Argument against swearing:
Presupposition: That every individual is entitled to a basic dignity of existence.
I. Dignity of existence is contingent upon a modicum of personal privacy.
II. Personal privacy is a circle in which one stands alone.
III. To cross the circle without the consent of the individual in the circle constitutes a violation of personal privacy, and therefore represents a lessening of that individual's dignity of existence.
IV. Some swear words describe extremely private functions.
V. To mention an extremely private function to another person without their foreknowledge or consent represents a violation of personal privacy: the circle is transected.
VI. These swear words represent a violation against another's dignity of existence.
This does not include all swear words. I cannot make an impartial argument against those swear words which show no respect to my faith. I may only assert that this remainder of swear words make a mockery of what I hold most dear.
I appeal to my fellow students to consider their words. The swearing I hear here is either:
A) A violation against another's dignity of existence
or
B) Hurtful to another on the basis of faith
Sidelines:
1. Swearing gets redundant. Oxford english dictionary credits the english language with 500,000 words (actually a rather conservative estimate)-- the odds that a swear-word qualifies as the best descriptor are therefore very low.
2. I detest the way in which people abbreviate swear words to make them "good." If swearing here is rife (it is), this is endemic. These narcissists are unwilling to take the responsibility for saying the actual word, but want to enjoy the naughty feelings that accompany their forays into moral turpitude. Yuck.
