In the UK (quite a few) years ago I was given detention at school for using it in exactly the context that you did earlier, for exactly the reasons I cited. If it had fallen completely out of use in its original meaning, I would argue that you're quite correct in NOT finding it offensive. But it hasn't. It still shows up in its original context in writing in "certain genres" which I have had the misfortune to be asked to edit prior to publication
However, this speaks to the futility of attempting to make a "swear filter" comprehensive in English. It can't be done. Way too much of English idiom has a blasphemous or obscene origin, a further significant tranche of the language is steadily passing into idiom and "losing" its offensive context, although many folks using it would be horrified at what they were actually saying. Any swear filter misses a good two thirds of the former and overtriggers on the latter. In attempting to make it catch evasions you get the stupid situation where I can't use an inoffensive word on the forums that starts with the same three letters as the N-word, in case I was trying to be racist, but if I was looking to express exactly the same connotations how about making a skinhead holo-me, putting a union jack paintjob on the ship and naming it "clog the wog" - none of that would be filtered and is overtly disgustingly racist!
Good point
I agree its a losing battle, but I think it still has to be made.
I think the point to be made is that we SHOULD have a profanity filter, but it needs to be worked on actively
Racial, gender and sexuality slurs should all be filtered, no questions asked.
Anything else can be argued as fair
But you cant stick a filter in and think "job's done"
Language is constantly evolving