|
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.
Your reasoning confuses me greatly. Are we speaking strictly within the bounds of idle conversation so that it doesn't have any effect on actual decisions made in a governing body? Because I can somewhat understand that. Even so, it encourages the idea that a person who is easily offended over something always gets their way, regardless of how they justify their offense. That kind of attitude is a detriment to the progression of a society. What happens when the compensation is somebody's life, or their freedom? All it takes is a rejection of a certain set of ideals to be put to death, in some cases.
|
On March 27 2012 21:01 Count9 wrote:
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.
You realize that being offended doesn't mean you have to actually say "Gasp! How dare you! I'm offended!" in the most elitist and snobbish way possible, right? lol.
There's a responsibility on both parties (the giver and taker of a comment or action): If you're going to make a comment, make it with some purpose and some tact (don't just be a rude jackass just because you can). And as a person who will necessarily hear things that may not be ideal from time to time, grow some relatively thick skin, because the truth sometimes hurts.
|
On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved.
Actually no.
The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning.
You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language.
But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing.
The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage.
The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant.
|
On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant.
Well, the fact that somethings offends you is actually not harmfull to debatte either, so why would you try to tell somebody how to phrase his opinion? That "I am offended" by itself contributes nothing to argument does not mean that the phrase therefore cannot be used.
|
On March 27 2012 20:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Whether you receive a broken arm from 10N of force or some other injury (or no injury) depends on a number of characteristics - your genetics, your medical history, the way in which the surface area over which the force was received, etc. It's just as dependent on context as an insult.
It's not about "understanding as well as most people", as patronising as that is, about your idea of subjective harms - if anything, my point is that physical harm is also subjective. Moreover, I would argue insults and physical harm are largely analagous and some thought should be given as to why society privileges one and trivialises the other.
|
On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant.
LOL
"I'm offended" is actually a very very good and important part of that statement because it clarifies the validity and intent of the argument.
For example, "I'm happy" about china's occupation of tibet has a very different meaning to "I'm offended" about china's occupation of tibet. And the conversation will go through completely different paths because of it. It specifies tone, urgency , and relevancy. It's almost more important that the actual subject of the discourse.
Person A: "I'm offended/happy about event/topic/subject X"
Person B: "Why would you feel ______ about X when X is ______"
Person A: "Because ________"
In which case--especially for topics of great importance--once's feelings of the topic is the sole reason for the existence of the discussion. To say that your feelings are irrelevant is to tell them to not join the discussion at all. Their feelings about the subject is what defines and directs how their argument will take place.
|
I completely agree with, I have always thought its pathetic for someone to be like, omg you called me a jew? (or other racist term) IM OFFENDED.
Suck it up..that shoudnt hurt your feelings. If they start actually persecuting you because of it, you have reason to be upset
|
On March 27 2012 23:14 Ian Ian Ian wrote:
I completely agree with, I have always thought its pathetic for someone to be like, omg you called me a jew? (or other racist term) IM OFFENDED.
Suck it up..that shoudnt hurt your feelings. If they start actually persecuting you because of it, you have reason to be upset
Because normally those two go hand in hand.
No one would normally go around being insulting without also wanting to be physically and doctrinally insulting/assaulting. It is only because society as a whole is expected to hold back and be as respectful as possible that those people are held back from physical attacks. More times than not, the feeling of being offended comes with the feeling of being physically threatened when it comes to racial slurs.
You would understand this if you were more cultured and lived in a much poorer situation than you do now.
|
On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant.
Actually yes. When the problem with "I am offended." is that it needs a rationale to be meaningful, stating that rationale should solve the problem. Of course feelings aren't a good basis for a factual argument... but how somebody feels about something shouldn't be completely irrelevant either. If somebody can give sound reasons for being offended by something, I don't see why that shouldn't motivate others to symphatize with him and to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive to help him out.
|
On March 27 2012 23:25 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:14 Ian Ian Ian wrote:
I completely agree with, I have always thought its pathetic for someone to be like, omg you called me a jew? (or other racist term) IM OFFENDED.
Suck it up..that shoudnt hurt your feelings. If they start actually persecuting you because of it, you have reason to be upset Because normally those two go hand in hand. No one would normally go around being insulting without also wanting to be physically and doctrinally insulting/assaulting. It is only because society as a whole is expected to hold back and be as respectful as possible that those people are held back from physical attacks. More times than not, the feeling of being offended comes with the feeling of being physically threatened when it comes to racial slurs. You would understand this if you were more cultured and lived in a much poorer situation than you do now.
Are you kidding me? How many times do people get banned or muted in online games for racism? When there is almost literally nothing they can really do to perscecute someone further.
Not to mention the amount of time retard high school kids will use the N word because they think they are badass, and a black person will be all like woah wtf!? You shouldn't take offense to those kinds of things. The fact that you do means you accept it as an insult to yourself.. you shouldn't. ie, someone calls someone on team liquid a nerd, do you take it offensively? Not really..
|
On March 27 2012 23:46 Ian Ian Ian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:25 lorkac wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 Ian Ian Ian wrote:
I completely agree with, I have always thought its pathetic for someone to be like, omg you called me a jew? (or other racist term) IM OFFENDED.
Suck it up..that shoudnt hurt your feelings. If they start actually persecuting you because of it, you have reason to be upset Because normally those two go hand in hand. No one would normally go around being insulting without also wanting to be physically and doctrinally insulting/assaulting. It is only because society as a whole is expected to hold back and be as respectful as possible that those people are held back from physical attacks. More times than not, the feeling of being offended comes with the feeling of being physically threatened when it comes to racial slurs. You would understand this if you were more cultured and lived in a much poorer situation than you do now. Are you kidding me? How many times do people get banned or muted in online games for racism? When there is almost literally nothing they can really do to perscecute someone further. Not to mention the amount of time retard high school kids will use the N word because they think they are badass, and a black person will be all like woah wtf!? You shouldn't take offense to those kinds of things. The fact that you do means you accept it as an insult to yourself.. you shouldn't. ie, someone calls someone on team liquid a nerd, do you take it offensively? Not really..
This person is talking about restraint and respect in society as a whole. Yes, online, verbal abuse is probably the most kids can do. But these kids also go to school, also grow up and work with others. If all those kids were paraplegic or something and tied to their computers, then I guess you would have a stronger argument.
Just how exactly is it the black person's fault for being hurt by thoughtless abuse of the N-word? Now that's an impressive mental acrobatic.
And if someone were to call you a bitch, pussy, motherfucker, cocksucker, or other generic insults, is it cool because if you feel insulted, its because you accept it as an insult to yourself? Whoa, if everyone followed this logic, you'd think there would be more people being complete rude to eachother.
I really do hope you don't apply this logic to real world situations, for your own sake.
|
The sooner we all stop being offended by every little thing, I think, the happier we will be as a species!
|
On March 27 2012 23:46 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant. Actually yes. When the problem with "I am offended." is that it needs a rationale to be meaningful, stating that rationale should solve the problem. Of course feelings aren't a good basis for a factual argument... but how somebody feels about something shouldn't be completely irrelevant either. If somebody can give sound reasons for being offended by something, I don't see why that shouldn't motivate others to symphatize with him and to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive to help him out.
You just proved my point. If you are using a feeling to motivate others to sympathize with you to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive, you are trying to silence the opposition because of your feelings, not the rationale. That's why it has absolutely no place in the argument.
|
If you cannot make a good case for why it offends you then you should probably shut up.
|
I think the only time it is justified to feel offended, is if someone was intentionally trying to offend you. If they're insulting your or attacking you then yes, you have the right to be offended. But it bothers me when people take offense from jokes or generalizations. Often times they're meant without any kind of ill will, so taking them personally is an inappropriate response. Only take personal what comes at you personally, if that makes any sense.
|
On March 28 2012 02:37 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:46 Poffel wrote:On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant. Actually yes. When the problem with "I am offended." is that it needs a rationale to be meaningful, stating that rationale should solve the problem. Of course feelings aren't a good basis for a factual argument... but how somebody feels about something shouldn't be completely irrelevant either. If somebody can give sound reasons for being offended by something, I don't see why that shouldn't motivate others to symphatize with him and to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive to help him out. You just proved my point. If you are using a feeling to motivate others to sympathize with you to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive, you are trying to silence the opposition because of your feelings, not the rationale. That's why it has absolutely no place in the argument.
Are you saying it is absolutely uncalled for to be offended because it defies logic? When my dad passed away, would it be out of the line to be offended if someone made fun of him at the funeral or kicked his coffin?
I think it's fine to get offended, just not at minor things. If someone called a black man a "n****r" with the intent of alluding towards slavery up until the civil rights movement, I think it's fine for the guy to be a bit offended. "Well it doesn't affect him", you might say. It could have easily affected his grandparents, and potentially his parents. Or let's say that "n****r" was used in its purest meaning: being an ignoramus. If someone knocks on your intelligence, doesn't that mean that regardless of any level-headed argument you make, your opposition can discard it as poorly-formulated due to your ignorance?
Also, what exactly do you mean by "If you are using a feeling to motivate others to sympathize with you to follow a rationale that puts an end to whatever it is that he finds offensive, you are trying to silence the opposition because of your feelings, not the rationale."? Just because I am offended by something does not disable me from taking a step back and thinking the argument out rationally. If anything, my ____ emotion will help me dig deeper for evidence/facts/rationale to use in my favor.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 21:49 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:47 Poffel wrote:
I'm offended by x because ...
There, problem solved. Actually no. The fact that you were offended is completely irrelevant to the argument that follows, it doesn't strengthen it, it doesn't add to it, it has no purpose or meaning. You can say, I'm offended(it hurts my feelings) by China's occupation of Tibet because the people are oppressed and denied their own heritage and learning their native language. But the fact that it offends you added absolutely nothing. The argument should be that it shouldn't happen because they are being denied their heritage. The fact that you felt offended by it is irrelevant.
It does inform the person that the actions are harming his feelings, and if the person cares about that, and doesn't want to, it might stop him from doing it again. It doesn't force him to stop, but he might realize that his actions have consequences he doesn't want.
|
On March 27 2012 22:28 khaydarin9 wrote:Whether you receive a broken arm from 10N of force or some other injury (or no injury) depends on a number of characteristics - your genetics, your medical history, the way in which the surface area over which the force was received, etc. It's just as dependent on context as an insult.
The key is that being offended is a choice, while having a broken arm is not. It is fundamentally false to claim that being offended is a condition imposed by another; in truth, you choose how you react to offense. Your offense might be partly conditoned or subconscious, but its ultimately your decision to feel offended and not ignore it. Being offended is a choice.
Simply put, we don't assign legal rights based on what others choose to feel. Otherwise, it would be legal to murder someone because they made you angry. If you believe in free will, then you have to acknowledge that people can choose how they feel and how it affects them (and if you don't, then you can throw this entire discussion out the window). The same cannot be said of a broken arm; no matter your state of mind, a broken arm is a broken arm.
On March 27 2012 23:25 lorkac wrote:No one would normally go around being insulting without also wanting to be physically and doctrinally insulting/assaulting. It is only because society as a whole is expected to hold back and be as respectful as possible that those people are held back from physical attacks. More times than not, the feeling of being offended comes with the feeling of being physically threatened when it comes to racial slurs.
Yet another false dichotomy from you. Plenty of people are deliberately offensive without physically assaulting anyone. The WBC might be despicable, but they're also not physically intimidating anyone. Regardless, if someone is both offensive and physically assaulting people, then you can punish them for the latter. The offense that they cause is irrelevant.
On March 28 2012 05:48 Whitewing wrote:It does inform the person that the actions are harming his feelings, and if the person cares about that, and doesn't want to, it might stop him from doing it again. It doesn't force him to stop, but he might realize that his actions have consequences he doesn't want.
And that's what makes it a logical fallacy. It's an implied threat no different from claiming that someone is pissing you off.
|
Canada11314 Posts
This argument seems to mix together intellectual discourse with ad hominem attacks. Of course it doesn't make sense and certainly shuts down arguments if someone is offended by people disagreeing with them.
However, racial slurs are not offensive because people happen to be disagreeing with each other and one side decided to get offended by the other's syllogisms. It's the overt or else implied derision, scorn, or loathing towards a person or peoples. And the words tend to carry their meaning for awhile.
Other offenses come from being rude, disrespectful, or demeaning. Sure, people need to be more thick-skinned, not let the barbs sink in, whatever. However, it's too much to say the ball is entirely in the court of the person being offended. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that being an inconsiderate, loud-mouthed jerk is laudable while it's every one else's job to make to be considerate of the inconsiderate jerk. Being inconsiderate isn't an intellectual position unless you're into Rand.
And even in the cases of arguments, we highly value Opinion and Facts, but throw civility out the window. We would prefer to scream at each other like gibbons. And above all, one mustn't get offended about all that screaming and poo flinging. That would be whining and we just can't have that.
|
Being offended is an appropriate response to a lot of situations. When EA hired fake protesters to pretend to be religious zealots protesting Dante's Inferno, I was offended. That was a slimy and inappropriate way to act, and I don't believe companies should be advertising in those ways. Similarly when they advertised Dead Space 2 as the game mothers would absolutely hate, as though that was a badge of honor, I was offended by that. This was ultimately setting video games as a whole back by celebrating their role as a fringe activity that most of society finds wasteful and destructive. EA had the right to do both of those things, and no one is stopping them; but I still consider them immoral actions, and they made me less inclined to buy those games.
Also, the First Amendment has nothing to do with this discussion. The internet has this absurd misconception that nobody is allowed to hold anything you say against you because you have free speech. The First Amendment protects you from being legally punished for saying things. It doesn't mean that if you act like an idiot people aren't allowed to treat you like an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
