[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
The arguments used for removing the taboo from the “f” word could be easily used for removing the taboo from the “n” word as well. Which, to my mind, shows how superficial and hypocritical the arguments are in the first place. Basically, the people who want to remove the taboo on profanity only want to remove the taboo from some offensive words (the ones that offend the squares) but keep it on others (the words that offend them).
[/QUOTE]
Except that the two types of “bad words” are considered bad for quite different reasons. the “n-word” is a racist slur, the “f-word” is not.
I like the taboo on swear words.
If I just hit my thumb with a hammer, I want to say something forceful, something raw and a bit bad. Thanks to the enforcers of the taboo on swearwords, I can say the useful s- or f- or d- word and be done with it.
If the taboo wasn’t there, I’d have to make up a really elaborate nasty curse. Or I’d have to throw something across the room, and I’d rather not because it might break and then I will have to make up an even more nasty curse. 
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
But even somebody as prissy as I am about conventionally “offensive” words can see a qualitative difference in offensiveness between a general blasphemy or obscenity used merely for emphasis or shock value (such as “fuck” or “goddamn”), and a slur on a particular group of people which is deliberately used to insult (such as “spic” or “nigger”). There are plenty of good reasons for banning the latter category of epithets even in situations where the former category is permitted.
[/QUOTE]
But you see, it’s only social convention that makes these terms slurs in the first place. For that matter, profanity is often an expression of contempt, too. “F-----g a-----e” isn’t much different from “f-----g s–c” in my book. I don’t see that much difference between demeaning someone as an individual and demeaning him as a member of a group. Just as I don’t like to be around someone who habitually and casually uses profanity, so I don’t like to be around someone who habitually and casually uses racial and ethnic slurs–or, for that matter, someone who uses habitually and casually refers to women as “bitches.” And that’s why I think it’s rather hypocritical to want to remove the taboo from some terms but not others.
(I don’t mean to come across as self-righteous here. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I’m liable to spit out a stream of expletives that would scorch a sailor’s ears. If a black guy cuts me off and forces me to hit my brakes hard, the “n” word may cross my mind and perhaps over my tongue. But generally I know what’s acceptable and I know if I were a better person I’d make more of an effort not to think and say such things. I’m not claiming to be a saint. Just sayin’.)
[QUOTE=Maastricht]
I like the taboo on swear words.
If I just hit my thumb with a hammer, I want to say something forceful, something raw and a bit bad. Thanks to the enforcers of the taboo on swearwords, I can say the useful s- or f- or d- word and be done with it.
If the taboo wasn’t there, I’d have to make up a really elaborate nasty curse. Or I’d have to throw something across the room, and I’d rather not because it might break and then I will have to make up an even more nasty curse. 
[/QUOTE]
I agree - I think it’s good to keep these words on the top shelf for use when they are truly appropriate.
I read the thread title as:
Do we really need to shield anyone if we wear swords?
In which case… absolutely.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
You Americans… I mean, you can’t say “shit”. Many aspects of your country seem like a sketch show to us.
[/QUOTE]
Imagine how some of us feel, knowing we live in a sketch show…
I will agree though, that while I feel the stigma of the bad swears is stupid, it is good to have words to use to let people know you are really mad, aren’t in the mood, etc.
Cuss words only tell me the people using them are not intelligent enough to know better words. They think they are impressing me, never. They think they are making a stronger point, never. They think they are intimidating me, never. Gutter language belongs in the gutter uttered by those with poor self-esteem.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Cuss words only tell me the people using them are not intelligent enough to know better words. They think they are impressing me, never. They think they are making a stronger point, never. They think they are intimidating me, never. Gutter language belongs in the gutter uttered by those with poor self-esteem.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
The point is, if you take away their offensive status, they would cease to be offensive- its not like there’s anything inherent about these words that makes them any different from the million others in the dictionary. I can think of many words you couldn’t say in the 60’s or 70’s that are pretty common today.
I also never got “tits” being offensive- I know prudes who use that word.
And if swearing is so bad, why isn’t there a commandment against it?
[/QUOTE]
UHH, there actually is, not that I am an adherent of the Christian faith but doesn’t one of the commandments say “thous shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain?”
As for the “tits” and the prudes, do you live on a farm?
[QUOTE=dennis gallagher]
UHH, there actually is, not that I am an adherent of the Christian faith but doesn’t one of the commandments say “thous shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain?”
As for the “tits” and the prudes, do you live on a farm?
[/QUOTE]
Come on, just say tits out loud- its cute, not offensive.
And yes, that commandment covers any swearing with God in it, which is exactly one curse word out of however many there are.
Just think ,if we stop swearing from radio and TV ,your child can go your whole life without hearing a swear word. isn’t that what we strive for. Maybe we need to lock our children in sound proof booths.
Just bring the conversation up to your kid. Eyes will roll and the kid will wonder what the hell is wrong with you.
[QUOTE=dennis gallagher]
UHH, there actually is, not that I am an adherent of the Christian faith but doesn’t one of the commandments say “thous shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain?”
[/QUOTE]
Not everybody thinks that means “you can’t say ‘God damn it.’”
I thought it meant you couldn’t say “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!”
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Cuss words only tell me the people using them are not intelligent enough to know better words. They think they are impressing me, never. They think they are making a stronger point, never. They think they are intimidating me, never. Gutter language belongs in the gutter uttered by those with poor self-esteem.
[/QUOTE]
Completely wrong. Cuzz words express the meaning attached to them. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they are less intelligent. Which expresses your feeling better when you drop a bowling ball on your foot: ‘Golly gee I am in pain’ or ‘FUUUUUUCK!!!’? Swearing is about feeling, not imparting information. I prefer to make my judgements on the content of a person’s argument, or complete lack thereof, not on the words they use to express emotion.
My uber religious brother and his wife constantly poke at me with little things about their beliefs. One time, my brother showed me something that made me go ‘Oh my god’. He immediately turned on me and asked me why I would say something like that when I don’t believe in god. My response was that it was emotional and reflexive as I was brought up Catholic, and because the meaning was understood by everyone listening. I pointed out that he says ‘holy cow’ even though he’s not a Hindu.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Not everybody thinks that means “you can’t say ‘God damn it.’”
[/QUOTE]
Not everyone thinks the world is round, but I have seen a picture.
I think it takes a certain amount of intellectual and emotional maturity for a person to actually know what they’re saying when they swear, and that exposing children without that maturity to those words isn’t a good idea.
At the very least I think the media, especially television, should take it upon themselves to give parents a fair warning before that language shows up, and set up at least a channel or two that everyone knows is kid-friendly.
I don’t have a particular problem with swearing on TV, as long as I know a little bit about what my family is getting into before the show starts.
All the children I know can sit there while I’m watching Pulp Fiction or any other swear fest and not bat an eye- is this bad for them? If so, why? I can understand children knowing which words are “bad”, but I don’t see why they need to be shielded from hearing them- not saying them OK, as today’s society dictates that.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
All the children I know can sit there while I’m watching Pulp Fiction or any other swear fest and not bat an eye- is this bad for them? If so, why? I can understand children knowing which words are “bad”, but I don’t see why they need to be shielded from hearing them- not saying them OK, as today’s society dictates that.
[/QUOTE]
Because listening to coarse language on TV is very likely to give them the impression that this sort of verbal behavior is normal and socially acceptable. We want our children to grow up to be at least semi-civilized, and that includes knowing that coarse language is not socially acceptable in the vast majority of situations. One might argue that the lack of coarse language robs a program of verisimilitude, but I don’t regard verisimilitude as the highest and most important quality that a work of art must have.
And I have to wonder what sort of idiot can’t express himself in a screenplay or a song without profanity. In the vast majority of cases, there really just isn’t any need to drop the f-bomb in every other line of dialogue.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I thought it meant you couldn’t say “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!”
[/QUOTE]
throws stone