DaddyO

re: the Patton example... The question originally posed had nothing to do with whether or not mean swear in war. Of course they do. It is misleading and and a shifting of the discourse to introduce the notion that anyone who is concerned about coarse language in the game because he wants to play it with his son is somehow a complete idiot unaware that men at war swear.

:chuckles: I hear you; my point is a practical one. If someone attacks you to kill you, your choices are fight or die. If you hit your toe on furniture, what words come out of your mouth are conditioned during your whole life, but the words themselves make no difference as to the result. So if the intent of your comment is humorous, I get it, and it's funny. If the intent is to maintain that anyone who seeks to avoid training of his child's ear to swearing is a hypocrite and a fool, I most definitely do not. It is easy to build straw men and blow them down. That seems to be the preferred mode of argument these days. Project one's own thinking on another, make him look as ridiculous as you please. So easy to win that way. I maintain my assertion that while there are people who are just overly sensitive, there are others for whom such choices are motivated by bravery rather than fear. One other point for consideration. To me, if I'm in a foxhole, I want the guy next to me to have two qualities: Bravery, and overall soldiering skill. Oh, and a good weapon. If he shared my faith but lacked the first two, I'd rather have someone else with me. As an employee in a company I'd rather have a savvy but honest businessman at the helm than a praying but inexperienced executive. As a citizen of a country, I'd rather have at the top a wise, prudent, tough, principled, skilled politician committed to the well-being and prosperity of my country than a ne'er-do-well man of faith.

Look, my friends, attitudes towards swearing run the full gamut of human thought, and they are culturally conditioned. Culture in this sense goes beyond the broad use of the term to include culture within a family or tight-knit community. For many there is also a religious component that informs the culture. There is a difference between being overly sensitive and being committed by way of religious faith/choice to the path less traveled. One is cowardly, the other is brave. Let me use myself as an example, not to provoke but to demonstrate what I am saying in the best way I know. I am a Christian. The following words by the apostle Paul are words I desire to live by: "Finally, my brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things" (Philippians 4:8). "But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper for saints [= Christians, not specially exalted holy people]. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving" (Ephesians 5:3-4). Now to me, and I'll bet this is true of Skunkle as well, according to the Bible this kind of conduct is expected of Christians, but it is also expected that most who are not Christians will behave according to the current social custom of the times. Therefore a Christian who, for example, joins the army cannot demand that his fellow soldiers refrain from swearing in his presence. If they respect him as a soldier or person, they may do so around him, but he cannot demand it. All in all, my point is that just because you do no agree with the underlying thought behind Skunkle's question, there is no cause to assume his concern represents foolishness or weakness. It may represent prudence and wisdom within his frame of reference, and in fact I believe that is the case. Oh, and to those who also assume a prudish contradiction between interacting with war violence and shrinking from swearing, all throughout history men have been called on to defend their families, their people and their territory. A father does a disservice to a young man to insulate him completely from the violence and realities of war, given that he cannot be sure his son will not be called on to engage in it IN REAL LIFE, not just in video games. The Bible recognizes there are times when war (check out the first few verses of Romans 13) is necessary and nowhere prohibits Christians from joining his nation's army and participating in combat where the State is fulfilling it's proper role of protection from enemies. Sometimes combat is necessary. Swearing is never necessary. So in the way of thinking, there is no contradiction at all. Hope this helps. Again, I am not rehearsing all this to provoke, but to illuminate the thinking behind Skunkle's question.

Skunkle, That's GOTTA be YOU! From DMB? Imagine seeing you here! What a treat!