Stephen Fry, one of my favourite wordsmiths, a man that I credit significantly with my own love affair with words, once said -
quote:The sort of twee person who thinks that swearing is in anyway a sign of a lack of education or a lack of verbal interest is just a fucking lunatic
I agree that it is all about context, and anyone interested in the posts I put together knows that I swear, but sparingly. I usually employ it for some rhetorical effect or just because it sounds better on the mental ear. In the context of an online debate, complaints about swearing seems to me to be its own rhetorical ploy. A "I'm a nicer, more civilised person than you, therefore my points should garner more respect than yours" kind of gambit.
As evidenced here there are several lines of attack in any swearing discussing. The fact that it is unnecessary is one such line. As is the concern for others ("Won't someone please think of the children!") line. Indeed, Stephen Fry addresses those in the same discussion so I'll save myself repeating his points in an inferior fashion and just post it.
So my view in short is this: Swearing is perfectly fine. But stylistically I find it unpleasant to read a piece of writing which overuses a word or phrase. It happens with words that aren't sweary, but swearing is easily overused. I'd call this an aesthetic objection.
In a verbal debate, one can overswear to great effect - because tone of voice adds a layer of variation to the discussion. An increasing crescendo of swearing qualifiers can have a power verbally that in the written word is more difficult to get across without 'sounding' mentally unstable or simply becoming boring. It is offensive to use English, and swear words in particular, to create a boring monotony - not because they are 'profane' or otherwise intrinsically bad.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
