Actually, my last post was entirely agreeing with you.

Wait a minute, I though that you thought that "vulgarisms" should never under any circumstances be used. I thought you said that a vulgarism being a vulgarism is "strike one".

Some words, like c--t, shouldn't be used at all. There are other, less vulgar, words that mean the exact same thing. Like how "crap" relates to "s--t."

Wait, what's the criteria if that's the case, then?

Words like s--t, c--t, f--k, b-----d, b--ch, I don't think they should ever be used. They're just too negative. I have no idea how words become vulgarities, but since these are currently the most powerful, they should be the ones we stop first.

Words like 'hell' aren't as bad, but I don't think they should be used, unless they are referring to the place. The word 'damn' is the only acceptable one, I think--not to use all the time, or if you accidentally spill your cheerios--it carries a lot of weight.

I think you still need to understand that powerful words are good, because they convey a point well.
I also believe that there are enough grammatical rules in the English language. I don't need some sterile-minded imbecile to show me some English words and tell me "you can't use those. They convey things I don't like" after I've finished learning how to use them. That's undemocratic.

I think we could just limit it to the word "Damn" when we need it. We still have words like dang, darn, crap, shoot, and the old favorite dagnabbit.

Wow. I really didn't mean to reference crapshoot.

I find this word offensive. For me, it connotes the imposition of stuff I disagree with on me.

Sarcasm is one of the tools that can be used instead of expletives—you just proved it! Thumbs up!

I wasn't being sarcastic at all.

Hahahahaha! Excellent double-sarcasm (and no, I'm not just being stupid. I'm also being sarcastic about being sarcastic about being sarcastic, and THAT's what's stupid.)

Just to be clear, the point I was trying to make that whether a particular word is offensive is highly subjective and the way that we should use our own language should not be dictated by a group or individual. That is undemocratic.

In this case, we can civilly agree to disagree, and this thread can go back to being welcoming/greeting.

I have tried and failed to educate you.

As have I to you. Good day, sir. *tips nonexistent caps and strides off into the sunset*

Sorry to revive your resolved topic, but I am curious. In what was does being Christian affect your tolerance towards swearwords?

I find malicious sarcasm far more offensive than shit, cunt, fuck, bastard, or bitch.

We ain't supposed to swear...God says it's a no no somewhere, can't say I'm very good at following this point. =(

Lord Stanley is my new favorite poster

You're not allowed to swear by his name, of course, but that is the use of the word 'swear' as defined by 'making a promise'. Nothing to do with 'cussing'.

And don't even try to equate swearing to blasphemy, unless you acknowledge God as fifty different words for excretement.

Why in the shit would God care if I swore? If anyone swore? I mean, yeah, if Jesus was recorded as Partisan of the Pottymouth Patrol, it might be an issue for the big guy, but an omnipotent being could not honestly give half of a shit about us swearing. I don't see how people let ridiculous garbage thoughts that say otherwise cloud their judgement.

While I used to agree, I now think it's stupid to try to understand how an omnipotent being thinks.

True, but we can still question the people who claim to know what said omnipotent being is thinking.

They don't, who can, it's too paradoxical.

And I don't think that swearing is too big a deal but using God's name in vein is pretty bad I suppose, but then I'm not very good at not doing that either. God sake is about as bad as it gets though, I hate people who shout out Jesus Christ when they are angry because it just sounds bad to me. =(

Amazing to see Finn's here ;-)