On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Just to correct something even though I generally understand/agree - you have the right to be offended in the same way you have the right to free speech - as expressing being offended is the same as expressing any other idea. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, as that would require other people not saying/doing things you don't agree with.
Expressing being offended is excercising the right to free speech. It is using that right to express that you feel the privilege of being offended by the topic. That's not the same as a right to be offended.
I'm sorry, what? I seriously don't understand the second sentence.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Mr. Black does a great job of explaining it as well:
This article is wrong.
First--the bold part. The atheist has a right to call the Christian a liar just as much as the Christian has the right to preach. Both parties can choose to ignore it or be offended. The atheist cannot punch or threaten the Christian, and the Christian cannot punch or threaten the atheist. The atheist calling the Christian a liar is not suppressing his freedom of speech--he is simply expressing himself just like the Christian.
Second--the rights granted in the Constitution (more specifically in the Bill of Rights) only protect you from the government. If a private person infringes on your freedom of speech, they may violate some federal or state law, but not the Constitution. If the police show up and muzzle you when you are trying to give a speech, that is a violation of your freedom of speech. If a private citizen says, "Shut up or I will punch you in the face," the Bill of Rights does not have any application--but there are laws for threatening people with imminent physical harm. If a worker at Apple gets called into his bosses office and the boss says, "If you make one more speech about how Apple victimizes its laborers, you are fired," the Bill of Rights has no application. Even though speech is being suppressed (in fact, political speech--the most protected form of speech) the Bill of Rights does not apply, because the government is not suppressing the speech.
Third--the article fundamentally misstates the rights/privileges distinction in American law. In America, you start with the fundamental idea that you are free to do absolutely everything you want. The Constitution grants the government specific powers to limit this absolute freedom--such as to criminalize certain behaviors (e.g. robbery and murder) and regulate certain activities (immigration and interstate commerce). Some rights were deemed so important that the framers of the Constitution decided to specifically list the freedoms that the government cannot infringe. Free speech is one of these "fundamental rights." You have other rights that are granted by states and counties and municipalities through laws and ordinances. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that someone besides you enables you to do, and that, should they decide to stop, you are without recourse under the law. A good example is driving. States regulate the licensing of drivers, Without the government there would be no roads, no traffic lights, no traffic enforcement, and no emergency services. Therefore, the government can set rules under which it can take away your driving privilege.
Fourth--"the choice to listen" is irrelevant. The article claims that you are free to disregard what you hear/read (the example being the offensive PETA brochure). This choice has no impact on your right to be offended. If someone hands you a note that says, "I have a gun, give me your money or I will kill you," you certainly are free to disregard that note and keep walking. But whether you ignore it or whether you comply is irrelevant with respect to whether you have a right to react in a certain way--whether you ignore it or give the guy your money or faint, it does not impact your right not to be robbed. Certainly we can choose to some extent whether to get mad at something offensive, and what to do about it. But the ability to ignore does not have anything to do whatsoever with whether you have a right to be offended.
Finally, when somebody begins their article like this: "STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it," you can pretty much assume you are going to read something pretty stupid. Especially if they follow it up by saying, "everyone who disagrees with my point is stupid/ignorant/a dopesmoking buffoon," as they did here. Einstein never said, "I have this theory that is the smartest thing you have ever seen. If you don't get it, you are a moron." He just explained why he was right.
Good ideas and arguments don't need the "I'm smart, agree with me or you're dumb," rhetoric. They stand on their own.
After all, I'm a genius--and if you disagree, you should be sterilized to preserve the gene pool.
Being offended is expressing being hurt by the statements or sentiments of others. As a person with any class, it would be expected that if you offended someone you're speaking to, you'd care enough to know that and not hurt them more.
Common decency sort of thing. No special rights or nothing though.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
"You lose the right to do something when it infringes on other people's rights," and "If it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right," are both common misconceptions.
First, we have tons of rights that infringe on other people's rights--for example, you have the right to trespass onto someone's property and jump in their pool if you are on fire. It is called the doctrine of necessity. If you damage their property in doing so, you have to pay for it, but you have the right to infringe on their property right (one of the most fundamental rights in America) to prevent your death.
You have the right to refuse to testify against yourself--even if you murder someone, and your testimony is the only evidence against you. There the right to refuse to incriminate trumps a victim's right to justice.
On the other hand, you don't have a right to everything not specifically prohibited by law--cooking zucchini is not prohibited by law, but if Whole Foods refuses to sell you zucchini, your rights have not been violated. The law does not forbid owning an Xbox, but you do not have a right to own an Xbox.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
On March 27 2012 05:13 plogamer wrote: Hi, I'm a privliedged white male. Why is every body so touchy about everything? - This is how I see Stephen Fry and his ilk.
You know what, why is he so offended by people saying they're getting offended - even if they're just whining. Why so touchy about people whining?
He's a gay jew by the way. And is bipolar. Yes, he's so privileged. Your comment doesn't even argue anything about being offended.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
You clearly don't understand what a privilege is. The distinction between a right and a privilege is simple: a right is inherent, you are assumed to have it always unless it is taken away. A privilege is granted: you are assumed not to have it unless it has been granted specifically. The purpose of the bill of rights is to prevent the government from taking away your rights.
Driving is a privilege: you have to obtain a license to drive. If you aren't given the license, you cannot drive. Being offended is a right: you simply do it. Nobody gives you the ability to be offended.
Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
I'm also confused, isn't it supposed to be "You DON'T have the Right NOT to be Offended", you can are well within your rights to be offended by everything on tv etc, whats unreasonable is to expect never to be offended by anything.
Also the Hitch (RIP) makes one of the best points on free speech I'v ever heard
If you insult something that is out of the persons control and dont apolagize, if they are offended then your a dick. But you dont have to apoligize for things that are within that persons control and are bad or just personal choice you disagree with.
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excercising the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technilogical access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
Or maybe he just has an opinion which many people agree with and he's expressing it. And maybe you've swallowed a little too much in whatever classes you are taking and you are trying too hard to sound smart.
On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excersing the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excersing the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "this isn't right, this isn't even wrong."
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excersing the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
This literally makes no sense.
lol.... My brain is starting to hurt trying to understand fyrewolf's point and I've given up completely.
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technilogical access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
Or maybe he just has an opinion which many people agree with and he's expressing it. And maybe you've swallowed a little too much in whatever classes you are taking and you are trying too hard to sound smart.
I can tell by your response that you have critically read and understood what I wrote, and have responded in a moderate manner devoid of emotion.
Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
EPT
