|
On March 27 2012 19:23 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
My point was, the 10N is irrelevant to the result - you don't object to someone hitting you with 10N of force, you object to someone breaking your arm. You don't object to someone forming a particular sound with his mouth, you object to the feeling of hurt, frustration and resentment you feel in response to cognitively processing that sound.
|
There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
|
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved.
|
On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote:
There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
I really am uncomfortable with the reapeted usage of "right to be offended".
Being offended is an involuntary emotional response, your right is simply to express that you suffered said emotional response. And therein lies the point of Mr Fry. Stating that you suffered an emotional response to something has by itself no, nor should it have, implication for other peoples freedom to express themselves. It is, in this sense, a meaningless phrase.
|
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'. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
|
On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote:
There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
There is NO fucking difference between what you call an opinion and a personal attack. It's just semantics. Try getting away with "I think jews should die" as your personal opinion that's not an attack and therefor nothing to be offended about. People will most likely (*cough cough*) still see it as an attack and with good reason.
In general, people are way too emo over stuff that is "offending" them. Not regarding the extreme cases where gouvernments have an interest of stepping in to protect people form harm, literally all cases of "being offended" can be solved by this:
If someone calls me fat and disgusting I'd laugh in his face, call him a moron and move on with my life and without this person. Problem solved.
Now, if he calls someone fat and disgusting who FEELS fat and disgusting himself... he will cry and bitch that he's offended by this behaviour.
I'm offended by people being offended easily. Now what?
Not sure if the concepts behind this are easily to understand without further explanation, but the simple truth behind this stuff is this:
Any verbal expression that comes towards you and challenges what you represent is nothing more but a test of your personal framing of the world.
|
On March 27 2012 19:27 khaydarin9 wrote:My point was, the 10N is irrelevant to the result - you don't object to someone hitting you with 10N of force, you object to someone breaking your arm. You don't object to someone forming a particular sound with his mouth, you object to the feeling of hurt, frustration and resentment you feel in response to cognitively processing that sound.
How you feel about the words is the result of your own beliefs, values, and opinions, all of which are mutable characteristics. The fact that a broken arm causes you harm is not a mutable characteristic.
Regardless, you're focusing all of your attention on a single example I gave you for why verbal harms are subjective. Nitpicking aside, I'm sure it's because you understand as well as most people do that insults are subjective harms.
|
On March 27 2012 20:02 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote:
There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game. There is NO fucking difference between what you call an opinion and a personal attack. It's just semantics. Try getting away with "I think jews should die" as your personal opinion that's not an attack and therefor nothing to be offended about. People will most likely (*cough cough*) still see it as an attack and with good reason. In general, people are way too emo over stuff that is "offending" them. Not regarding the extreme cases where gouvernments have an interest of stepping in to protect people form harm, literally all cases of "being offended" can be solved by this: If someone calls me fat and disgusting I'd laugh in his face, call him a moron and move on with my life and without this person. Problem solved. Now, if he calls someone fat and disgusting who FEELS fat and disgusting himself... he will cry and bitch that he's offended by this behaviour. I'm offended by people being offended easily. Now what? Not sure if the concepts behind this are easily to understand without further explanation, but the simple truth behind this stuff is this: Any verbal expression that comes towards you and challenges what you represent is nothing more but a test of your personal framing of the world.
You actually are making the same mistake your hypothetical easyly offended people make: You assume that your emotional responses can or should be universally applicable.
The point is not to dictate people how to feel abourt things (being insulted seems to be the example of choice), but to point out that an unqualified statement of a feeling is not a valid reason to alter behaviour or discourse.
|
On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote: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'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
|
The bare fact of someone feeling offense is not a morally relevant fact, because someone can be rightfully or wrongfully offended.
There was this smart guy named Aristotle (some may even say that he was as smart as this Steven Fry dude) who said something like "anyone can get angry, since that is easy, but to get angry with the right person at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way is difficult" in his 'Nicomachean Ethics.'
The point is that there are appropriate and inappropriate emotional responses. Sometimes it IS appropriate to get offended by something. The interesting feature of situations like this is not the bare fact of someone taking offense but rather the fact that there is something worth getting offended by.
|
On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote: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'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse.
The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
|
On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote: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'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
|
On March 27 2012 20:12 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:02 r.Evo wrote:On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote:
There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game. There is NO fucking difference between what you call an opinion and a personal attack. It's just semantics. Try getting away with "I think jews should die" as your personal opinion that's not an attack and therefor nothing to be offended about. People will most likely (*cough cough*) still see it as an attack and with good reason. In general, people are way too emo over stuff that is "offending" them. Not regarding the extreme cases where gouvernments have an interest of stepping in to protect people form harm, literally all cases of "being offended" can be solved by this: If someone calls me fat and disgusting I'd laugh in his face, call him a moron and move on with my life and without this person. Problem solved. Now, if he calls someone fat and disgusting who FEELS fat and disgusting himself... he will cry and bitch that he's offended by this behaviour. I'm offended by people being offended easily. Now what? Not sure if the concepts behind this are easily to understand without further explanation, but the simple truth behind this stuff is this: Any verbal expression that comes towards you and challenges what you represent is nothing more but a test of your personal framing of the world. You actually are making the same mistake your hypothetical easyly offended people make: You assume that your emotional responses can or should be universally applicable. The point is not to dictate people how to feel abourt things (being insulted seems to be the example of choice), but to point out that an unqualified statement of a feeling is not a valid reason to alter behaviour or discourse.
I am very aware of emotional responses not being universally applicable.
The difference is, that if you make an effort to eliminate that factor you are left with two extremes:
a) Every statement can be laid out as offensive.
b) Every statement can be laid out as not-offensive.
I would rather live in a society where b) is true compared to a).
The point is not to dictate people how to feel abourt things (being insulted seems to be the example of choice), but to point out that an unqualified statement of a feeling is not a valid reason to alter behaviour or discourse.
Agree. My point is, let's stay with insults, if someone calls someone fat the ONLY reason that person is offended by that statement is because he or she knows it's a) true and b) bad. That person just got feedback from their environment over the image said environment perceives about them. They then reflect the feedback and come to the conclusion that the feedback is TRUE and that being fat is a BAD thing. ----> You suggest they should not alter behaviour but instead be offended and bitch about.
Once again, if external feedback makes you feel offended it has to, in your view of the world, to be TRUE and suggest NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS.
|
On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote: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'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing .
By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
EDIT:
On March 27 2012 20:29 r.Evo wrote:
Agree. My point is, let's stay with insults, if someone calls someone fat the ONLY reason that person is offended by that statement is because he or she knows it's a) true and b) bad. That person just got feedback from their environment over the image said environment perceives about them. They then reflect the feedback and come to the conclusion that the feedback is TRUE and that being fat is a BAD thing. ----> You suggest they should not alter behaviour but instead be offended and bitch about.
Once again, if external feedback makes you feel offended it has to, in your view of the world, to be TRUE and suggest NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS.
Hmm, I must be extremly unclear. I'll try again:
I do not suggest any kind of specific reaction, because it is not my (or your) decision how somebody should react. That you have a valid theory of WHY they react the way they do does not give you the right to dictate behaviour, just as them being offended does not give them the right to to dictate behaviour.
|
On March 27 2012 20:32 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote: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'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it? good =/= universally good Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied.
|
On March 27 2012 20:32 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote: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'. On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it? good =/= universally good Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored. EDIT: Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:29 r.Evo wrote:
Agree. My point is, let's stay with insults, if someone calls someone fat the ONLY reason that person is offended by that statement is because he or she knows it's a) true and b) bad. That person just got feedback from their environment over the image said environment perceives about them. They then reflect the feedback and come to the conclusion that the feedback is TRUE and that being fat is a BAD thing. ----> You suggest they should not alter behaviour but instead be offended and bitch about.
Once again, if external feedback makes you feel offended it has to, in your view of the world, to be TRUE and suggest NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS. Hmm, I must be extremly unclear. I'll try again: I do not suggest any kind of specific reaction, because it is not my (or your) decision how somebody should react. That you have a valid theory of WHY they react the way they do does not give you the right to dictate behaviour, just as them being offended does not give them the right to to dictate behaviour.
So erhm... what exactly is your solution to "I'm offended by that!" vs "Stop being a pussy!"?
Both sides try to dictate appropriate behaviour, that's just how humans work. If you say neither side should do that you're presenting an artificial solution that just isn't applicable. It's like having 300 people brawl somewhere and someone saying "Can you please stop hurting each other?" =P
|
On March 27 2012 20:37 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:32 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:05 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 18:53 msl wrote:
[quote]
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: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it? good =/= universally good Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored. I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied.
Sorry, somebody being offended is not a conflict. It's an emotional reaction that stems from the actual conflict. In my example the conflict is an opposing worldview (sky = green vs. sky = blue). The conflict is not resovled by B appolgiezing, it is simply ignored.
You make the assumption that A (the offended party) is automaticly right, just because he is offended. Which is exactly the kind of thinking Mr. Fry is critizising. Being offended =/= being right.
EDIT:
On March 27 2012 20:45 r.Evo wrote:
So erhm... what exactly is your solution to "I'm offended by that!" vs "Stop being a pussy!"?
Both sides try to dictate appropriate behaviour, that's just how humans work. If you say neither side should do that you're presenting an artificial solution that just isn't applicable. It's like having 300 people brawl somewhere and someone saying "Can you please stop hurting each other?" =P
I do not mean to offer an solution (which basicly comes across the same as trying to dictate behaviour). I just point out a fallacy. In reasonable discourse this will be responded to reasonably. Unreasonable bahaviour can be ignored or pointed out again. If we actually rule out reasonable discourse as a rule we have a whole different debatte on our hands then pointing out that "I am offended" is not a valid argument.
|
On March 27 2012 20:47 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:37 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:32 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:05 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:
[quote]
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: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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it? good =/= universally good Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored. I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied. Sorry, somebody being offended is not a conflict. It's an emotional reaction that stems from the actual conflict. In my example the conflict is an opposing worldview (sky = green vs. sky = blue). The conflicht is not resovled by B appolgiezing, it is simply ignored. You make the assumption that A (the offended party) is automaticly right, just because he is offended. Which is exactly the kind of thinking Mr. Fry is critizising. Being offended =/= being right.
Suppose that A thought sky = green and B thought sky = blue. If A doesn't become offended at all by the difference in thought, it would result in no one being offended. By your logic, this situation would still be a conflict, which just doesn't seem to make any sense. There are people who believe in christianity and people who believe in hinduism. Does that mean they are conflict?
|
On March 27 2012 20:55 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:47 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:37 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:32 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:27 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 20:17 msl wrote:On March 27 2012 20:13 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:55 Exoteric wrote:On March 27 2012 19:22 sharky246 wrote:On March 27 2012 19:05 msl wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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? This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this. if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd? Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least. how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it? good =/= universally good Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored. I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied. Sorry, somebody being offended is not a conflict. It's an emotional reaction that stems from the actual conflict. In my example the conflict is an opposing worldview (sky = green vs. sky = blue). The conflicht is not resovled by B appolgiezing, it is simply ignored. You make the assumption that A (the offended party) is automaticly right, just because he is offended. Which is exactly the kind of thinking Mr. Fry is critizising. Being offended =/= being right. Suppose that A thought sky = green and B thought sky = blue. If A doesn't become offended at all by the difference in thought, it would result in no one being offended. By your logic, this situation would still be a conflict, which just doesn't seem to make any sense. There are people who believe in christianity and people who believe in hinduism. Does that mean they are conflict?
Obviously there is a conflict in worldview there.
Definition of conflict I am using: A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash. Also a state of opposition between ideas, interests, etc.; disagreement or controversy
|
Every time someone says they're offended by something I always imagine them saying it in a very high pitched posh voice. I think he's absolutely right, saying you're offended like that means it should be stopped immediately is just whining and bitching with a fairly large sense of entitlement, as if your opinion should dictate the actions of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
