Little Kids and Cussing on TV

[Davin]

This, however works in favor of of my point though, that it's the meaning that matters and not the sounds/letters. Which makes it ridiculous to allow, "I think you're a horrible person and I have very low regard for you" when "you miserable fucking cunt" is not. Essentially the same meaning, however because of people's unreasonable bias towards words, one is "acceptable" and the other is "offensive".

If I'm following you correctly Davin, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with this.[...]

Yeah, I agree with what you've stated.

[Tank]

Maybe Tank or someone else could elaborate on how offensive fanny might be perceived in a culture that uses British English, but I don't imagine most Americans would be incensed if someone said "ouch, I fell on my fanny and boy it hurt!".

Not offensive in the slightest its parallel with calling a penis a willy. When I hear Americans use the word fanny in reference to their backside it usually just makes me laugh as its usually used in complete innocence, I must have laughed for a good ten minuets when my little cousin said her fanny was hurting from horse riding.

Spot on.

[Siz]

I don't like people trying to tell me which words I can or can't say, so I'm doing something about it by questioning it and not perpetuating it. The very idea that someone would express that not limiting their word choice makes them less clever than those who limit their word choice for illogical reasons, is very silly and lacking in self-awareness.

It is not necessarily illogical. Cursing is a blunt tool for communicating ideas - unless emotive exclamation is the idea. If communication is the name of the game then why use cursing if you have other, sharper tools at your disposal? Is that silly?

I would prefer my children use only words suited to communicating ideas, and that means not exposing them to superfluous, redundant and negatively perceived terms.

[Davin]

I don't like people trying to tell me which words I can or can't say, so I'm doing something about it by questioning it and not perpetuating it. The very idea that someone would express that not limiting their word choice makes them less clever than those who limit their word choice for illogical reasons, is very silly and lacking in self-awareness.

It is not necessarily illogical. Cursing is a blunt tool for communicating ideas - unless emotive exclamation is the idea. If communication is the name of the game then why use cursing if you have other, sharper tools at your disposal? Is that silly?

By calling other words "sharper" you're perpetuating the illogical idea that certain words are less "sharp" than others. I find it silly to think that certain words shouldn't be used because people irrationaly think that some words are sharp and some are blunt. Or, pehaps you would be able to give the long overdue definition of which words are sharp and which are blunt? I mean, without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word.

I would prefer my children use only words suited to communicating ideas, and that means not exposing them to superfluous, redundant and negatively perceived terms.

Aye, as many parents would prefer their children to be just like all other around them, mediocrity is as fine a goal as any others. But to say that not using certain words to acheive this goal makes one more clever, is hilariously ironic. "Superfluous," if only people would refrain from most superfluous words... like using the word "superfluous" as a coordinate adjective along with the word "redundant." I did enjoy that joke, but do you actually make sure your children are not exposed to such uses? Do you also have your children protected from hearing all negatively perceived terms? If not (which is much more likely), then what is your rational for deciding which negatively perceived terms you'll allow your kids to hear and which you won't?

[Sweetdeath]

Maybe Tank or someone else could elaborate on how offensive fanny might be perceived in a culture that uses British English, but I don't imagine most Americans would be incensed if someone said "ouch, I fell on my fanny and boy it hurt!".

Not offensive in the slightest its parallel with calling a penis a willy. When I hear Americans use the word fanny in reference to their backside it usually just makes me laugh as its usually used in complete innocence, I must have laughed for a good ten minuets when my little cousin said her fanny was hurting from horse riding.

That bothers me SO much. It's like "why are you using brit slang improperly??"
Americans can be such morons who dont bother to research their terms.

Fanny and bum. How hard is that to remember?

In an American interview with Kelly Osbourne, the woman asked was it embarrassing to show her fanny in a bikini?
And Kelly was like "wth, I did not show my fanny!"

I face palmed so hard.

[Asmodean]

It is not necessarily illogical. Cursing is a blunt tool for communicating ideas - unless emotive exclamation is the idea. If communication is the name of the game then why use cursing if you have other, sharper tools at your disposal? Is that silly?

I would prefer my children use only words suited to communicating ideas, and that means not exposing them to superfluous, redundant and negatively perceived terms.

You know, your avatar, it would benefit from replacing the red face with an Asmo. Maybe flip it 180 degrees too, to keep proper alignment.

The Asmo is invading avatars, you see. And a robot, that's just... Useful. 

[Ali]

I can't figure out where to put the Asmo face in my avatar.  Maybe replacing my face?  The only other thing I could think of was putting a floating Asmo over my midsection, but then that would make me look like either Asmo is eating his way through my middle, or has knocked me up.

[Asmodean]

Asmoboobs! 

[Siz]

By calling other words "sharper" you're perpetuating the illogical idea that certain words are less "sharp" than others.

Exactly correct and but not illogical in the slightest. Do you really think you can communicate ANYTHING in detail and specifically with profanity? How about what an Apple looks like, or how you're feeling, or what you do for a living or explain how a helicopter works... or any other concept. Any profanity used would be non-specific, redundant and/or superfluous - (and your dislike of those adjectives is of no concern to me). You are not communicating anything useful by cursing. So, yes, some words are sharper tools for communicating than others.

I find it silly to think that certain words shouldn't be used because people irrationaly think that some words are sharp and some are blunt. Or, pehaps you would be able to give the long overdue definition of which words are sharp and which are blunt? I mean, without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word.

I didn't ever say that certain words shouldn't be used. I am making a case for replacing profanity with other words - if they are within our vocabulary - where communicating with specifics and detail is desired.
Sharp/blunt: I'm sorry you are unable to grasp the rationale. It's really not a large leap of imagination to understand. An analogy with a knife will suffice; Sharp = effective, blunt = not effective.
Now, if we are to assume that the purpose of talking is to communicate then why would we choose to use profanity if we have more effective words (sharper tools) at our disposal.
Let's see some examples:
"That car is shit"
"He's a cunt"
"it's fucked"
There are no specifics here, or insight, or detail. What has been communicated? These words do not communicate effectively and it is not irrational to consider the communication tools blunt.

"That car is slow/small/pink/ugly"
"He's a pedant"
"It's burnt/soggy/ripped/motionless"
These words communicate much more effectively, with specifics, insight and detail.

Aye, as many parents would prefer their children to be just like all other around them, mediocrity is as fine a goal as any others.

Unnecessary sarcasm aside, it is exactly the reason why I choose to educate my children out of the mediocrity of ineffective communication around which we live.

But to say that not using certain words to acheive this goal makes one more clever, is hilariously ironic.

It doesn't make one more clever, and you know full well that is not what I said. To reiterate, it is a common prejudice that people will think you are not very clever if you use 'blunt' language. I do not apologise for wanting my children to communicate better than their local peers with a view to better connecting with the people who are likely to offer gainful employment.

[pedantic rant, followed by]...but do you actually make sure your children are not exposed to such uses? Do you also have your children protected from hearing all negatively perceived terms?

I do what I can, but I do not deny the existence of such language. They are aware of it but are encouraged not to use it themselves. They understand there really isn't any need.

You will no doubt predictably want the last word on this, but I have no appetite for debating with sarcasm and pedantic questioning of my less-than-perfect English.
If you cannot argue the points - or (god forbid) concede when presented with reasonable argument then I'm out.

[Ali]

Asmoboobs! 

*snerk*

Maybe so.  Maybe so.

[Davin]

By calling other words "sharper" you're perpetuating the illogical idea that certain words are less "sharp" than others.

Exactly correct and but not illogical in the slightest. Do you really think you can communicate ANYTHING in detail and specifically with profanity? How about what an Apple looks like, or how you're feeling, or what you do for a living or explain how a helicopter works... or any other concept. Any profanity used would be non-specific, redundant and/or superfluous - (and your dislike of those adjectives is of no concern to me). You are not communicating anything useful by cursing. So, yes, some words are sharper tools for communicating than others.

It cannot be both exactly correct and logical, as illogical was part of what you are saying is exactly correct. I have no dislike of those adjectives, I just thought you were being funny in using redundant words to describe something you find redundant. But it's also funny and/or hilarious as the "dichotomy" you presented here. There are many things that are usefully communicated with "profanity": I fucked her. He stepped in shit. We all fell on our asses. She's being a bitch. He's being a little bitch. That smells like shit. And many more.

It is true that words that are not considered profane can be used to replace the "profanity," but that only shows exactly my point that the words are irrationally considered profane. If "shit" means the same thing as "poop" why is one considered profane?

I find it silly to think that certain words shouldn't be used because people irrationaly think that some words are sharp and some are blunt. Or, pehaps you would be able to give the long overdue definition of which words are sharp and which are blunt? I mean, without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word.

I didn't ever say that certain words shouldn't be used. I am making a case for replacing profanity with other words - if they are within our vocabulary - where communicating with specifics and detail is desired.
Sharp/blunt: I'm sorry you are unable to grasp the rationale. It's really not a large leap of imagination to understand. An analogy with a knife will suffice; Sharp = effective, blunt = not effective.
Now, if we are to assume that the purpose of talking is to communicate then why would we choose to use profanity if we have more effective words (sharper tools) at our disposal.

I don't see your point. Blunt is as effective as sharp, just depends on what you're doing. Try driving a nail into wood with a very sharp blade, you'll find a blunt hammer more effective.

Let's see some examples:
"That car is shit"
"He's a cunt"
"it's fucked"
There are no specifics here, or insight, or detail. What has been communicated? These words do not communicate effectively and it is not irrational to consider the communication tools blunt.

"That car is slow/small/pink/ugly"
"He's a pedant"
"It's burnt/soggy/ripped/motionless"
These words communicate much more effectively, with specifics, insight and detail.

I don't see how either example is any more or less effective at conveying someone's meaning than the other. See my list above for examples of how those words can be used specifically and satisfy your "sharp" requirement for acceptable words.

Aye, as many parents would prefer their children to be just like all other around them, mediocrity is as fine a goal as any others.

Unnecessary sarcasm aside, it is exactly the reason why I choose to educate my children out of the mediocrity of ineffective communication around which we live.

It was not sarcasm, raising children to be compliant to the irrationally held norms of society is the goal of many parents, as it seems to be yours. Maybe not the norms of other children their age, but the norms that you're trying to enforce on them.

But to say that not using certain words to acheive this goal makes one more clever, is hilariously ironic.

It doesn't make one more clever, and you know full well that is not what I said. To reiterate, it is a common prejudice that people will think you are not very clever if you use 'blunt' language. I do not apologise for wanting my children to communicate better than their local peers with a view to better connecting with the people who are likely to offer gainful employment.

I know full well what you said because it's there for me to go back to and reference: "because people hearing you use that word will think you're not very clever", "and other people who already know I'm not very clever[.]" Both statements, are expressing the idea that using certain words make one appear less clever, and perpetuates the idea that using certain words means one is less clever. I have no problem with teaching your children to follow certain social norms, even if those norms are irrationally derived, in order to respect other people up to and including ones employer (as can be seen by my agreement with Tank on the subject). However it's far different to perpetuate something, than to explain how and why something is irrational but to refrain from doing something.

[pedantic rant, followed by]...but do you actually make sure your children are not exposed to such uses? Do you also have your children protected from hearing all negatively perceived terms?

I do what I can, but I do not deny the existence of such language. They are aware of it but are encouraged not to use it themselves. They understand there really isn't any need.

Of course there is no need, just like there is no need to use both superfluous and redundant in the same list of coordinate adjectives. However, because you seem to use much superfluous language, I'm really doubting that you use this, "if it's not needed then don't use those words" rule consistently.

You will no doubt predictably want the last word on this, but I have no appetite for debating with sarcasm and pedantic questioning of my less-than-perfect English.

Of course it's predictable for me to express the logic problems in what people publicly express, it's been my M.O. since I've started posting here. I don't criticise people on less than perfect English, I merely thought it was intentionally funny. I'm sorry it was not intended to be funny for you to criticise something as redundant while using superfluous words. Even if it wasn't intentional, it's still a little funny, like someone saying "the only thing I hate more than racism, are Jews."

If you cannot argue the points - or (god forbid) concede when presented with reasonable argument then I'm out.

I concede when I'm wrong, as I've done on many occassions. This can be seen in this thread when I was talking to Tank and a previous conversation I've had with you in another thread when I failed to correctly read the stuff you wrote about googol numbers. Have you ever conceded to a reasonable argument? I really have no problem with being shown that I'm wrong and enjoy being incorrect more than being correct, because being shown to be incorrect is usually much less boring. However, it's not enjoyable for me to concede to irrational arguments.

Speaking of not arguing the points:
"[...]without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word."
"[...]do you actually make sure your children are not exposed [superfluous word] uses?"
"[...]what is your rational for deciding which negatively perceived terms you'll allow your kids to hear and which you won't?"

[Ali]

I have to say that I disagree that profanity lacks specificity, at least in certain circumstances.  The reason people find profanity more objectionable than its watered-down synonyms is because it carries a much larger emotional punch.  There are times when "Oh poopie!" simply cannot convey the depth of my feelings on the matter - only a "SHIT!!!" will do. 

[Siz]

I seem to have been unwittingly dragged into an argument about whether or not swearing at all is bad. This was not my intention. The thrust of my original arguments were with respect to children - as in the title of the thread.
It is important that children learn effective methods of communication before allowing 'blunt' (and offensive to many) words to become their default communication tools. I will do what I can to ingrain more descriptive, detailed and specific words in my childrens vocabulary. And limiting exposure to profanity will minimise the chances of such displacing more informative words.

Valid or not, the perception of youngsters using profanity is predominantly negative. I do not say "only stupid people use profanity", I say "while it is seen as negative in society I will do what I can to ensure my children are not the subject of that negativity". You can make a stand against this prejudice if you see fit, I'd rather not involve my children.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing better than a good 'shit', or more cathartic than a well-aimed 'cunt'. It is the use of gratuitous profanity that has no value.

I will acknowledge that in some applications profanity may be interchangeable with less contentious words without losing specificity - particularly where the profanity IS the subject, object or verb (stepped in shit, the shit hit the fan, he fucked her...). It is when profanity is used as an adjective or qualifier that lacks concise communication (it's fucking rubbish, that's a shit car etc...).

[Ali]

I agree with you that I don't particularly want my young child to use curse words, even though I myself sometimes find cursing highly satisfactory.  I do try to teach my son to stay more or less within societal norms.  He's got plenty of time to work on his potty mouth once he's old enough to really appreciate the joy of a well placed swear.

[Siz]

Speaking of not arguing the points:
"[...]without using a list a of words. Just describe how one is to determine the sharpness and bluntness of a word."
"[...]do you actually make sure your children are not exposed [superfluous word] uses?"
"[...]what is your rational for deciding which negatively perceived terms you'll allow your kids to hear and which you won't?"

Just so I'm not accused of not arguing the points:

1. The sharpness or bluntness of any tool can be tested by practical experimentation. How sharp is your knife? Well, let's cut a tomato to find out. In any context, we may see good or bad communication of ideas by use of a word. Often (but not always, as you have previously demonstrated) the profanity will be seen to ineffectually communicate when compared to another word. Occasionally, when emotive exclamation is the desired communication, then profanity may be sharper. In everyday conversation (where faeces or sex aren't on topic) communication of ideas is much better served without profanity.

2. Children's exposure to profanity: I do what I can.

3. The greater the negativity, the more likely I am to discourage a word. 'Bum' might invite mild scorn from some quarters, but I'll let that go. I trust that communicating with prospective employers will not require discussion of body parts.