IS swearing

[Jian^sia]

Do you swear?

Do you consider swearing to be violent? Very much need your views on this matter.

[Jian^sia]

:censored:

The words you choose reflect on how people perceive you. Choose inappropriate words and there are some people who will not listen to what you have to say. I object to the automatic and mindless censoring of words. On the other hand, there is a place for setting a certain tone to encourage well thought out responses and wide participation.

Should it be censored, in debates?

Jian^sia wrote:
Do you swear?

Profusely. But strictly among close friends (family not included) and talking to myself.

Don't you contradict yourself from your explanations below?

Jian^sia wrote:
Do you consider swearing to be violent? Very much need your views on this matter.

Particularly if meant as insult and if expected to provoke a less than peaceful reaction from another individual, I would definitely characterize it as violent.

The word is very loaded. If we're defining "violent" in very broad terms like "vehemence of feeling or expression" than swearing seems violent to me. But "violence" isn't that big of a deal when defined like that.

To me, swearing can get violent. It is violent to me. Words in and of itself are without violence. It's always the intention and purpose of the do-er. Shit means excrement to me. However, hearing my dad sometimes, ofttimes, utter that word has shown me the reasons behind it. It's always after an apparent mishap. An argh, or oops. Replaced by SHIT.

The argh could be a swearing but again, it's the word + intended use. If it's to denounce someone or somebody, then it would be an assault. If that person chooses to use shit and says in such a way as to rock the heavens, then I guess it's a bit violent.

[otseng]

I object to the automatic and mindless censoring of words. On the other hand, there is a place for setting a certain tone to encourage well thought out responses and wide participation.

Should it be censored, in debates?

Yes, certain words are automatically censored. There are actually only a few words that are censored. I would hope that prohibiting 5 out of the jillions of English words would not severely diminish the ability to communicate intelligibly.

[Beto]

Jian^sia wrote:
Do you swear?

Profusely. But strictly among close friends (family not included) and talking to myself.

Don't you contradict yourself from your explanations below?

In what way? If I swear it's just to imprint some enthusiasm and passion to the discourse, not as a means to insult. If I'm not sure someone will not take offense from swearing, I will not use it. Among my friends "reserved" swearing isn't perceived as "violent" in the strict sense.

[Fallibleone]

Do you swear?

Indeed I do.

Do you consider swearing to be violent? Very much need your views on this matter.

I don't consider words by themselves to be violent. I consider the actions and intentions which accompany the words can be violent. Powerful, yes, but not violent. My swearing is rarely directed at other people, and when it is, it's under my breath (coward). I see a difference between whispering 'you bleeping bleeping bleep-bleep bleeper' at someone's back and screaming 'Bleep you, you bleep of a bleep-bleeper!' as I hurtle towards them brandishing a cricket bat. I swear a lot when I hurt myself, because I find it is wonderful for venting my anger at my own stupidity. Actually, I find it is out of my mouth before I realise it, which often leads to some humorous situations when I am in 'refined' company.

[McCulloch]

I object to the automatic and mindless censoring of words. On the other hand, there is a place for setting a certain tone to encourage well thought out responses and wide participation.

Should it be censored, in debates?

Yes, certain words are automatically censored. There are actually only a few words that are censored. I would hope that prohibiting 5 out of the jillions of English words would not severely diminish the ability to communicate intelligibly.

The one I find amusing is the missing word from this quote of the KJV: Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Perhaps it is a bit extreme to censor that word.

Edit:
After submitting, I have noticed that the word has been removed from the auto censor. It was there once upon a time. Or maybe I dreamed it.

[bernee51]

I object to the automatic and mindless censoring of words. On the other hand, there is a place for setting a certain tone to encourage well thought out responses and wide participation.

Should it be censored, in debates?

Yes, certain words are automatically censored. There are actually only a few words that are censored. I would hope that prohibiting 5 out of the jillions of English words would not severely diminish the ability to communicate intelligibly.

The one I find amusing is the missing word from this quote of the KJV: Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Perhaps it is a bit extreme to censor that word.

Edit:
After submitting, I have noticed that the word has been removed from the auto censor. It was there once upon a time. Or maybe I dreamed it.

You are not dreaming...ass was and arse wasn't.

Just as penis is and vagina isn't (xxxxx in this case is p_e_n_i_s)

Nor for some strange reason is cunt!

Very weird

[McCulloch]

You are not dreaming...ass was and arse wasn't.

Just as penis is and vagina isn't

Nor for some strange reason is :censored: !

Very weird

Let's not get into exploring every possibility. By doing so, you will certainly break 2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature). As I have shown, the auto censor is easily fooled. Mods are not. Personally, I don't quite understand why the clinical word for the male sex organ is censored while one of the female ones is not. Not that we should often discuss these items in religious debate.

[Furrowed Brow]

Do you swear?

At home occasionally. At work on every *%�#!!! exhalation.

Do you consider swearing to be violent?

Interesting question. There was a young northern comedian (can’t remember name) on TV some time back explaining why he could say ‘FU my friend’ in a friendly way due to the soft tones of his accent, while the same phrase from a southerner would be aggressive. I tend to agree.

So yes swearing can be aggressive and brutal too, it can also be funny. However I look around me – I happen to live on a north London council estate – and swearing is a form of punctuation replacing colons and semi colons.

That said - I think swearing can be dehumanizing. Twice now over the years I’ve heard a mother (different women) call their children the C word. Words fail me (and my blood temperature drops a degree or two) when face with such ignorant linguistic brutality.

[byofrcs]

You are not dreaming...ass was and arse wasn't.

Just as penis is and vagina isn't

Nor for some strange reason is :censored: !

Very weird

Let's not get into exploring every possibility. By doing so, you will certainly break 2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature). As I have shown, the auto censor is easily fooled. Mods are not. Personally, I don't quite understand why the clinical word for the male sex organ is censored while one of the female ones is not. Not that we should often discuss these items in religious debate.

Which is ironic given that religion is ultimately so very focused on these body parts.

It could be that it sees woman as property or of a lesser value and so needn't be censored whereas the male appendage is sacred. This is reflected in the traditional attitudes towards women across all major religions.

- The roles of women in the management of a church (Primate, Pope, Bishops, Priests, Imans, Rabbis etc),

- The roles of women in society (oaths, criminal law etc),

- The description of women in canonical documents,

Religions do spend a huge amount of time on the subject of sex by either suppressing or misrepresenting health sexuality. I see rule 2 as perpetuating this avoidance of questions on natural human sexuality, and thus I say that rule 2 must stay because it shows the absurdity of self-appointed authority of Christianity in imposing its mores on society.

The "sexual" clause in rule 2 will be removed just as women eventually got the vote, blacks stopped being slaves and the death penalty was abolished. So no time soon.

[justifyothers]

Do you swear?

Do you consider swearing to be violent? Very much need your views on this matter.

Not anymore. My husband & I just use Dwight's term.... " F " instead!!!

I don't think it's a big deal, but I do cringe when the words are used for name-calling and demeaning another.