It strikes me as hypocritical that this individual would attack his opponents as being kids, say that "we" carefully avoid using expletives in front of children, and at the same time fail to do so either in front of his opponents, or the fairly large number of children on his own board.In the real world we adults use expletives all the time when talking to each other. But when we talk to children, we tend to carefully avoid the use of expletives.
That's why, when someone assumes you can't be an adult if you use insult him or foul language, it's highly likely that he's a child himself. After all, that's how children are accustomed to being treated by adults.
Why do adults refrain from cursing in front of children? In some cases, such as those working with children, it's often a stated policy of their employers, but it's not as if these policies come out of the blue. Children are taught not to curse because language that is mostly polite is their ticket to being taken seriously.
Cursing neither adds much emphasis with endemic use nor is it universal to public discourse between adults. It is my experience that there are very few venues in which profanity laden speech is the most effective form of communication; instead, more often it interferes. Most important, however, is not the invective itself, but the style of thinking encouraged, which is to say highly simplistic.It adds emphasis much quicker than buggering about with long winded bullshit like the snotling fondlers over at SF.retard.net. I don't know about you, but I occasionally feel the need for brevity when posting in situations like that.
Sure, when used sparingly, invective can add great weight and instantly draw attention. The man who says little and seems to never say a rude word can leave a serious impression with a single four letter word. And who actually listens carefully to what guests on the Jerry Springer show say?
When you curse constantly, it is simply noise that others learn to filter out when listening to you. Very few epithets are found in published discourse. You won't read many academic papers in which the author calls his detractors names and curses at them - if any. It's rare to hear or read cursing published by reporters and editors, or invective in stump speeches.
I've previously mentioned Ann Coulter as a particularly vitriolic public figure. There are others, but the primary mode of argument she and others offer is ad hominem - i.e., fallacious - and overly simplistic. You either agree with her, or you're a moron. The world is black and white, and nobody else's perspective is worth considering.
Perhaps the leading advocate on US television of "blunt speech" has been Bill O'Reilly, and I've seen some allege that he has one of the highest rates of potentially offensive statements, but it is difficult for me to believe he has been very successful in engaging in dialogue with those he disagrees with. I seriously doubt, for example, that O'Reilly managed to convince Senator Dodd of anything in that interview, and in fact, Dodd seems to get good reviews on account of holding his temper, remaining largely polite, and staying on track - precisely what I like to encourage here.