Innocence

[existentiallylostdumbell]

What value does innocence have? Whereas being fully knowledgeable allows us to spot danger in this world and protect ourselves is there still a value to preserving our innocence? I've seen some relatively messed up things on the internet, some of which I would rather I hadn't. Seeing them proffered no value to my life and disturbed me. Some things we are better off just not knowing or seeing. But not all things prohibited are necessarily harmful, take profanity, for instance, it's just words and yet some people impress so much importance onto it as to make movies restricted. It's the social taboo placed on profanity that makes it so scorned, not any real aspect of profanity itself. I started watching p*** when I was 10, I'm 21 now and I can't point to any specific negative effects p*** alone has had on me. I suppose if you're religious though this topic becomes a little more delicate, and other values other than utilitarianism are at play. Please note this has nothing to do with moderators or anything. I realise that some things must be prohibited in order to make this site an inclusive place and probably legal implications as well. Also, I don't think people should ruin Santa for kids, I remember believing Santa was real and it made me happy, to a certain extent I think the delusions of childhood should be protected. Thoughts?

[Cy~]

What value does innocence have?

 

I think that the answer to that is evidenced in your post? It seems to depend, really, on both culture and context. In your post, you cited several examples where, in all honesty, innocence is valuable and isn't valuable. A lot of that, as you noted, depends on the exact circumstances. Basically, the value of innocence is undefined. I don't think that innocence is something with an inherent value, myself. I think of it as just another social variable - one without definitive import.

 

It's the social taboo placed on profanity that makes it so scorned, not any real aspect of profanity itself.

 

This is the one thing in your post that I'm not so sure of, though. To me, profanity is profanity BECAUSE it is taboo. It's like the "chicken and egg" problem. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg? In that way, which came first, profanity being "profane" or the concept as "profanity" as something that you shouldn't say? There is a real aspect that makes profanity taboo, it's the very fact that it is intended to rankle feathers and turn heads. Profanity being taboo is the very reason that it is considered profanity. If it wasn't taboo, then it wouldn't be profanity - and you wouldn't use them as profanity.

[existentiallylostdumbell]

I think that the answer to that is evidenced in your post? It seems to depend, really, on both culture and context. In your post, you cited several examples where, in all honesty, innocence is valuable and isn't valuable. A lot of that, as you noted, depends on the exact circumstances. Basically, the value of innocence is undefined. I don't think that innocence is something with an inherent value, myself. I think of it as just another social variable - one without definitive import.

 

 

 

This is the one thing in your post that I'm not so sure of, though. To me, profanity is profanity BECAUSE it is taboo. It's like the "chicken and egg" problem. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg? In that way, which came first, profanity being "profane" or the concept as "profanity" as something that you shouldn't say? There is a real aspect that makes profanity taboo, it's the very fact that it is intended to rankle feathers and turn heads. Profanity being taboo is the very reason that it is considered profanity. If it wasn't taboo, then it wouldn't be profanity - and you wouldn't use them as profanity.

 

 

 

If innocence is to be defined as the absence of something then I suppose it is value-less, the value of nothing is nothing. It has no value, positive or negative because it is an absence. You're right. The value of innocence then is potential value, as it is an empty vessel and can be filled with anything, the real question is what is the value of what is replacing it. What replaces it must be equal to the possibilities it entails, otherwise it is a loss. That's subjective. As for the chicken and the egg, you must define something as profane before you define it as something you shouldn't say, otherwise why would you bother doing so. The meaning profane had to come before the notion of should not say, otherwise there would be no impetus for it. Unless you believed some god or something said you shouldn't say a word for no apparent reason and then defined it as profane. Possible, but I still think profane came first.

[Hawky]

People just don't like taking care of others, profanity and other such things require a certain degree of social awareness which means those who use this profanity act with the mindset that you're aware of the consequential meanings it may or may not have. Take kids for instance, it's the parents job to teach kids all the unwritten rules, thus if you take your movie example it's important to give people the necessary information to deal with profanity. Strapping a pg-13 or R rating is so much easier though.

 

In regards to innocence, it sounds pretty but that's not what we're really looking at here. What is and isn't considered profane or taboo and so forth depends on the environment you've been exposed to the most recently. This means that in any given moment in large scale gathering such as a forum there are numerous potential profane things people can say, and if you prohibit all of these you're really limiting the conversation.

 

My two cents.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Guest