stop anything at all, but rather it may promote the problem or make it worse than before.

Srijita wrote:

I have serious reservations about punishment as a form of behavioural modification. But physical punishment – be it soapy washings or spanking – I consider fundamentally wrong. In fact, I feel the same way about physical punishment that you do about swearing. Unlike cussing out of frustration, stuffing soap into a child’s mouth or taking him over your knee are acts of violence, with considerable potential to cause physical and emotional harm.

Yes, I can see you do have reservations about spankings, etc., and you are entitled to your own opinion, as I am also entitled to my opinion to disagree with you on the issue. Again, this reminds me of the posts on another thread with another poster here regarding this same issue of spanking, etc. Been there, done that. But let me touch on that thought once again since you brought the issue of spanking up.

This issue has long been up for debate, and a matter of personal opinion, on whether spanking is actually an act of violence, or not. Beatings are indeed an act of violence, but there is a difference between spankings and beatings, although some just don't want to, or will not, see it or acknowledge it for whatever reason. A spanking is a simple form of discipline or punishment while a beating is something much more cruel, to say the least.

Srijita wrote:

In general, people who swear do not consider it immoral to do so; that I can tell you with a high degree of certainty. They think of cussing, much as I do, as a “bad habit” and nothing worse than that. This is one respect in which British culture differs starkly from the US. In this country, swearing is more common than not, even in middle class and professional circles.

I suppose different countries and their peoples do have different ways of looking at things. Good point. Also different generations have different ways of looking at some of these issues and other things. Generations ago, cussing and many profanity phrases, which seem almost commonplace in today's world, would have been shunned, and looked upon as being fowl, not acceptable, embarrassing, or whatever term you want to use. Generations ago, Few, if anyone, even questioned the use of spankings as a form of discipline either, but rather it was the norm. Once again, I said "spankings", not "beatings". There is a difference. I guess we could say that our civilization today has made remarkable strides in many issues, but sometimes looking at people's behaviours and listening to them, it is hard to say whether that is a step forward or a step backward for us all.

Srijita wrote:

So yes, we agree to disagree. But I enjoyed talking to you nonetheless.
[/face]

Agreed. I enjoyed talking to you also.

[face=Times New Roman]

Silver_Surfer1 wrote:

Ignoring the situation, or any possible problematic situation whether it be bad behaviour, cussing, or whatever, even when other options fail, does not seem to help stop anything at all, but rather it may promote the problem or make it worse than before.

As a matter of fact, ignoring certain types of behaviour can work quite well. Sometimes disapproval from authority figures has the paradoxical effect of making something more tempting. However, rather than quoting developmental psychologists, I shall be entirely subjective in my response here. I attended quite a select single-sex private school in the Home Counties, but picked up a fair amount of cussing in my first year there. As I've said, swearing is commonplace in the UK.

After issuing the requisite explanations, my mother chose to ignore my behaviour. It worked like a charm. I grew out of it, and pretty quickly, too.

Quote:

Again, this reminds me of the posts on another thread with another poster here regarding this same issue of spanking, etc. Been there, done that.

Well, it seems I am in the position of having to apologise again. As a newcomer to this site, I’m truly sorry to rehash old ground. Perhaps I should just take the trouble to search old threads before opening my mouth. Having done so now, I am once again enlightened.

Interesting also that virtually everyone who posted to your previous thread spoke out in favour of physical punishment. The one voice of dissent seems to have been Reno, whom I haven’t yet had the pleasure of encountering. Curious that s/he was also your main antagonist on the death penalty issue, on which I also share his/her views.

And I shall duly shut my mouth now, before you, Thoul, Kaloes, and all the others on this forum feel the need to repeat your arguments and put me in my place. [/face]

Srijita wrote:

[face=Times New Roman]

Well, it seems I am in the position of having to apologise again.

As I've stated before, an apology is not necessary.

Srijita wrote:

Interesting also that virtually everyone who posted to your previous thread spoke out in favour of physical punishment. The one voice of dissent seems to have been Reno, whom I haven’t yet had the pleasure of encountering. Curious that s/he was also your main antagonist on the death penalty issue, on which I also share his/her views.
[/face]

Ah yes, Reno. Srijita, I hope you get to "meet" him/her (Reno) soon. You seem to have a lot in common and share a lot of the same views. It has been some interesting discussion all the way around.

Thoul wrote:

Not to defend them here, but the majority of comics aren't intended for kids these days. This particular series definitely isn't. Children are actually the smallest demographic when it comes to comic purchasers now. Most comics are aimed at teens or adults who were buying when they were children, but are now older and expect more "mature" books. Sadly, "mature" here usually means excessive violence and pointless nudity.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. I haven't actually read the action comic books, I only read Garfield and Calvin and Hobbes. I thought that the action comics would be like the comedy ones--in terms of language, that is. Of course action comics would contain violence and the like.