Self control for the sake of self control is not a strength. It is a vice.

Disagree and judge away then. I, for one, can appreciate self control in others. Self control IS a strength.

I disagree with your statement "it's irrational to swear at all for others." I stand by my claim "it is rational to swear sometimes."

I also do not agree that it's a sign of strength to not swear. Saying so is the same argument that it's a sign of strength to not have sex.

The question is not how often is something being done, but why it is being done. Hence my conclusion, it is rational to swear sometimes. In other words, there is a rational reason to swear in certain contexts.

A person's manner of speech is part of how he represents himself. When judging a person, it is a criterion to consider.

"It's rational to swear sometimes" for some people, and it's irrational to swear at all for others. But really, who cares who swears or how often? The man has some decorum, and perhaps some restraint. It's a sign of strength, not weakness. It's all good. :)

"It's rational to swear" and "It's rational to swear sometimes" are two different statements. I said the latter.

And yes, links instead of lengths was a typo.

It's rational to swear? That idea does not apply to everyone. Some people think it's irrational to swear so it isn't "going to great lengths (links?)" to not swear whatsoever. Perhaps this kind of principle is becoming extinct...younger people swear more than those from an older generation... from back when swearing wasn't a polite thing to do (back when politeness counted). I remember them, perhaps you do not.

There's not enough in the article for me to make a valid assessment of what his rhetorical principles are. However, I think it is rational to swear sometimes, so inductively I think that someone who goes to such great links to never swear isn't operating based on a rational principle.

There is also the mitigating factor of him being a politician, so it's impossible to know how he speaks in his private life.

Why? Because he's religious?

The question here is why a person speaks a certain way. It's nice to see someone control his words, but is it being done off of rational principles? In Romney's case, I'm not so sure it is.

I don't think it's a nonissue. When public image is important, manner of speech is part of the discussion.

I can't believe they wrote an article that long about such a non issue. They are offended that it is not offensive?

I am very pleased to be OUT OF TOUCH --

with illiterate savages .

So having a polite vocabulary and sticking to certain principles is something to question or make fun of? Respectability is no longer respectable.