Reason #1: Cursing is not the best choice of words. Cursing usually involves using words for bodily functions or religious notions. Neither category is germane to most situations that people curse in, and in those situations there are more informative options that don't demonize their subjects. I don't need to allude to disgusting, private or holy topics in order to express displeasure, shock or degrees of extremeness.
Reason #2: I hope that I am smart enough and have enough integrity to communicate without invoking the taboo. Choosing to make the trade between rational, descriptive language and taboo language in order to evoke an emotional response in your audience is a compromise of reason. It is the difference between reading The Economist and listening to Howard Stern -- one attempts (however successfully) to make a reasoned and informative argument about a topic and the other attempts to persuade by appealing to the primitive and more basic nature.
Reason #3: It conveys a lack of respect for propriety. Personal liberty is an ideal that I support. The abandonment of social norms is not. I do not think that everyone should stop cursing, nor am I a fan of the prohibition of materials and media containing language whose intent is to offend. I do consider refraining from partaking to be a personal decision to live by a more stringent moral standard.
Sometimes it is the best choice of words. Most people who swear are not using the traditional bodily or religious connotations of the words, they are using them for emphasis or exclamation. Those uses are so much more common than the original meanings that outside of specific contexts, the new emphatic meanings are the default.
When referring to the original meanings, I think it is very vulgar to use those words, for instance saying "Take a s---" or "f------ your girlfriend". Those make me cringe. But those same words still work for me as exclamation, as in "S---! I lost my wallet!" or "His house is so f------ huge!".
I think that swear words are useful in this context because the social norms against using them keep them relatively scarce, which gives them value. When marketers have overhyped everything ("Extreme Toothpaste! The Ultimate Chili Dog! The Greatest Athlete Ever!"), the scarcely used swear words are valuable for conveying meaning because everything else is cheapened. If you could buy "Whitest F------ Teeth" toothpaste, swear words would not convey any additional meaning and would probably be used less.
If you could buy "Whitest F------ Teeth" toothpaste, swear words would not convey any additional meaning and would probably be used less.
This reminds me of a beautiful movie, Idiocracy, and the "Carl's Jr. Extra Big-ass Fries". The motto of Carl's Jr. in this hilarious 26th-century dystopia is "Fuck you, I'm eating".
Exceptional circumstances do not invalidate codes of conduct. I don't believe I ever asserted that there was no circumstance that warrants an expletive. Thinking that your behavior can be guided ultimately by 'do this' or 'do not do this' is naive at best. I disagree with the article in that I believe cursing isn't something to be used in business communication or presentations, and my arguments support the case for infrequency in use.
Further, I wanted to make the case that refraining from cursing is not necessarily out of fear. I chose to refrain from cursing because I think there is a better way to behave.
Exceptional circumstances do not invalidate codes of conduct.
Two big problems with that statement:
1) Exceptional circumstances are by definition exceptional, and hence validate or invalidate whatever behaviour is appropriate. I never want to drink piss. You might say it's a clear, permanent principle in my life. But if I'm dying of thirst in the desert, I may well do. That's an exceptional circumstance.
2) A "code of conduct", however you care to define it, is a load of crap, and you'll be a better person if you come to terms with that. The world is varied and changing. You should behave in the way that's best given the situation you're faced with, not based on some sort of code that you defined some time ago. You can have principles to guide your behaviour, but even those have to be up for review when faced with circumstances that they don't fit.
It's your choice whether you swear or not, but don't think of yourself as superior in any way (e.g. "My momma raised me right") just because you've made this one of your core principles. Your momma didn't raise you right. She raised you differently.
I see your number one as reiterating what I was saying, not disagreeing.
A personal code of conduct is not "a load of crap." It has a limited but useful role in framing and shaping behavior. Like any system of guidance, it exists to provide the default and usual path. Each programming language culture has its own code of conduct, encouraging some behavior and discouraging other behavior, that stems from the culture's principals. Of course, there are exceptions and we should be vigilant in knowing what justifies an exception. However, just because there are exceptions does not mean that learning the code of conduct of a language is useless or that documents thereof are loads of crap.
What do you mean, "you'll be a better person"?
I never said that refraining from swearing was a core principal, in fact it is far from a core principal. I find cursing with abandon to be a petty indulgence and unbecoming. However, being raised to appreciate why things are inappropriate is better than not passing along our cultural heritage of propriety and respect.
I understand that it is more popular to refrain from instilling a strong sense of what is appropriate and inappropriate in children these days because of the influences of moral relativism. I believe this is a disservice and negligent parenting. I do not presume that my sense of right and wrong should be the sense that others must accept. Nor do I believe that my views on what constitutes correct behavior at such a fine level of granularity as word choice make me superior to anyone else in any absolute sense.
Within the context of word choice, being more precise, informative and salient is better than talking about excrement, fornication or damnation.
Exceptional circumstances do not invalidate codes of conduct.
This statement clearly defines a "code of conduct" as a rigid set of rules that should always apply. Now you say:
[a code of conduct] has a limited but useful role in framing and shaping behavior.
That contradicts the previous statement. I'm glad you changed your mind, but why not admit you did?
Within the context of word choice, being more precise, informative and salient is better than talking about excrement, fornication or damnation.
I don't disagree with that. I don't swear for no reason - at least not in writing. I merely disagreed with your apparent sense of superiority. Since you've relinquished that too, I guess we're in agreement.
PS: Btw, it's "Principle". "Principal" is an official rank. Principle is a guideline.
When did I "clearly defines a 'code of conduct' as a rigid set of rules that should always apply" ? As qqq pointed out in his or her first comment on my statement, I make the case for infrequency, not prohibition. In my next reply, I affirm that. How did I change my mind?
How did I come off as having a 'sense of superiority'? Please inform me so that I can avoid doing the same in the future.
I always get principle and principal confused, thanks for clarifying.
