EPTGetting offended - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46713 Posts
| ||
|
JeanLuc
Canada377 Posts
| ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
On March 27 2012 09:33 MilesTeg wrote: So what group is more offended than any other? Religious people. Because they're the ones who refuse any argument, they just don't want anyone to disagree with them and they're not ready to talk about it. This is what's so dangerous about people who are offended all the time. It kills all discussions because of the values of one small group, no matter how insignificant or stupid it is. If we keep going down this road everything will be found offensive by at least one social group, and no debate will be possible. I agree. Although I am religious myself, a religious person who uses the phrase "that is offensive" to avoid argument or discussion is just lazy. If you believe something be prepared to argue for it! Don't expect someone else to agree with you because it's the "nice" thing to do. Also if you are offended every time someone disagrees with you, then you will be offended by everyone all the time. Have fun with that! | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 09:24 sunprince wrote: Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument. Example: "I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters. You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended". Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then. You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way? | ||
|
EdaPoe
Netherlands82 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote: Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then. You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way? I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing. | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On March 27 2012 09:43 Tor wrote: No, being offended is human nature. Fallacy; besides being irrelevant. On March 27 2012 09:43 Tor wrote: Being ignorant and using only a feeling to dismiss a point of view rather than do something about the issue that offends you is whining. Sorry, I should have clarified. Being ignorant and speaking out about what "offends" you is whining. There are plenty of well-adjusted people that don't feel the need to objectify their moral "superiority" by touting an act or statement because it "offends" them. They're only doing it for the sake of attention. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual". Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:22 Fyrewolf wrote: I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing. Here was my response, a couple pages back: + Show Spoiler + Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world. Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole? Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human? I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you? | ||
|
igotmanatoblow
33 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Look, sometimes there's problems that need to be addressed but these days they are few and far between. I say if there's no physical harm then move on and focus on bigger issues like the economy. I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual". Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things. Political correctness is a very funny concept sometimes. However, for the most part, the incidences in which it is used are quite reasonable. But yeah, the example that you gave is rather silly. | ||
|
Dalguno
United States2446 Posts
On March 27 2012 09:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Can someone who claims that they *never* get offended explain how that's possible? Do they just not have any strong opinions or feelings about anything, so they never take anything personally when someone says something negative? Do they just write every attacker off as an idiot, and just not take him seriously? Do they just disengage themselves from all confrontation and pretend that the attack doesn't exist? I don't understand how being offended isn't going to eventually happen to everyone, seeing as how there are surely plenty of people in this world who say and do things that each person vehemently disagrees with (morally, politically, etc.). I wouldn't claim that I absolutely never get offended, but it rarely ever happens. I'm not very opinionated, no. What opinions I do hold I recognize as my own and recognize that other people aren't going to think the same way I do. I'm a really calm person, and don't take many things seriously. When someone says something negative, I either force myself to immediately forget about it or just look at it as no big deal. Yeah, basically I avoid confrontation completely. I can tell myself, "It doesn't matter" really easily, and completely believe it. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:34 DoubleReed wrote: Here was my response, a couple pages back: + Show Spoiler + Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world. Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole? Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human? I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you? I already responded to that. And that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the terms human dignity and individual dignity by equating them, and completely invalidating your argument because of it. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Look, sometimes there's problems that need to be addressed but these days they are few and far between. I say if there's no physical harm then move on and focus on bigger issues like the economy. I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual". Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things. That bill is the most retarded(as in stunted and backward) thing I've heard in a while. That's like people getting offended over someone using rape in a starcraft game despite the fact that the word has been used for centuries in a war context to describe plundering, ravaging, and despoiling the land. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:22 divito wrote: Fallacy; besides being irrelevant. Sorry, I should have clarified. Being ignorant and speaking out about what "offends" you is whining. There are plenty of well-adjusted people that don't feel the need to objectify their moral "superiority" by touting an act or statement because it "offends" them. They're only doing it for the sake of attention. Do you mean a logical fallacy? If you did then how was his statement a fallacy? There was no argument, therefore no logic, he simply said something that you don't think is true. there was no effort to back up this claim, just a void of support. (If you just think hes wrong that's understandable, claims about human nature get very dubious very quickly.) On March 27 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote: Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then. You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way? Better question: is that statement even fallacious? Do you mean logically? It is a statement of feeling, not an argument, where is the fallacy there? sunprince refuted a fallacious argument but that has no relation to an emotional claim. Being offended is not a logical fallacy, the statement "I'm offended by... this thread/gay sex/shades of blue" can only be fallacious if someone is lying about it and even then it's not a logical fallacy. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:43 Fyrewolf wrote: That bill is the most retarded(as in stunted and backward) thing I've heard in a while. That's like people getting offended over someone using rape in a starcraft game despite the fact that the word has been used for centuries in a war context to describe plundering, ravaging, and despoiling the land. Knowing how much flak video games get for that kind of thing, someone's probably made a case against it already. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:37 Fyrewolf wrote: I already responded to that. And that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the terms human dignity and individual dignity by equating them, and completely invalidating your argument because of it. Sorry, I guess I missed that. So I guess you do find the distinctions compelling. Maybe I'm not understanding you. I don't quite see how affronting someone's dignity is not an objective thing. Use the examples I gave (gay sex = bestiality and female contraception = sex). Those are not objective in their offensiveness? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:45 TheFrankOne wrote:Better question: is that statement even fallacious? Do you mean logically? It is a statement of feeling, not an argument, where is the fallacy there? sunprince refuted a fallacious argument but that has no relation to an emotional claim. It's not a fallacy when you take the words independently, but when you consider the context under which they are frequently used, then their usage is fallacious. People frequently use variations of "I'm offended" in order to curtail and control other people's speech. In this context, it is fallacious, because it is used to dismiss people's ideas without providing any reasoning or argumentation. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
Now personally, I agree that people in general are way to sensitive these days. But, I also can't help speculating about a certain level of hypocrisy in this thread. Would those in favor of the "grow thicker skin" argument be in favor of a forum where homophobes can spout ignorant slander against gays? Can anti semitics spout inflammatory language about Jewish people? Listen, if you are offended by what they are saying then you need to grow thicker skin. It's just some random person posting random crap, right? Turn the channel if you don't like what you hear. TL is quite the opposite though, isn't it? Here offensive comments are strictly moderated. Its one of the things that so many of us enjoy about TL. Do people need to grow thicker skin? Probably. Does that mean everyone should just walk around saying any and everything regardless of how it might make someone else feel? Absolutely not. "If what I say offends you, then you need to "grow thicker skin." "If what you say offends me, then you are a backwards hillbilly or some new breed of internet hipster and need to learn some respect." It just doesn't work that way. Part of fostering good relations with your fellow man involves being sensitive to the things that might offend them. Thankfully, the real world will never be anything like internet forums. People can run off at the mouth saying whatever to whoever behind their curtain of anonymity, but the reality is that the world is slightly less civilized in that it takes more than sophisticated hipster logic to get away with stepping on the toes of the people around you. I'd wager that even Mr. Fry takes into consideration the status and feelings of those around him before saying something that they might find exceptionally offensive. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:59 sunprince wrote: It's not a fallacy when you take the words independently, but when you consider the context under which they are frequently used, then their usage is fallacious. People frequently use variations of "I'm offended" in order to curtail and control other people's speech. In this context, it is fallacious, because it is used to dismiss people's ideas without providing any reasoning or argumentation. Oh I get it. I can still use appeal to human dignity as the conclusion to the argument as long as I can back it up? I suppose that's fine then. I certainly don't have an issue with that. | ||
| ||
