Sick description

[traprunner]

What rape do you know? Personally I know what it says in the dictionary. Just because one definition is used much more often than the rest does not mean that the rest are wrong.

Why are you so comfortable using that word?

Erm, because it is a legit word in the English language. If used in the correct context in a school environment marks could be awarded for it in exams.

Do not be afraid of words, be afraid of actions.

I presume that you must never read books in case they include words that you may find offensive.

[Clarkey]

I presume that you must never read books in case they include words that you may find offensive.

I'm a very hard person to offend actually..... I just don't like the way people "happily, or casually" use this particular word in this game.

[traprunner]

Then 'kill' should be removed too. Actually we should not use any words since they can all cause offence.

I agree that it is ridiculous to censure everything..

As for the dictionary-reference: the point with plebeian street language is that it cannot be constrained in set definitions such as the ones you gave for "rape". Theoretically, you could draw up a percentage chart; which meaning is used more often. I think I know which will win..
Considering the majority of this forum is indeed sub-par in the use of English, secondary meaning can hardly be given the credit it would in a normal, English-speaking community. Or can it?

Do tell me.

In this case secondary meaning should be given credit. If I was to raid and attack your account I would be raping your account. I think it is great to see a person that does not speak English as their first language use words in the correct context especially if the word has multiple meanings.

[traprunner]

I presume that you must never read books in case they include words that you may find offensive.

I'm a very hard person to offend actually..... I just don't like the way people "happily, or casually" use this particular word in this game.

When someone says that they raped an account then that is perfectly fine. However, if they say that they raped someones ass...that is not good.

[Iƒrit]

I understand your point of views, I do however wish to put forth my opinion and hope for the same respect in return.

If someone find offense to something and in return is enlightened with other meanings then what was orginally thought or assumed and still finds offense then this is their choice to make. However many words have multiplie meanings and you should find the time to look them up before finding them offensive.

Depending on the context whch a word is used I base my defense on being offended or not. Typically it is best to ask if you feel you are misunderstanding someone point of view or not.

The word rape I am assuming is being used in the context that is "Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force."

Also I find offense in your definition to "rape" under the first discription of its meaning "1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." My reasoning being that men can also be raped, although this is not normaly heard of I assure you that their are cases where it happens. lol, no hard feelings

Regards,
General Orion

[Juliette]

Considering the majority of this forum is indeed sub-par in the use of English, secondary meaning can hardly be given the credit it would in a normal, English-speaking community. Or can it?

In this case secondary meaning should be given credit. If I was to raid and attack your account I would be raping your account. I think it is great to see a person that does not speak English as their first language use words in the correct context especially if the word has multiple meanings.

Ah, but of course.. I do appreciate the underlying sentiment, being exaltation at a non-native producing sentences and speech patterns in full accordance to the English language's broad spectre.. I wonder how many of your prized linguistic padawans are aware of those second meanings you showed us. How many people here would actually see the "rape" of an account as the "pillaging" and not immediately, through association, think of actual rape in the carnal version.. How many people would simply mean they *actually* feel like raping a person, namely the one owning the account in question, and take that wildly disturbed mindset on into their language, thus reflecting their inner darkness upon the minds of others?

Should such a stage be granted as for those to impress us all with their ideas?
It is essentially the base question of whether to apply censure or not.
I say we should.. but for other reasons. The average human is oblivious of the notion that language has a mental effect.. and repeated, simplistic representations of detestable ideologies, ideas, thoughts and other mental processes do have their influence on the young.

Protect the children!
Jokes aside.. it is the responsibility of native speakers to instruct those whose language skills are sub-par, and who are able to learn anything, of the nature of their use of language. It is imperative they learn.


ps; If we extend your earlier "secondary meaning" argument, "raping someone's ass" is perfectly logical and acceptable. Indeed, street language often describes "a person" as "an ass" in a simple poetic manner of "pars pro toto". One mentions the arse, but is talking about the person.
Raping said arse is nothing more than applying your deferred meanings to a single person. Contextually, it is no different. Depending of course, on one's extent of understanding English.. which was my primary point in my first substantial post on the matter.

[V|per]

It's just a word. When someone says he's raping someone's account, I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks a person is forcing an account into having sexual intercourse...
Some people are just too touchy these days.

[traprunner]

Ah, but of course.. I do appreciate the underlying sentiment, being exaltation at a non-native producing sentences and speech patterns in full accordance to the English language's broad spectre.. I wonder how many of your prized linguistic padawans are aware of those second meanings you showed us. How many people here would actually see the "rape" of an account as the "pillaging" and not immediately, through association, think of actual rape in the carnal version.. How many people would simply mean they *actually* feel like raping a person, namely the one owning the account in question, and take that wildly disturbed mindset on into their language, thus reflecting their inner darkness upon the minds of others?

Should such a stage be granted as for those to impress us all with their ideas?
It is essentially the base question of whether to apply censure or not.
I say we should.. but for other reasons. The average human is oblivious of the notion that language has a mental effect.. and repeated, simplistic representations of detestable ideologies, ideas, thoughts and other mental processes do have their influence on the young.

Protect the children!
Jokes aside.. it is the responsibility of native speakers to instruct those whose language skills are sub-par, and who are able to learn anything, of the nature of their use of language. It is imperative they learn.


ps; If we extend your earlier "secondary meaning" argument, "raping someone's ass" is perfectly logical and acceptable. Indeed, street language often describes "a person" as "an ass" in a simple poetic manner of "pars pro toto". One mentions the arse, but is talking about the person.
Raping said arse is nothing more than applying your deferred meanings to a single person. Contextually, it is no different. Depending of course, on one's extent of understanding English.. which was my primary point in my first substantial post on the matter.

You are thinking about this too much

I would like to quote General Orion:

However many words have multiplie meanings and you should find the time to look them up before finding them offensive.

He makes an excellent point. If you are unsure of a word and the context it is used in then check it out. If you still are unsure then ask the person that wrote it. Then decide if you are happy or not. So people that are not 100% fluent should be encouraged to examine what they type first.

If you are asking about censoring, I will always say no. Censoring has resulted in people not being able to seek help for decades. For example the church/paedophile scandals in numerous countries could not have been spoken about because people were censored by the power of the church involved. Republican politicians in Northern Ireland were censored on the TV and radio. This resulted in some resentment and prevented dialog towards a peaceful solution.

Please note that I gave the church and Northern Ireland as examples. I am not going to discuss them as I know how flammatory the subjects can be. I was just emphasising my point.

[Clarkey]

It's just a word. When someone says he's raping someone's account, I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks a person is forcing an account into having sexual intercourse...
Some people are just too touchy these days.

Yes but when you see that word I bet the majority of people here would immediately get a thought in their mind of someone being raped..... I'd rather play this game without thoughts like that.

What if someone sends a message to someone that is an actual victim of this crime.
It's just best not to use it at all.

The word doesn't actually offend me, I just think it's awful how many times i see this word being used, and kids do actually play this game too!

[traprunner]

Yes but when you see that word I bet the majority of people here would immediately get a thought in their mind of someone being raped..... I'd rather play this game without thoughts like that.

What if someone sends a message to someone that is an actual victim of this crime.
It's just best not to use it at all.

The word doesn't actually offend me, I just think it's awful how many times i see this word being used, and kids do actually play this game too!

I used the example of the word 'kill'. From what you are saying you should be up in arms about it too.

Need I say more?

[Juliette]

yadayadayada

You are thinking about this too much

Now that, my friend, is a pity. I'd have appreciated a more substantial reply.. Gratia Caesar the rest of your post was indeed more of a read.

I would like to quote General Orion:

However many words have multiplie meanings and you should find the time to look them up before finding them offensive.

He makes an excellent point. If you are unsure of a word and the context it is used in then check it out. If you still are unsure then ask the person that wrote it. Then decide if you are happy or not. So people that are not 100% fluent should be encouraged to examine what they type first.

Ah, ah, ah.. that, my dear friend, is the death blow to your own argument.
Indeed, people should be encouraged to examine what they type. That is self-evident. Such a.. desire, however, is completely unrealistic, as hardly anyone ever examines what they put into writing. Ah yes.. if only. Shame it is not that ideal world you and I do seem to agree on.. Isn't it?

If you are asking about censoring, I will always say no. Censoring has resulted in people not being able to seek help for decades. For example the church/paedophile scandals in numerous countries could not have been spoken about because people were censored by the power of the church involved. Republican politicians in Northern Ireland were censored on the TV and radio. This resulted in some resentment and prevented dialog towards a peaceful solution.

Please note that I gave the church and Northern Ireland as examples. I am not going to discuss them as I know how flammatory the subjects can be. I was just emphasising my point.

I will humour you, and not make a point of the flawedness of your examples.. but permit me this one remark. Shame and resentment are at the base of your examples. Little do people realise this very shame and resentment were the cause for either the church, or the N-I government to apply censure at all. Indeed, their very aim was to 'solve' the crises without going public. That required censure.. and alas, it failed (both solving it and staying out of the public domain).
That's all I'll say on that.. but I agree, a more substantial argument can be carried on the matter.

And well, I don't really think as much about this as you think. We're all mortals, making it up as we go along, following our principles into the desert, with a sun setting in front of us, and whistling "A poor lonesome cowboy".

[traprunner]

I am not going to try and work out all the opening and closing quotes I need to reply to your last post

My argument from the start is that 'rape' can be contextually applied to events in SGW. That still stands. If people type it in relation to attacks on an account then it is being used in the correct context.

My argument is not dead.

People should know what they type and if they are unsure of a word then they should look it up or not use it at all. But 'rape' still remains valid to use.

The only reply to your last paragraph is that church wanted to hide it. British government were ashamed of the troubles they were party to. I will not reply any more on those topics.

[Cycladic]

It's just a word. When someone says he's raping someone's account, I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks a person is forcing an account into having sexual intercourse...
Some people are just too touchy these days.

Yes but when you see that word I bet the majority of people here would immediately get a thought in their mind of someone being raped..... I'd rather play this game without thoughts like that.

Actually no, as 'rape' is such common terminology used when describing anything competitive. More specifically sporting events, though equally as 'relevant' here considering how competitive this game can be. It's simply the same as 'my strike murdered your defence.' What's the difference? They're equally as bad.

In the context that it's being used, it's not worth censoring, and I doubt an offhand comment (which is all it is) is enough to instantly bring forwards images of someone being raped.

[Juliette]

Trap: I give in, and will not debate THAT. Instead I will plead for the consideration towards victims and people, ignorant of English. It can be construed as a polemic to the inconsiderateness of the English native speaker.

It's just a word. When someone says he's raping someone's account, I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks a person is forcing an account into having sexual intercourse...
Some people are just too touchy these days.

Yes but when you see that word I bet the majority of people here would immediately get a thought in their mind of someone being raped..... I'd rather play this game without thoughts like that.

Actually no, as 'rape' is such common terminology used when describing anything competitive. More specifically sporting events, though equally as 'relevant' here considering how competitive this game can be. It's simply the same as 'my strike murdered your defence.' What's the difference? They're equally as bad.

Mm.. the earlier presented "average level of ignorance" argument still stands.. people do not know this. Especially if, for example, a Southern-German girl named Eva was raped, who now plays this game, yet has a basic understanding of English. Then, James comes by and jaunts her for having massed her account, using the word "rape". It is entirely natural for James to use that word, indeed. However, to Eva, James is recalling the entire episode of her life involving the rape. Simply because dear Eva has not the vocabulary in English to understand all this 'yadayada secondary meaning stuff'. To Eva, James is deeply hurting and insulting her. To James, he's just making a simple everyday remark, and Eva is overreacting.

Now whose side to choose??

In the context that it's being used, it's not worth censoring, and I doubt an offhand comment (which is all it is) is enough to instantly bring forwards images of someone being raped.

Ah, ah, ah.. but it does, to those who have either experienced it, or had a very vivid image imprinted upon their retina.. See the above for arguments presented.

[traprunner]

Trap: I give in, and will not debate THAT. Instead I will plead for the consideration towards victims and people, ignorant of English. It can be construed as a polemic to the inconsiderateness of the English native speaker.

I'll take that as a victory

lol

Mm.. the earlier presented "average level of ignorance" argument still stands.. people do not know this. Especially if, for example, a Southern-German girl named Eva was raped, who now plays this game, yet has a basic understanding of English. Then, James comes by and jaunts her for having massed her account, using the word "rape". It is entirely natural for James to use that word, indeed. However, to Eva, James is recalling the entire episode of her life involving the rape. Simply because dear Eva has not the vocabulary in English to understand all this 'yadayada secondary meaning stuff'. To Eva, James is deeply hurting and insulting her. To James, he's just making a simple everyday remark, and Eva is overreacting.

Now whose side to choose??

So what about the person that had a loved one killed in a car crash or by some other means?