|
On March 27 2012 18:47 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:26 sunprince wrote:On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain. Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation. On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other. A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective. Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line? Sidenote: While I largely agree with you I find your implication that one cannot cause objective harm through insults false. If for example bullying is carried out purely verbally would the Bullies be within their rights to bully their victims? The point must be that simply being offended is no basis to demand changes in other persons behaviour. Obviously at some point language can go from subjectivly offensive to objectively hurtful. (In this case objectively hurtful would be definded by me as "any reasonable person being would be hurt by the kind of language we're talking about, not just a subset or an individual".)
EDIT: Further clarification: Hurt as in "objective hurt", not as in "feeling hurt".
EDITEDIT: Sorry, wrong button
|
On March 27 2012 18:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain. Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other. A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective. Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - emotional states manifest themselves chemically in the mind and can be empirically measured, hence pharmacology treatments to depression and other mental illness.
I suspect my view on punishment is vastly different to yours, and that's a completely new digression if you want to get into it - for starters, I'm not sure if you're referring to punishment in legal discourse, or societal punishment, and again, Foucault has some interesting things to say on this point. I'm not advocating punishment on any front on this point - the question I was attempting to ask was: why is an act of verbal harm considered to be less grevious than an act of physical harm?
As to your first point: just because something is subjective doesn't mean it defies logic or cannot be used logically - if we agree that language is subjective, then we would have to forfeit language as tool with which to form rational arguments ... which wouldn't get us very far.
I believe that the "subjective" response of feeling offended can be a rational one, but that often people are not articulate enough to be able to express why they feel that way, and what it is about that statement that is hurtful, and so they get stuck on tautology of it, and the tautology is irrational.
|
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
|
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote:
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
|
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote:
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
Here's a person that's well educated. Where are you?
It's another world.
|
Yes. However, you cannot base any sort of argument based on subjective harms. Frequently, however, claims of being offended are used to call for some sort of action, such as censoring that speech. That's completely flawed, since it's based on a subjective harm rather than an objective harm.
Sunprince, you knocked the ball out of the park! You're giving me more hope that the counter-position to what the offense peddlers want you to think is still defended logically and easily. And by offense peddlers, I mean those whose job it is to gather collective whines about verbal offenses and use them for censorship and theft of money.
|
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Please stop trying to use 'nerd' as a token of covert coolness please, your language use is clearly distorting the fact that everyone, not just 'nerdy' (cool) people, should know a bit about it -^ ach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do. You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think 
It would be nice if everyone knew a bit about it (the existence of this thread is a prime example as to why) - honestly, it's so rare for me to come across a cultural studies and/or humanities specialist outside of my degree (something about the demographics of the internet forums I tend to frequent, say) that my first instinct is to cry solidarity, though I always thought nerd was the opposite of cool ...
|
On March 27 2012 18:53 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote:
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy. I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
|
'Nerd' can be used by nerds as 'nigger' is used by black people, it then becomes a unifying token. But check your PM before we hit any more tangents here :p
|
Offended is the other side of phony.
|
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Psychological damage can be measured as well, although the relations between words and stress/depression/neurosis is less clearly identifiable than that between a fist and an eye. Same goes for certain toxins, or STDs, whose effects may manifest years after exposure.
What I mean is, there's no way to measure the damage caused by any particular verbal attack. A broken arm is a broken arm, regardless of who sustains it. But calling someone a racial slur can vary greatly across people, so how do we measure the harm of calling someone a racial slur?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Your argument for relative damage sustained may be said to apply to bruising as well; or else a blow to the stomach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do.
Delivering a blow to someone is still an objectively harmful act. By contrast, not all people find homosexuality offensive, though some obviously find it extremely offensive. Should we err on the side of not offending people, and ban everything that might offend anyone, or ban nothing at all?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think
Yeah, I'm aware I'm using rather explicit terms here, but it's in the interests of explaining what should be a simple concept to belligerents.
|
On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - emotional states manifest themselves chemically in the mind and can be empirically measured, hence pharmacology treatments to depression and other mental illness.
You can empirically measure the effect caused by any one verbal attack on an individual, but you cannot come up with an objective measure of how harmful that particular attack is. For example, how offensive is it to call someone a nigger? If you measure 10 different people, you'll get 10 different values.
On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:I'm not advocating punishment on any front on this point - the question I was attempting to ask was: why is an act of verbal harm considered to be less grevious than an act of physical harm?
Because it's subjective. That would be the point I'm making.
|
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:53 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote:
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy. I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again. I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me.
2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me.
So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate:
Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
|
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
|
On March 27 2012 19:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Psychological damage can be measured as well, although the relations between words and stress/depression/neurosis is less clearly identifiable than that between a fist and an eye. Same goes for certain toxins, or STDs, whose effects may manifest years after exposure. What I mean is, there's no way to measure the damage caused by any particular verbal attack. A broken arm is a broken arm, regardless of who sustains it. But calling someone a racial slur can vary greatly across people, so how do we measure the harm of calling someone a racial slur? Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Your argument for relative damage sustained may be said to apply to bruising as well; or else a blow to the stomach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do. Delivering a blow to someone is still an objectively harmful act. By contrast, not all people find homosexuality offensive, though some obviously find it extremely offensive. Should we err on the side of not offending people, and ban everything that might offend anyone, or ban nothing at all? Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think Yeah, I'm aware I'm using rather explicit terms here, but it's in the interests of explaining what should be a simple concept to belligerents.
Measuring the effects of a racial slur is nearly impossible if you want to go further than to state it is worse than calling someone an idiot. Personally I'd plead caution for using words one can't oversee the result of. Same goes for broken arms: for a child it's a few weeks rest, but for an old person it could be curtains. Could be administered in a situation of self defense, in war, by accident or just for kicks.
Also most concepts aren't simple :p And as to belligerents, I thought you were one as well until you made the post I'm now replying to ^^
|
On March 27 2012 19:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - emotional states manifest themselves chemically in the mind and can be empirically measured, hence pharmacology treatments to depression and other mental illness. You can empirically measure the effect caused by any one verbal attack on an individual, but you cannot come up with an objective measure of how harmful that particular attack is. For example, how offensive is it to call someone a nigger? If you measure 10 different people, you'll get 10 different values. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:I'm not advocating punishment on any front on this point - the question I was attempting to ask was: why is an act of verbal harm considered to be less grevious than an act of physical harm? Because it's subjective. That would be the point I'm making.
You could hit ten different people with a force of, I don't know, 10N and you would get 10 different results varying from bruising to broken bones. In terms of damages - and in terms of punishment, which seems to be what you're coming back to - it's not the "objective" force of the attack that counts, but the results.
|
I've seen a kid do a Nazi salute while on a class trip in germany (not being hostile but just doing something he'd seen in a movie). Shouldn't people tell the kid that it's offensive or is that too much whine for you?
|
On March 27 2012 19:05 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 18:53 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote:
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy. I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again. I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense. You make two assertations: 1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me. Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry? To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense. Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive. What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
|
On March 27 2012 19:16 gruff wrote:
I've seen a kid do a Nazi salute while on a class trip in germany (not being hostile but just doing something he'd seen in a movie). Shouldn't people tell the kid that it's offensive or is that too much whine for you?
Well, if the kid was honestly ignorant about history it sure would be helpful to explain WHY his funny armgesture is objectionable. Otherwise making up examples where the offensiveness of an action is clear to a reasonable person is not really helpful to the discussion at hand.
EDIT
On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:05 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 18:53 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote:
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy. I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again. I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense. You make two assertations: 1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me. Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry? To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing? I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on my definition of common courtesy. There is no 'my definition'.
Which definition are we using then? And yes, you provide a vague term the definition of which only seems to be clear (and isn't really clarified by "Common courtesy is basically just etiquette." btw.) to you and then expect everyones behaviour to conform to your expaction.
My expaction of reasonable discourse (which to my mind falls under common courtesy or etiquette) for example would be that a person that claims to be offended by something that is being said can actually explain why this is. If I find his objection reasonable I might appologieze and alter my bahaviour. "I am offended" however is not a magical phrase that makes me appologieze without a clear reason. And just to be abolutely clear: Somebody being offended is in itself not a reason to appolgiese.
|
On March 27 2012 19:12 khaydarin9 wrote:You could hit ten different people with a force of, I don't know, 10N and you would get 10 different results varying from bruising to broken bones. In terms of damages - and in terms of punishment, which seems to be what you're coming back to - it's not the "objective" force of the attack that counts, but the results.
You can still measure the force of a blow as 10N. You cannot measure the force of calling someone a racial slur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
