Censorship is irrational

Since I separated the topic into two categories, I will give separate arguments for each one. I would also like to further clarify on the rules of the debate. The two different topics, rude language and nudity, are chosen together because of their tendency to get censored in the same manner which Pro is arguing against, and of their interrelatedness - many profanity includes references to private parts, and the two actions are often grouped together by society as behaviors exhibited by vulgar people and assumed that one often implies the other. Since BoP is shared, victory is immediately achieved if Pro or Con is considered to have won the debate for both points. In the case that each side is seen as having won one point, then the voter may have the options to simply not vote, put in a neutral vote or vote based on conduct and other factors as they see fit. Rude Language Censoring I will first argue that the concept of profanities itself is irrational. Swearing is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary to be "to use profane or obscene language" [1], profanity itself being defined by the same source as "offensive language" [2]. However, the concept of "offensive" is very subjective - no two people contain the exact same standards. So why is it that "dumba**" is considered a swear word while "moron" and "imbecile" is not? Why is it that "bulls**t" is considered a swear word while "nonsense" and "rubbish" is not? Why is it that "ni**er" is considered a swear word while "white trash" is not? Indeed, most profanities do not even mean anything offensive originally. A** meant donkey in the beginning, and has evolved to also carry the meaning of one"s posterior, but neither are offensive. So are words like f**k and s**t. Indeed, profanities has became a mere medium of expressing extreme anger/insult, or a means of showing exclamation, neither with any regards to the actual meaning of the word. This also shows the immaturity of our society - the majority, if not all of the profanities refer to private body parts, the act of sexual intercourse, or excretes, all subjects that mature individuals will not react upon but of which a group of elementary students will readily react with repulsion or amusement (to understand better, visualize a group of surgeons discussing a patient"s injuries to his posterior area, and all that are present immediately shy away, become embarrassed, offended, or burst in laughter). Thus the act of censoring profanities is rather irrational. Blocking out the word in question does not achieve anything, as the mere beep/moment of silence or asterisks (depending on the method of censoring) will indicate that the person has intended insult (with certain asterisk censoring such as the type I am using it is even possible to determine the actual word), and if that is not enough the specific meaning can be gathered through context. This makes the censorship of those words rather obsolete. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, profanities also carry the function of showing exclamation, in which case it makes even less sense to censor them. Being words spoken in surprise or frustration, their meaning are little more than other words such as "oh", "ouch", "hey", or "agh". There is no reason to censor words that carry the equal meaning of a verbal exclamation mark and directed at no one. (unless it is words such as "Jesus! " or "Hell! " in which case it would still be offensive to certain religious people, but that reaches into the realm of another debate concerning whether discriminating or offensive comments against groups such as females, blacks, and religious communities should be censored which we will not go into) An alternative, less desirable but still acceptable rational action is to simply censor all words carrying similar offensive meanings, regardless of whether they are "idiot" or "d**khead". This shows equality of treatment between "swear words" and "non-swear words" over meaning rather than spelling. Language is devised so that we can convey meanings to one another. One does not need any tools to form an idea, only to communicate it, and language is that tool. If that is so, then, why are words with the same meaning being treated differently? Are we still using language (or at least, the English language) to communicate effectively? Or, maybe, we have become instead limited by the constraints language puts on us. I thus conclude that the censoring of profanities is irrational. Nudity Censoring I will first argue that the concept of shame or inappropriateness for private body parts is irrational. Private parts is defined by the same Merriam-Webster dictionary as above to be "the external genital and excretory organs" [3]. The concept of profanities and nudity both have religious background as being religiously offensive, but swear words have since evolved beyond being merely religious (and the religiously offensive portions of it has been deemed for another debate - but let it be known that if it is considered, it would be regarded as equally having no need for censorship based on the same arguments above), and I see no point in hiding private parts behind clothing beyond religious contexts. There is no practical reason for hiding nudity - several possible reasons is that it is for protecting children, it is for preventing sexual offense/behavior becoming more common, and offensiveness (I trust that Con will provide more points like such, but as my main justification for censoring nudity being irrational is that there is no reason to do so, I shall refute some possible arguments that I can fathom first). Yet none of those "reasons" are justified. They will be prebutted in turn. Children already understood one half of the world"s existing sexual organs, and do not know enough to commit sexual behavior intentionally (this is not suggesting that every children should go outside nude - if only to prevent children accidentally committing sex, or for warmth which are valid reasons for clothing but not incessant censoring). Teenagers will have already learned of private body parts of both sexes and have enough responsibility/knowledge to make their own decisions regardless of nudity. No matter the nudity status, sexual offenses are unacceptable and punishable, thus there should be no cause for its increase if nudity is allowed. Furthermore it is understood that lust is a part of human nature, however little or abounding depending on the individual, and those who decide on nudity will need to understand and accept the consequences. Nudity will only offend certain people. Mostly being religious people due to the origin of shame for nudity, and since it is not directed at them, there is no reason to justify it being offensive enough to prompt worldwide hiding/censoring for certain groups. As an example, Hindus consider cows to be holy and do not eat beef, yet that does not mean the world will need to stop eating beef in order to avoid offending them. Nudity is also considered offensive simply because they are repulsing organs. The penis and vagina is for sexual intercourse purposes, and the posterior is for excretion purposes, which may be considered repulsing. Yet again this shows immature behavior as stated above - sex is a natural process and a sexual intercourse occurred for every living human being, many instances of rape and sexual abuse happen but the hand is not similarly repulsed just because it is the body part used to commit other types of physical abuse; the eye, the nose and the ear also similarly excrete body waste but aren"t treated with the same disgust; and the female breasts do not even contain any cause for repulsion at all (again showing the immaturity of our society - the only "widely accepted must-hide" part of the breast is the nipple, and it does not carry any offensive, suggestive, or embarrassing function, only to nourish the children that the mother bears - by the same logic, should belly buttons/uteruses be censored as well, since that"s the place mothers give babies nourishment from their body before they are born? ) Having argued that the concept of shame or inappropriateness for private body parts is irrational, it is a natural corollary that the censoring of them are irrational as well. I thus conclude that the censoring of private body parts is irrational. Thank Con again for accepting. I look forward to his rebuttal, and to learn from a senior member of DDO. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...