Re: I'm 50/50 here
Ok, I'll rise to the bait.
First of all, when using 'vulgar' language in someone's presence, whether or not that person is a nun falls pretty far down the list of considerations, if on it at all. Whether language is offensive lies entirely with context. For example some people are offended by certain words, whether or not they are used in an offensive context (i.e. as an insult). Being offended by the word itself is nonsense, and it matters not one jot whether the person being offended is a nun, the Dalai Lama, the Queen, or anybody else. A person's religious sensibilities are their own and they should not be imposing them on me, or anyone else.
Secondly, I wouldn't normally gratuitously go out of my way to offend other, because I have some modicum of self restraint. I also don't think it is right to impose that restraint on others. Like everyone else, I don't have the right to not be offended either.
Of your list f things that you think are fine, I wouldn't say I am offended by them, but I do think some of these are just plain wrong:
I wouldn't recommend incest, on the grounds that it is fairly shaky ground on both a legal, and biological basis.
Tax evasion is also not legal, and avoidance, some would argue, is immoral.
Violent protests depend on context, but in general are not a good thing on the grounds that causing harm to others, or their property is generally frowned upon in both a legal and ethical sense.
Riding a bicycle on full speed on the pavement is illegal, dangerous, and idiotic. According to the ONS, in 2013, three pedestrians were killed in the UK as a result of collisions with cyclists. I wouldn't advocate it, and neither should you. If you do genuinely think this is a good idea, then you are a moron.
Finally, theft, on the whole is not something I approve of. There may be some very specific cases where it could be justified, for example where it could be deemed necessary to save a life, but I think most people would agree that such cases are pretty contrived.