Though you are also describing your tastes on the matter.Spectrum wrote: I agree with LuckyR swearing is low class and should classified as so.
Smoking is terrible on the body. There are objective reasons why smoking is bad.Just like smoking was, many have been brainwashed by the media and movies that swearing is 'classy' or the "in-thing" because many celebrities do that in the movies. Such thinking has facilitated the acceptance of swearing as part of life in many cultures and this has become a habit to many.
I disagree. They may have anger management problems, they may not. They may simply be expressing whatever the emotion is, in that moment, in a particular way, that may or may not be accepted by their particular culture or subculture. And it need not be anger. Obviously some people, for example, use swear words when they are afraid. '****.' for example, with or without other words is a fairly common expression when afraid.However what is overlooked is the very poisonous [emotional] element in swearing. As I had stated in the earlier post, swearing is an expression of anger. Basically those who swear spontaneously [not as a habit] has bad anger management abilities.
If you are angry, you will have those brain characteristics, regardless of what words you use. Even if you politely 'smile' and keep silent.Every time that is an expression of the anger emotion, the relevant neuro-transmitters and other relevant chemicals are introduced into the blood and other system together with all sort of preparation for fight or flight.
It seems like you have a blanket condemnation of anger. I think anger can be a healthy emotion and further that restricting use of swearwords does not cut down anger. There are times when anger is the appropriate response, a natural one, and even that it can be unhealthy to inhibit it. I am not arguing that one should use swear words, simply that it is a cultural judgmen that these are 'bad' words.
Therefore the person who swear [habitually] is spreading chemical poisons [via instincts] in various degrees to all who are within effective listening distance or contact [movies, media, etc.]. Think about it!
-- Updated May 5th, 2017, 4:34 am to add the following --
I am not sure how my keeping you stipulation of 'mixed company' entails that I agree with you. Mixed company means that there are women and men present. Those women and men may very well have different cultural judgments about when and if and how one can or should or should not use swear words. IOW they may be fine with the use of it. And I am not sure why the presence of women - I am assuming it is their presence - means that swear word use is worse or now bad.LuckyR wrote:Since you kept my stipulation of: "... in mixed company", I assume you are in agreement with me. I am in agreement with you that the overuse of "like" is more similar than different, even though "like" isn't a swear word.Moreno wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
'It makes the swearer look...' to you, or to a certain group. There are cultures and subcultures which have a higher tolerance, validation of swearing than others. Further, over time, many cultures have become more accepting of swearing as a part of expressive language. I have my own biases where I get annoyed at swearing overuse, but these parallel any type of communication that is steeped in habit, where certain cliches, for example, are used over and over, or people say 'like' too much. I can get just as annoyed at people who overuse ornate vocabulary when simpler more direct speech or writing would be appropriate. To me the litmus test is how effective is the communication, given the goals of the speaker writer. And in certain situations I will use a lot of swear words: stubbing my toe can call up a torrent.
-- Updated May 5th, 2017, 4:35 am to add the following --
I am not sure how my keeping you stipulation of 'mixed company' entails that I agree with you. Mixed company means that there are women and men present. Those women and men may very well have different cultural judgments about when and if and how one can or should or should not use swear words. IOW they may be fine with the use of it. And I am not sure why the presence of women - I am assuming it is their presence - means that swear word use is worse or now bad.LuckyR wrote:Since you kept my stipulation of: "... in mixed company", I assume you are in agreement with me. I am in agreement with you that the overuse of "like" is more similar than different, even though "like" isn't a swear word.Moreno wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
'It makes the swearer look...' to you, or to a certain group. There are cultures and subcultures which have a higher tolerance, validation of swearing than others. Further, over time, many cultures have become more accepting of swearing as a part of expressive language. I have my own biases where I get annoyed at swearing overuse, but these parallel any type of communication that is steeped in habit, where certain cliches, for example, are used over and over, or people say 'like' too much. I can get just as annoyed at people who overuse ornate vocabulary when simpler more direct speech or writing would be appropriate. To me the litmus test is how effective is the communication, given the goals of the speaker writer. And in certain situations I will use a lot of swear words: stubbing my toe can call up a torrent.
-- Updated May 5th, 2017, 4:36 am to add the following --
Strangely when I quote from another post it merely gets added to my previous post. I will try this way:
I am not sure how my keeping you stipulation of 'mixed company' entails that I agree with you. Mixed company means that there are women and men present. Those women and men may very well have different cultural judgments about when and if and how one can or should or should not use swear words. IOW they may be fine with the use of it. And I am not sure why the presence of women - I am assuming it is their presence - means that swear word use is worse or now bad.