Jumping straight into religious flamewar like this was a huge violation of the HN guidelines and did serious damage. Would you please review them and not do this again on this site?

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22022195 and marked it off-topic.

How does this directly relate to “Christian” values? Could “Islamic” values be applied? Afterall, the Prophet Mohammed made his opposition to crude language clear in the Hadith.

Follow up: Also appears there are some misgiving regarding crude language within the Hindu religion as well. [0]

[0]: https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?...

Ok, let's call that puritan values of abrahamic religions.

Ironically a lot of "puritan" values are now considered "social justice" values.

See eg "shirtgate" where an astronomer was castigated by feminists for wearing a shirt with skimpily clad figures, on the basis that it was offensive to women. Ironically, the shirt had been given to him by a feminist woman friend who thought it was liberating.

There's always some subset of the population whose conception of "morality" consists of blindly bellowing the dogma of the day. It's not weird that the behavior looks identical even though the dogma itself is nominally different.

Bullshit culture as it is.

Meh, someone's always complaining. Also about the moon "landing" and the Earth's supposed roundness.

Interestingly, 'vulgarity' as a concept is more universal than you would think. Certain concepts in traditional Japanese aesthetics, for example, emphasize an avoidance of vulgar behaviors, which are not too dissimilar from the western counterpart. It mostly has to do with avoiding (perceived) unrefined behaviors of the lower classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyabi

>> Also appears there are some misgiving regarding crude language within the Hindu religion as well.

> Ok, let's call that puritan values of abrahamic religions.

Opposition to bad language is a feature of every society with more than one social class, which is all civilized societies and a lot of uncivilized ones.

And I bet someone named Shooter[1] has no problems signing up.

1. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/extreme-boys-names

Why wouldn't they?

"Shooter" is a word that's acceptable to use in almost any company, even though the verb at it's root part of some abhorrent acts.

"Fuck" is a distasteful word for an act with near-universal approval.

> "Fuck" is a distasteful word for an act with near-universal approval.

Near-universal approval and near-universal distaste. A curious phenomenon, isn't it?

Everyone shits, but "shit" is still considered a bad word because of its material properties. Fuck, on the other hand, is something everyone loves doing, except when done by force... I guess the reason it's still seen as a bad word rather than a "love word" (besides old religious believes that sex is actually intrinsically bad, which some people might still hold) is that "fuck" is unconsciously associated with forced sex (rape, to be clear) while consensual sex is associated with other words/phrases like "make love", "intercourse" etc. which do not have the same bad connotation.

I think the "old religious beliefs" have more to do with it than any connotation of forced sex (at least I have never recognized this in the way people use the word).

"making love" is something partners do as a healthy and (re)productive part of their relationship, "fucking" is what 'animals' do, purely done for pleasure. It is a bad word for the same reason gluttony, excessive alcohol and drugs are a sin. A society where everyone mindlessly chases dopamine from carnal pleasures is less productive, especially when this leads to unrest and violence (and I guess that's where forced sex comes into play).

>"Shooter" is a word that's acceptable to use in almost any company, even though the verb at it's root part of some abhorrent acts.

This reasoning is inconsistent with the rejection of "Cummings."

Islam is almost a branch off Christianity considering Muhammad knew many Christians and was likely inspired by them. Muslims also view Jesus as a holy person.

The more interesting question is what he was, initially.

As far as I can tell, he was a member of an Abrahamic sect that has since died out. But yes, one that accepted Christ as a prophet.

Islam accepts Christ as a prophet. A human prophet, though, not a part of God.

Many Christian sects have the same belief.

You can't really call a sect "Christian" if they deny the definition of Christianity.

Really? As in not the son of God?

Which?

Nope, this is pure dishonesty manifest.

Islam throws gays off of buildings and beheads women. Christian city made you sad one time because your Dad made you go to Church.

Your hopes to prevent analysis of moral arbitrage is nothing more than cheerleader cherry-picking.

We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines. You can't do flamewar like this here, let alone religious flamewar.

If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> while also making significant amounts of money off late night debauchery, picking people up from clubs at 3am

I'm not Christian but I don't think most Christians consider a night out a club to be debauchery.

that's sort of the point

Polite language is secular. Where do you get this religious connotation from?

Forbidding a name like Cummings because it is not "polite" is neither secular or logical. Also in non-Catholic Christian countries sex and nudity are not a big deal (example: Germany), so you are partially right: not a Christian connotation, just particular forms of it.

It's ironic that you specifically mention Germany.

Although you are correct about nudity not being a big deal there, they actually have specific laws about the names that newborn children are allowed to be given.

That is a different matter: state control over citizens. We have the same laws, inspired from Germany (we are geographically close).

Half the Christians in Germany are Catholics.

> Also in non-Catholic Christian countries sex and nudity are not a big deal (example: Germany)

Example: the United States.

Oh wait, that one goes the other way.

> Forbidding a name like Cummings because it is not "polite" is neither secular or logical.

How do you know it's not secular? Are you sure the people who made the decision at Lyft were religious, or did it for religious reasons?