[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I'm fascinated by this statement. I cannot for the life of me think how anyone with more than a couple of years of social discussion (say 5yr old for argument's sake) can actually believe that.I read it then, and it didn't seem worth a response. But since you keep
repeating it, I will respond.<begin long quote> Erik, you seem to want to allow cussing on-list
because you want all viewpoints to be allowed. Cussing isn't
necessary to achieve that,
Of course it is. Try to rationalize all you want, it won't make it
true. You are censoring a viewpoint.
Sure, you have your free speech fanaticism that says your right to be obnoxious outweighs the general communities right to live in peace and harmony - I don't believe it but I can see how you might, and therefore respect that point of view. But to say that profanity is essential in phrasing an argument is absurd. How do politicians state their case, lawyers convince a court, reporters present their opinions, priests give their sermons. Even the most rabid free speech advocate can stand up and argue for the rights he clings to without cussing. It seems to me that cussing isn't necessary to achieve these things, and by broadening your listening audience, not cussing does it better.
George W Bush and Al Gore spent a year trying to convince people their arguments were right, and neither one was reduced to cussing throughout that time, because they know that NOT cussing was more effective than cussing. No-one thought they were being censored...
You should seriously consider whether or not the particular little microcosm of a civilisation we've been experimenting with for the last 6 years is the kind of civilisation you want to be a member of, because the ones where cussing is necessary to allow the expression of a viewpoint may be more appropriate for you.
Russell C.
