Talk:Bullshit/Archives/2014

Untitled

In 2006, a group of Philosophers published a response to Harry Frankfurt and I suggest it should at least be included in the 'further reading' section if not featured as more current thinking.

• {{cite book|editor=[[Gary L. Hardcastle|Hardcastle, Gary L.][George A. Reisch|Reisch, George A.]|title=Bullshit and Philosophy|location=Chicago, IL | publisher=Open Court|year=2006|isbn=0-8126-9611-5}} — "These are the considerations that led us to put together the collection of chapters that is 'Bullshit and Philosophy.' If it's true, as we suspect, that the popularity of Frankfurt's book signals a willingness among the public to see what philosophers have to say about bullshit, then we ought, we though, to assemble some who were up to the task and tell them to let it rip."

Jim Kay 20:53, 2 May 2009 (EST) bullshit is making money with stocks you have 500 euro but you have to make a profit of at least 7.50 wich is impossible to get with 500 euro. thats the definition of bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.6.55 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Taboo/censoring discussion in the Talk:VfD section

Netnanny and similar have submission template, if one chooses to add URL in ones' own domain to their blacklists. I wonder whether there is a way to automate submissions for taboo words/subjects, so those may be included without knocking out the whole encyclopedia?

...I'd suggest this somewhere more general to the wiki, If I knew where. JasCollins (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

comments

The British term "bollocks" has nothing to do with "bullshit"! Bollocks refers to "balls" "testes" "nuts", no shit involved at all!

It looks quite special next to the "Personal appeal from Jimmy Wales" banner .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.113.181 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

agreed bollocks is Comparable only in frequency and perhaps degree of general offensiveness to the prim and proper crowd...and that its used to express strong disagreement with someone else's statements often with the connotation that deception was intended. However, "bollocks" or "balls" is also used to express displeasure with unfortunate outcomes (especially in gambling) like the expletive "crap" -- unlike the expletive "BS" which is never used in that way. Also bollocks literally refers to bull testicles. Maybe the article writer just could not resist listing all profanity terms connected to the animal and wrote without thinking.

P.S. Somewhere I read that the meaning of "Bull" as fallacious reasoning or false statements comes from late Middle Ages politics where Protestants viewed many Papal Bulls of that time period as issued for political gain rather than based on spiritual truth or secular necessity. Maybe someone could find an acceptable reference and add that info...even if rewriting history to avoid potential conflict is PC and often influences what Wikipedia publishes. If confirmed this would not put modern people in bad light and simple acknowledges mild historical conflict. 70.114.133.167 (talk)

I do it alot

I removed the link to Scientology from the "See Also" section as it was obviously just some narrow-minded practical joker's attempt at being inflammatory.

One use was missed (and I am bullshit about it): In Boston and New England the phrase "bullshit" can mean that one is very angry. "He was bullshit at Bob for his constant and repeated use of profanity in class."

I changed a typo.

Revert back to right version --Madrone 18:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First person text needs changing. -- Sam

- fixed?

Cross between a shitsu and a bulldog? :)

dear authors & editors of this article.

I think frankfurt's work in this area is enormously important. he noted in his essay that he would not consider the various "rhetorical uses & misuses" of the term bullshit in that essay. this is awful interesting, don't you think?

I know Wikipedia has not been a great place, historically, for trying to codify [for fear of charges of original research] or describe linguistic phenomena in the world. but, I hope that what I've added will stand, kind of, prima facie.

Real quick. If Stacy takes he car in for repairs & is quoted $800 to get up to snuff, many of us know exactly what she means & can relate if she reacts to this figure by saying "that's bullshit." She is not saying that the figure $800 is a part of a discourse 'unconcerned' with some 'truth' of the matter. She is just saying she doesn't like the situation of facing an $800 bill & she feels pretty much stuck with it.

I think the utterance "bullshit", of this kind, is far more common than any philosophical usages.

if frankfurt says that Stacy's usage is a 'misuse' of the term, it's certainly not a truly 'rhetorical misuse'. she is just verbally objecting to a state of affairs.

idk. hope I don't cause a lot of trouble. thanks. skakEL 17:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)