283 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Elhanan wrote...

Language is a choice; profanity is a cheap selection.

Language is an individual choice. If every individual in the game made the exact same choices in regards to language usage then that would be poor writing indeed. That someone uses language in a way you don't prefer is realistic.

Now if everyone talked like a sailor, and it wasn't a pirate themed game, then that would be bad writing. The reverse is equally true. But its reasonable that the actual sailor in your group (Isabela) might talk like one. Meanwhile Merril only swears when truly upset, and only in elvish. But is also amused by 'dirty' talk because Elves don't have the same hangups about such things.

If language colors your like or dislike of a character, its actually doing its job.

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...

Our rule with profanity is "occasional but impactful", with the occasional allowance for a character that swears as part of their personality-- indeed, for such a character the profanity would more or less fade into the background.

The only profanity we argued about was the f-bomb. We had it for a while but eventually removed it as it seemed too distracting.

I don't know if it's just me, but the  profanity seemed reasonable to me in DA2.  I don't recall Hawke ever swearing, but I think that if you're going to have the main character use profanity then the profanity probably needs to be IN THE PARAPHRASE in some form so that the actual line doesn't come off inadvertantly as a LOT stronger than the paraphrase.  Most of the cussing I remember issued either from Orlesians or from dwarves and seemed appropriate.

The only other issue I find with profanity in the Dragon Age games is that while things like "Maker!" are thematically appropriate they don't have quite the same impact as (say) "Jesus!" even if they're said in the nearly the same tone.  So it may be necessary to be a bit more specific with your blasphemy to achieve the same impact on the player.  Instead of "To the Fade with this!" (which just isn't "the hell with this!" no matter how you slice it, if only because the player has visited the Fade in the game and it wasn't that bad) something a bit more specific/active is necessary: "The Fade drown this!"

That's my opinion anyway.

[Selene Moonsong]

Get it back on topic, and refrain from circumventing the swear filters in your own choice of words in these forums; lets not be profane in discussing profanity as used in mature-rated games.

[Elhanan]

@ In Exile - too many posts to quote.

I choose to convey the idea that a profane-laced speech is not changing over time towards a perfect goal; hence my use of de-evolvotion. Semantics.

Insults do not require profanity or name-calling at all (eg; Groucho Marx, Winston Churchill, etc).

I doubt that the use of profanity is scientifically better for pain. Perhaps expression of some kind is less painful than holding it in; try 'Ouch', 'Touchdown', or 'Butterfinger' for new results.

The military may use profanity frequently, but media portrayal does not need to replicate it for realism. The worst name I was ever called by a DI was 'Trainee'; a miltary newbie. And I do enjoy a military film when the use of profanity is reigned in to focus more on the events, soldiers, and environs. Personally, I do not miss the profanity as it is often distracting.

So not using profanity when angry is disrespectful? Don't really see that. As mentioned, one may get the point across well withour swearing:

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die"

"I find a few people annoying, and you are all of them."

"They don't hardly make 'em like him any more - but just to be on the safe side, he should be castrated anyway." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I could never learn to like her, except on a raft at sea with no other provisions in sight." - Mark Twain

"Sharp as a sack full of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn

No need for profanity, IMO.

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 août 2011 - 05:33 .

[ipgd]

I just don't understand this argument that the use of profanity is somehow indicative of a poor vocabulary. Of the people here arguing in favor of profanity, none of them appear to have any sort of particular vocabular deficiency. If I'm allowed to fellate myself for a moment, I'm sort of, um, extremely proficient in communicating with the English language. Not to say anything of my general intelligence, but words and grammar in general come to me with an exceptional amount of ease. I think it would take pretty much the most pedantic douchebag on the planet to read what I post on these boards and conclude that the breadth of my vocabulary is unsubstantial (though whether the actual contents of my posts have any value is up in the air). I think it's also pretty safe to say mine is significantly more substantial than some of the people who have argued the "people who use profanity have weak vocabularies" angle in this thread, if I were to progress from auto-fellatio to good ole fashioned dick measuring.

And I swear like a ****ing sailor. When I am speaking casually, every third word out of my mouth can be profanity -- and yet, somehow, this has not reduced my word inventory down to only four letter words. Despite the fact I believe there is linguistic value to profanity, I have not been stripped of my mental faculties or my ability to communicate clearly with or without profanity when I should so choose. When I use a word, it means something -- and sometimes it doesn't, when I want to use a word in such a way that it becomes meaningless or flippant or facetious.

Language is a tool, not a set of stringent rules; I make it work for my purposes, and there is no need to adhere to some arbitrary standard of propriety beyond what is necessary to ensure clear and communicative understanding. Politeness and propriety and even basic grammar exist to facilitate communication but also to be broken, because even that carries its own meaning that is just as valuable to language as anything else.

I just really want to know where this argument comes from, and what proof of any kind is supposed to back it up, because I have seen absolutely no indication that it is in any way true or that it has any purpose in an argument other than to passive-aggressively insult the intelligence and knowledge of people who use profanity. And if that's really all it is -- man the **** up and say what you mean instead of dressing your condescension up with a haughty veneer in order to hide the fact your argument is based entirely in your own personal discomfort. And there is an argument to be had there, about when and where and by whom, if ever, it is appropriate to make people uncomfortable, but I see no value in this argument that apparently exists for no reason other than to demean the intelligence of the people who disagree with it.

Modifié par ipgd, 13 août 2011 - 05:43 .

[Elhanan]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Language is an individual choice. If every individual in the game made the exact same choices in regards to language usage then that would be poor writing indeed. That someone uses language in a way you don't prefer is realistic.

Now if everyone talked like a sailor, and it wasn't a pirate themed game, then that would be bad writing. The reverse is equally true. But its reasonable that the actual sailor in your group (Isabela) might talk like one. Meanwhile Merril only swears when truly upset, and only in elvish. But is also amused by 'dirty' talk because Elves don't have the same hangups about such things.

If language colors your like or dislike of a character, its actually doing its job.

The assumption is that every sailor swears. And using PoTC, doubt there is any confusion in the dialogue over who was a pirate or not based on profanity.

I enjoy well turned phrases, and witty banter. As for colorful language, I prefer to avoid blue.

[ipgd]

Elhanan wrote...

I doubt that the use of profanity is scientifically better for pain. Perhaps expression of some kind is less painful than holding it in; try 'Ouch', 'Touchdown', or 'Butterfinger' for new results.

The actual scientific studies did exactly that. You can find more information with a few seconds on Google, I'd assume.

Modifié par ipgd, 13 août 2011 - 05:48 .

[Elhanan]

ipgd wrote...

The actual scientific studies did exactly that. You can find more information with a few seconds on Google, I'd assume.

Interesting until I read this section:

..."The new finding comes from research that tested the hypothesis with a bunch (67) of college students and some ice cold water. Students were given a choice when they plunged their warm hands into the freezing water — chant a neutral word, or repeat a swear word instead.

Those students who chose to swear reported less subjective pain than the neutral word chanters, and could endure the icy cold water with their hands for about 40 seconds longer on average. "

Was not aware that subjective protocols were considered evidence.

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 août 2011 - 05:54 .

[In Exile]

Elhanan wrote...
I choose to convey the idea that a profane-laced speech is not changing over time towards a perfect goal; hence my use of de-evolvotion. Semantics.

You're suggesting a teology to language: that there is some intrisic moral worth to less profanity. That's not carried over in the concept of evolution. It's not normative. 

This leads back into gaming. 

If you start from a position that profanity is unjustified, bar none, then the conversation degenerates into one about profanity. 

The question is emphasis 

Insults do not require profanity or name-calling at all (eg; Groucho Marx, Winston Churchill, etc).

They certainly do. Especially against you, in fact. If I wanted to insult or aggravate someone else, I might choose not to use profanity, because there might be a better alternative. But you're someone who really dislikes profanity - if I wanted to make you angry, insult you viscerally might achieve that purpose.

And that's something that  a game needs. If you have a straight laced character (like Cassandra) then to show frustration you need to break her character.

To go back to what you said before, you complained that Cassandra swearing breaks her character and makes her look weak. That's the point.

She's desperate and angry. Just look at the scene when we go back, after the real Lothering escape: Varric is sitting cooly in his hair, dictating the pace, and Cassandra is just listening - she's totally lost control of the conversation, just like she lost control of herself.

Her swearing is crucially important to the scene, because it shows her exasperation and her inability to keep herself under wraps, and Varric then pounces on her and turns the tables.

So profanity very clearly has a role. 

I doubt that the use of profanity is scientifically better for pain. Perhaps expression of some kind is less painful than holding it in; try 'Ouch', 'Touchdown', or 'Butterfinger' for new results.

That's exactly what they did. The linked article goes over the presumed mechanism, so I need to thank .... wait, just saw your reply.

Was not aware that subjective protocols were considered evidence.

It's an ethical thing. If we have a participant like you, we wouldn't want to offend you by forcing you to choose. 

If we stick people in an fMRI, we can see whether or not there is differential brain activation.

Once we have all that evidence, we can go to forced choice.

But yes, having people choose between a spread of alternatives is a scientifically valid approach.

As for subjective report, that's what pain is. You have to find ways to standardize for tolerance, etc. and then you let a large pool of subjects pick on a 1-10 (say) scale. Statistically significant differences will come out if they are there. 

The military may use profanity frequently, but media portrayal does not need to replicate it for realism. The worst name I was ever called by a DI was 'Trainee'; a miltary newbie. And I do enjoy a military film when the use of profanity is reigned in to focus more on the events, soldiers, and environs. Personally, I do not miss the profanity as it is often distracting.

They absolutely need to replicate it for realism. You just said: profanity is common. Not repeating it makes it unrealistic, i.e. not reflecting reality.

Swearing in video-games has the same role. It establishes the setting in a believable way, especially when we're dealing with uncultured peasants who have never even learned to read or write. Language is the best way to establish class differences, and frankly Bioware is really bad at making their uneducated sound uneducated. 

So not using profanity when angry is disrespectful? Don't really see that. As mentioned, one may get the point across well withour swearing:

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die"

"I find a few people annoying, and you are all of them."

"They don't hardly make 'em like him any more - but just to be on the safe side, he should be castrated anyway." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I could never learn to like her, except on a raft at sea with no other provisions in sight." - Mark Twain

"Sharp as a sack full of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn

No need for profanity, IMO.

It's about honesty. If you're angry, and you want to kill me, or you want to lash out at me, then you owe me the visceral emotion. Otherwise you're just lying to me, but not before lying to yourself. 

None of these are insults. They're not even mildy offensive. At best, they're sarcastic retorts. 

Modifié par In Exile, 13 août 2011 - 06:01 .

[ipgd]

Elhanan wrote...

Interesting until I read this section:

..."The new finding comes from research that tested the hypothesis with a bunch (67) of college students and some ice cold water. Students were given a choice when they plunged their warm hands into the freezing water — chant a neutral word, or repeat a swear word instead.

Those students who chose to swear reported less subjective pain than the neutral word chanters, and could endure the icy cold water with their hands for about 40 seconds longer on average. "

Was not aware that subjective protocols were considered evidence.

Pain is, at least partially, a matter of perception, given the fact there's never been any objective way to measure a quantitative amount of pain. The point of the study is to show that it reduces the subjective perception of pain, which is pretty undeniably linked to an individual's ability to endure pain for longer periods -- so I would say that yes, subjective reports are relevant evidence for a study about subjective perceptions. One can be, in effect, said to experience less pain when using profanity.

Modifié par ipgd, 13 août 2011 - 06:01 .

[Aradace]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Some seem to prefer to remove censorship, and I prefer to try and remove profanity. My way would appear to rid the need for either of them.

Prohibit swearing? That is [Edited out by Moderator]

Even more censorship ftl!!! 

[Masako52]

I'm all for occasional but with more impact.

For the f-bomb, though, I'm glad it's not in Dragon Age. Not because I'm in any way offended, but it would sound... unnatural in a fantasy setting. B*tch, sh*t, they sound like they belong in that kind of setting. But the f-bomb sounds too.. modern? Maybe if it's used crassly to specifically describe the act of having sex, but as a curse it wouldn't fit for me very well.

I don't think nudity is immature. Obviously, just like swearing, it CAN be. And speaking as a woman gamer, I'm often rolling my eyes at video games that try to pump out and over do sex appeal by dressing women in next to nothing and making them sex objects... bleh. However, that being said, I'm a free spirit who thinks that nudity itself is not a negative thing at all, if it's done tastefully and for the right reasons.

I was certainly not offended by the DAO sex scenes. Even though they were very sensual, it was beautifully done. And besides, the men were just as "objectified" in that case as the women. And on top of that, they were still wearing undergarments.

I think what Bioware should strive for is realism in a setting. I don't like the feel of watering down content with censorship, in swearing and sex when it comes naturally for the genre, but I also can object to spicing it up with swearing and sex when it's unnecessary - then it's just forced.

[Realmzmaster]

leggywillow wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sorry in my neighborhood MF is used as a noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, and interjection. The people in my neighborhood cannot or well not express themselves in any other way. Many of them could not string together a coherent sentence without cursing. It gets to be comical. So for them it is because of the lack of vocabulary. I and my wife have taught for many years.  If you expand the vocabulary many of them find other ways to express themselves without cursing.

Correlation is not causation. Just because a person uses frequent profanity and also has a crappy vocabulary does not mean said vocabulary is crappy because he frequently uses profanity, or that he frequently uses profanity because his vocabulary is crappy.

Quoting ipgd for the mad truth that pours from her fingertips.

If we're submitting personal anecdotes as evidence, I have one too.  My husband and are I both college-educated.  I am getting a doctorate in a healthcare profession, and I've written articles in published scientific journals.  And we both curse like sailors.  I do use mother****er as a noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, and interjection.  I curse all the time, and I haven't noticed my vocabulary slowly shrinking or seen my brain cells shriveling up.

Yeah, you've seen people with small vocabularies and little education who curse a lot.  So have I, so I'm certainly not going to be deny that it's common.  However, I can also list tons of educated, well-read people who curse frequently.  Correlation does not equal causation.

Note in my post that I said cannot or will (sorry for the misspelling) not express themselves in any other way. The first means that they do not know how. The second means that they may know how but do not care. The rest of my post goes to the first point. They do not know how to express themselves in other ways.

The second is delibrate. Now if you choose to curse because you can then so be it.  The difference is you know when cursing is appropriate and when it is not. There are certain groups you will not curse in front of and there are certain people you will not curse in front of. The same cannot be said for the first group.

As you stated you have heard the first group with small vocabularies and little education curse, the difference is that they will curse in almost any situation. including in front of and to their children.

The problem comes when you are trying to understand the message they are trying to convey. Cursing can be used to emphasis a point, but when the cursing becomes the point the message is lost.

A character cursing as part of their personality within context is fine. Every character in a game cursing stretches credibility.

[Aradace]

Realmzmaster wrote...

*snip*.... Every character in a game cursing stretches credibility.

As does having few to none.  You see? It's a vicious cycle where the writers are "damned if they do and damned if they dont" so to speak.  Either way, someone's not going to be happy.

Modifié par Aradace, 13 août 2011 - 08:59 .

[Elhanan]

In Exile wrote... *snip*

They certainly do. Especially against you, in fact. If I wanted to insult or aggravate someone else, I might choose not to use profanity, because there might be a better alternative. But you're someone who really dislikes profanity - if I wanted to make you angry, insult you viscerally might achieve that purpose.

And that's something that  a game needs. If you have a straight laced character (like Cassandra) then to show frustration you need to break her character.

To go back to what you said before, you complained that Cassandra swearing breaks her character and makes her look weak. That's the point.

She's desperate and angry. Just look at the scene when we go back, after the real Lothering escape: Varric is sitting cooly in his hair, dictating the pace, and Cassandra is just listening - she's totally lost control of the conversation, just like she lost control of herself.

Her swearing is crucially important to the scene, because it shows her exasperation and her inability to keep herself under wraps, and Varric then pounces on her and turns the tables.

So profanity very clearly has a role. 

You assume to know the minds of intended targets; to best use profanity as a tool. Not happening; simply shoot and miss.

And even if you did know that they do not prefer to use it, that does not determine the better course of attack. Simply because one does not use it themselves does not equate to a weakness against it; actually seems to help in refuting the one losing it publically.

Cassandra is so not straight laced, and really should not be desperate at that early stage in the game. But say she is. Having her swear while losing her demanor helps my point that the use of profanity is a flaw; a sign of weakness, and can be removed and substituted with woven language that can illustrate the same point.

It's an ethical thing. If we have a participant like you, we wouldn't want to offend you by forcing you to choose. 

If we stick people in an fMRI, we can see whether or not there is differential brain activation.

Once we have all that evidence, we can go to forced choice.

But yes, having people choose between a spread of alternatives is a scientifically valid approach.

As for subjective report, that's what pain is. You have to find ways to standardize for tolerance, etc. and then you let a large pool of subjects pick on a 1-10 (say) scale. Statistically significant differences will come out if they are there. 

And what is quicker: an expression of pain, or dipping your hand in water? And what is more readily practiced: a neutral phrase, or a curse? Please spare me from such scientific research....

They absolutely need to replicate it for realism. You just said: profanity is common. Not repeating it makes it unrealistic, i.e. not reflecting reality.

Swearing in video-games has the same role. It establishes the setting in a believable way, especially when we're dealing with uncultured peasants who have never even learned to read or write. Language is the best way to establish class differences, and frankly Bioware is really bad at making their uneducated sound uneducated. 

Zulu, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Great Escape, Von Ryan's Extress, The Dirty Dozen, A Bridge Too Far, MacArthur, The Longest Day, Tora, Tora, Tora; maybe not as real as some would like, but entertaining. And even Patton while having noted usage of profanity was not as pervasive as more modern films.

As for realism, Tora x3 was real enough to give a veteran attending a minor cardiac event. Maybe he swore; he never told me, though....

It's about honesty. If you're angry, and you want to kill me, or you want to lash out at me, then you owe me the visceral emotion. Otherwise you're just lying to me, but not before lying to yourself. 

None of these are insults. They're not even mildy offensive. At best, they're sarcastic retorts. 

Honestly?

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 août 2011 - 11:43 .

[Yrkoon]

Elhanan wrote...

Cassandra is so not straight laced, and really should not be desperate at that early stage in the game. But say she is. Having her swear while losing her demanor helps my point that the use of profanity is a flaw; a sign of weakness, and can be removed and substituted with woven language that can illustrate the same point.

Not if  you haven't earned the respect of the person you're speaking to.   And that's   the thing.

You assume she's losing her demeaner, instead of maybe... you know,  Intentionally  putting on  an intimidating  stance against a Dwarf who runs a spy ring, and who, at that point, doesn't seem to be taking her  "polite nature" seriously.    And lets  get real.  Despite your hyperbole-driven arguments on this thread,  Cassandra only says "bullsh**"  one time... and it's at the very beginning of the interrogation process.  And.....   it works.    It succeeds.  Varric straightens up after that and doesn't exagerate again until.... act 3.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 août 2011 - 12:13 .

[Sylvianus]

I don't think we should be dogmatic on the issue. That said, I agree with Ariella, not particularly bothered either. Let me add that the level of language is particularly rich and quite awesome in DAO. In any case, in my native language lol.  I hope we will find the same again.

I'm reading right now The Witcher, and I think actually that too many insults to go there.

In a general thought, I also think the authors are only judges of what is best at certain times or not. This wonderful creativity, that is theirs and it should't be marred by vulgar limitations not to shock people or other considerations that have nothing to do there.

If they think that mixing a few insults, is appropriate, they do so. It's also something that is very interesting to develop when it's occasional as well, what it appears followed by the writers.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 août 2011 - 12:11 .

[Bizantura]

Masako52 wrote...

I'm all for occasional but with more impact.

For the f-bomb, though, I'm glad it's not in Dragon Age. Not because I'm in any way offended, but it would sound... unnatural in a fantasy setting. B*tch, sh*t, they sound like they belong in that kind of setting. But the f-bomb sounds too.. modern? Maybe if it's used crassly to specifically describe the act of having sex, but as a curse it wouldn't fit for me very well.

I don't think nudity is immature. Obviously, just like swearing, it CAN be. And speaking as a woman gamer, I'm often rolling my eyes at video games that try to pump out and over do sex appeal by dressing women in next to nothing and making them sex objects... bleh. However, that being said, I'm a free spirit who thinks that nudity itself is not a negative thing at all, if it's done tastefully and for the right reasons.

I was certainly not offended by the DAO sex scenes. Even though they were very sensual, it was beautifully done. And besides, the men were just as "objectified" in that case as the women. And on top of that, they were still wearing undergarments.

I think what Bioware should strive for is realism in a setting. I don't like the feel of watering down content with censorship, in swearing and sex when it comes naturally for the genre, but I also can object to spicing it up with swearing and sex when it's unnecessary - then it's just forced.

Agreed

[hobbit of the shire]

Language and finding the right words isn't easy as most authors will be quick to remind you. That being said, I think that is an extremely important part of creating games such as these. The DA series could be improved, with some more mature (that is, serious) dialogue. That doesn't mean complex or Shakespearian.... that would just confuse people (and then we'd DEFINITELY need to rewind or look at conversation logs or enable captions).

I don't mind coarse language in small amounts, as it certainly is going to be a realistic thing in the world. Heck, it could be even a part of the influence system. Companion being too loose with words? Tell them to tone down, or kick them out for their brash behavior... hee. But I do find excessive profanity to be a turn-off, when it seems it's just used to impress the teenage boys rather than making the story realistic. The gratuitous profanity in TW2 did irritate me much. It is a brutal world, so I expect the soldiers to be dishing out their fair share of swear words, but it almost seemed like too much, especially when they are on a looping audio track! I also hated their use of "ploughing" and how every single sentence has to be about that subject matter. Again, some has to be there for realism, but after a while, it just pisses me off... especially as a female player. However, the game did evoke a more serious and dark mood, which I do like, which was done in part of realism and not being afraid of the language police.

So, I say, beef up the DA dialogue for more seriousness, but without making it English class, and add "mature" bits as needed. Real serious drama, if you know what I mean, and little less action-hero movie talk.

[Cutlass Jack]

Yrkoon wrote...

You assume she's losing her demeaner, instead of maybe... you know,  Intentionally  putting on  an intimidating  stance against a Dwarf who runs a spy ring, and who, at that point, doesn't seem to be taking her  "polite nature" seriously.    And lets  get real.  Despite your hyperbole-driven arguments on this thread,  Cassandra only says "bullsh**"  one time... and it's at the very beginning of the interrogation process.  And.....   it works.    It succeeds.  Varric straightens up after that and doesn't exagerate again until.... act 3.

As a funny sidenote, I went to go see Cowboys & Aliens today. And Harrison Ford's very first scene features him 'interrogating' someone and using that very same word Cassandra used. For much the same reason. Fancy that.

[Elhanan]

Yrkoon wrote...

Not if  you haven't earned the respect of the person you're speaking to.   And that's   the thing.

You assume she's losing her demeaner, instead of maybe... you know,  Intentionally  putting on  an intimidating  stance against a Dwarf who runs a spy ring, and who, at that point, doesn't seem to be taking her  "polite nature" seriously.    And lets  get real.  Despite your hyperbole-driven arguments on this thread,  Cassandra only says "bullsh**"  one time... and it's at the very beginning of the interrogation process.  And.....   it works.    It succeeds.  Varric straightens up after that and doesn't exagerate again until.... act 3.

No. Perhaps one should read the post I was responding to at the time; their description, and not mine.

[Realmzmaster]

Aradace wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

*snip*.... Every character in a game cursing stretches credibility.

As does having few to none.  You see? It's a vicious cycle where the writers are "damned if they do and damned if they dont" so to speak.  Either way, someone's not going to be happy.

I do believe I state in the first sentence of that line the following:

A character cursing as part of their personality within context is fine. It is a matter of context. Cursing in front of the King and Queen during Court would be in poor taste. Cursing along with a group of pirates on a ship could be fine.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 août 2011 - 01:02 .

[In Exile]

Elhanan wrote...
You assume to know the minds of intended targets; to best use profanity as a tool. Not happening; simply shoot and miss.

This is silly. It's not very hard to figure out how to push buttons, especially if you spend a lot of time with people.

And even if you did know that they do not prefer to use it, that does not determine the better course of attack.

Sure it does. If it makes you think I'm an idiot, then if I use it it's a great way to get you to underestimate me. If it makes you feel I'm to coarse or a bully, it makes you incapable of seeing my actions as subtle. You asked for a purpose to profanity: I gave you one.

Simply because one does not use it themselves does not equate to a weakness against it; actually seems to help in refuting the one losing it publically.

Who says anyone loses anything publically? And who equated anything? You asked for a purpose, and I gave you one.

Cassandra is so not straight laced, and really should not be desperate at that early stage in the game.

Whatever normative perspective you have is irrelevant. 

But say she is. Having her swear while losing her demanor helps my point that the use of profanity is a flaw; a sign of weakness, and can be removed and substituted with woven language that can illustrate the same point.

What? No, it doesn't. First of all, you've still yet to show that there is any kind of language that is equivalent to it. Secondly, this doesn't prove anything about profanity. It proves that Cassandra is using it out of frustration. Which shows something about her character, which answers the topic of the thread.

If you want to have some normative debate about profanity, I'm honestly not interested. You're free to believe whatever you want. 

And what is quicker: an expression of pain, or dipping your hand in water?

How is that in any way related to what I said?

And what is more readily practiced: a neutral phrase, or a curse? Please spare me from such scientific research....

What does that have to do with what I said? 

If you take issue with the research, at least put forward coherent criticism.

Zulu, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Great Escape, Von Ryan's Extress, The Dirty Dozen, A Bridge Too Far, MacArthur, The Longest Day, Tora, Tora, Tora; maybe not as real as some would like, but entertaining. And even Patton while having noted usage of profanity was not as pervasive as more modern films.

What does that have to do with anything? It's great that you think these movies are entertaining, but that has nothing to do with them being accurate descriptions. 

The issue is realism. You said that removing profanity retains the realism. That's just not true. It just presents the censored version of reality you endorse.

As for realism, Tora x3 was real enough to give a veteran attending a minor cardiac event. Maybe he swore; he never told me, though....

I... what...? 

This argument is so ridiculous that even responding to it does it too much justice. 

Honestly?

I don't understand...?

[Elhanan]

In Exile wrote...

...Sure it does. If it makes you think I'm an idiot, then if I use it it's a great way to get you to underestimate me. If it makes you feel I'm to coarse or a bully, it makes you incapable of seeing my actions as subtle. You asked for a purpose to profanity: I gave you one....

See? You achieved the same results without swearing, and you weren't even trying....

[Dragoonlordz]

As long as I'm allowed in character to turn around and say "You kiss your mother with that mouth?" when they start cussing.