|
You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it.
This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended.
We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something.
Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun.
Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc.
So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok.
So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons.
No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment).
When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech.
If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice.
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended.
Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap.
source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html
|
On March 27 2012 03:44 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:37 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:36 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:On March 27 2012 03:08 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself.
You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease. TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is. Therefore you automatically lost. It's a comparison yes. Is it hyperbolic? No. I'm not going to dignify that with a response, since you already lost. People like you make me doubt humanity, seriously... People who arbitrarily compare others who disagree with them to hitler make me doubt humanity, seriously...
I compared the institution of the church to Nazism.
|
On March 27 2012 03:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:37 Zephirdd wrote:
I kinda hate freedom of speech for some - very particular - situations. For instance, as mentioned, a "God hates fags" sign in a soldier's funeral. Or anything in a funeral that is not related to condolences and tributes. A person's life shouldn't be disrespected like that, no matter who he is.
People should have the right to speech, but not to hate a population. People should not be allowed to hate over a certain group because of their beliefs, tastes or ethnicy. People should not have the right to force their beliefs into someone else's mouth. People should have the right to do whatever the hell they think to be right, as long as that does not interfere with someone's else right to do that.
Am I wrong on having this feeling? They have the right to make their idiotic protests, without morons like them the world would be boring.I honestly fail to understand why a solider choose to shoot 18 Afghan civilians as opposed to killing everyone in that church.
NO. They don't. If you can call a protest "idiotic" then it shouldn't exist. I'd rather live in a boring world without morons like that than in a retarded world that has morons like that.
And the church commentary was completely unnecessary. I didn't even know the god hates fags sign was related to that one soldier. And you seem smart, you should completely understand why he chose to shoot the Afghan civilians. Because of the most despisable and disgusting reason to ever exist in the history, that is repeated over and over and people just won't realize it is wrong. Racism(and similars).
EDIT And let the soldier discussion die here please, whether I'm right or wrong. That's a subject for another topic that, I believe, was already discussed before; and I apologize to even elaborating on that.
|
I try to be thick-skinned and not be offended, for my own good. Being offended/mad takes a lot of time and energy. At the same time, I try not to offend people for no reason. Sometimes you have to take a stand, and that may mean offending someone, and other times people get offended over things that would not offend most people.
Free speech means that the government cannot shut you down for saying something. But people should ask themselves whether they should say something offensive.
Most comedians say offensive things. The good ones do so for a reason--to get at a fundamental truth, to expose a taboo, etc. Bad ones just want to shock cheap laughs out of people.
The main reasons not to offend someone just boil down to manners. You watch what you say for the same reasons you don't talk on a cell phone during a formal dinner or at the movies, fart in an elevator, etc. It is how you show respect for the fact that you are not the only person who matters. If it is super important that you talk on the phone during dinner or at the movies (e.g. you get a text that there is a bomb in the room and you need directions to defuse it), it's ok--but to offend people for no reason other than to see what happens just means you are an asshole. And I will defend your right to be free from government interference in pursuing your dream of being an asshole, but, in the end, you are still an asshole.
|
On March 27 2012 03:45 MaddogStarCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:44 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:37 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:36 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:
[quote]
TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is. Therefore you automatically lost. It's a comparison yes. Is it hyperbolic? No. I'm not going to dignify that with a response, since you already lost. People like you make me doubt humanity, seriously... People who arbitrarily compare others who disagree with them to hitler make me doubt humanity, seriously... I compared the institution of the church to Nazism.
No, you compared your opponents to hitler.
On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter.
Pwned.
|
On March 27 2012 03:43 xenobarf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:32 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 03:19 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:15 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 03:07 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:48 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:39 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:27 Cascade wrote:
[quote]
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area?
(Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say)
Any ideas of what could go in a middle area?
(Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.) The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another. And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing. Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times. The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force. Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased. hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so.  Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently. I don't know, what do you propose to do differently? It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not. So you want that what can be said and not said should stand above our current democratic system? Then decided and enforced by who? Do you want to do the same with all laws, or only what you are allowed to say? Can you expand a bit on "best left alone"? I don't understand what method you want to use to decide what is ok and what isn't. It's easy to criticise, but if you don't have a better suggestion it's not worth much tbh.  I think you misunderstand, when I say its best left alone I'm saying that NO ONE should govern what can and cannot be said. It's easy to critize your idea because its completely infallible and will leave someone or somebody out cold, either everyone has freedom of speech or no one has it. Censoring people is not a good idea. If you're worried about people being allowed to go around calling black people racial slurs then thats a good concern and guess what, if that person wants to do that its his right, that doesnt mean theres no consequences for having freedom of speech. ok, so you just want it to be 100% allowed to say anything, no matter what? That's perfectly fine, although I dont agree with you. My objection to your first post was how black and white you presented it. "no middle ground". I think of it as a very continuous scale on how liberal you are with this. I mean, start from allowing that you tell kids that you will go and rape their mother and then kill her, go to current Sweden, go to Chinas firewall, to North Korea, to the novel 1984 (Big Brother). People being on the more liberal side sometimes argue as if the even more liberal options dont exist, making them the most liberal possible, and that everything else is just one opinion, "not liberal". Which imo is missing the picture completely. Anyway I dont even really know what we were arguing. I feel very confused in general. Well, we're rather discussing whether freedom of speech should be just that or some sort of censored version of it in favor or someone or some people. I dont really understand the part about telling kids about raping their mother (?). I might be liberal, but theres simply no compromise that would suit everyone on such a subjective matter.
Ok, well so we probably have a bit different agendas then. I just wanted you to acknowledge that there are many different degrees of freedom of speech, rather than this very binary picture you paint, but I guess that is not how it looks for you, so nevermind.
I am more of a "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of expressing opinions", which is very close, but not identical to "freedom of speech". But let's not take that discussion here... it will never end, I doubt any opinions will be changed and i have dinner incoming.
edit: the part about your mother was my view of a place with 100% freedom of speech. Sorry for the biased presentation, my bad. Just replace it with "Complete freedom of speech" or something, and it will be a better representation of what I try to say.
|
On March 27 2012 03:51 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:43 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:32 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 03:19 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:15 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 03:07 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:48 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:39 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another.
And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing. Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times. The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force. Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased. hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so. Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently. I don't know, what do you propose to do differently? It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not. So you want that what can be said and not said should stand above our current democratic system? Then decided and enforced by who? Do you want to do the same with all laws, or only what you are allowed to say? Can you expand a bit on "best left alone"? I don't understand what method you want to use to decide what is ok and what isn't. It's easy to criticise, but if you don't have a better suggestion it's not worth much tbh. I think you misunderstand, when I say its best left alone I'm saying that NO ONE should govern what can and cannot be said. It's easy to critize your idea because its completely infallible and will leave someone or somebody out cold, either everyone has freedom of speech or no one has it. Censoring people is not a good idea. If you're worried about people being allowed to go around calling black people racial slurs then thats a good concern and guess what, if that person wants to do that its his right, that doesnt mean theres no consequences for having freedom of speech. ok, so you just want it to be 100% allowed to say anything, no matter what? That's perfectly fine, although I dont agree with you. My objection to your first post was how black and white you presented it. "no middle ground". I think of it as a very continuous scale on how liberal you are with this. I mean, start from allowing that you tell kids that you will go and rape their mother and then kill her, go to current Sweden, go to Chinas firewall, to North Korea, to the novel 1984 (Big Brother). People being on the more liberal side sometimes argue as if the even more liberal options dont exist, making them the most liberal possible, and that everything else is just one opinion, "not liberal". Which imo is missing the picture completely. Anyway I dont even really know what we were arguing. I feel very confused in general. Well, we're rather discussing whether freedom of speech should be just that or some sort of censored version of it in favor or someone or some people. I dont really understand the part about telling kids about raping their mother (?). I might be liberal, but theres simply no compromise that would suit everyone on such a subjective matter. Ok, well so we probably have a bit different agendas then. I just wanted you to acknowledge that there are many different degrees of freedom of speech, rather than this very binary picture you paint, but I guess that is not how it looks for you, so nevermind. I am more of a "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of expressing opinions", which is very close, but not identical to "freedom of speech". But let's not take that discussion here... it will never end, I doubt any opinions will be changed and i have dinner incoming.
There are indeed degrees, but that doesnt make any of them any more or less valuable than the other (except for each individual), I guess thats my point .
But yeah, thanks for discussing.
|
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html
That's a very nice article. Any chance the original conversation is available as well? It would be interesting to listen to.
|
An individual's perceived irrationality of such a concept is completely irrelevant.
There are endless amounts of things that you could apply logic to and determine it to be completely irrational. Many of our core values, institutions, and practices. But so what? You think you suddenly figured out the world and now the world is going to listen to you?
No. People are still going to follow through with their beliefs. And just because in your mind you find them to be absolutely wrong, does not change their reaction. You can live in your own world of what you think is right and not care about anyone else, or you can live in the real world and accept people are going to hold beliefs which cannot be supported by logic.
I'm trying to use a lot of general language because I feel like my point applies to a lot of topics on here. Many threads are on the subject of some belief or practice which is common and widespread and they talk about how it is really not rational. People seem to like this idea of them being smart, and looking at the rest of the world as dumb and foolish. But I don't find these arbitrary single little issues very noteworthy. For example, I'm sure plenty of the people in this thread who speak against "being offended" have many irrational beliefs of their own which if we had an extensive enough of a discussion, we could bring to light.
In the end, I just don't see the point of a discussion like this. It only seems like it would serve to purpose of rationalizing making others feel bad. Personally, I don't try to avoid hurting the feelings of people based on what I think should or should not hurt them, I try to avoid hurting their feelings based on what does.
|
My thoughts are that you certainly have the right to be offended by anything I say. But you being offended doesn't really mean anything to me. If you are being offended it's on you to do something about it, whatever that may be. Simply stating "That's offensive" is the most useless thing anybody can do.
|
Don't think anyone should take this quote literally without the context behind it. Following the quote literally is quite bad, because it seems to imply that there's no room for respect of another person's opinions and feelings.
|
On March 27 2012 03:55 xenobarf wrote:
But yeah, thanks for discussing.
thanks. We at least did the discussion a lot better than the parallel one.... :o
|
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html
Thank you for reiterating my point about how we choose to give them attention. If we stop giving them attention one of two things will happen, they will stop or they will resort to more desperate measures. Eventually, the desperate measures will fall into areas not protected by the 1st Amendment and they will pay the consequences. If they simply stop, well then it's a win for all those who wanted them to stop.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html
The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. He basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended".
Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want.
What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
|
On March 27 2012 04:04 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there. Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want. What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given.
Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 04:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there. Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want. What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given. Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate.
It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous.
This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous.
Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
|
On March 27 2012 04:11 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2012 04:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there. Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want. What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given. Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate. It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous. This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous. Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment.
I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
|
On March 27 2012 04:11 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2012 04:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there. Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want. What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given. Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate. It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous. This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous. Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt.
You're right actually, I skimmed through it and I didn't notice. Much of it is a bit off.
|
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html
You're suggesting people do not have the right to compete with or against certain ideas, or condemn or contradict certain points of views. Being offended is simply a motivator to enact action, it is neither good nor bad. People do not have the right to suppress another persons freedom of speech, they certainly have the right to feel however they feel and to say whatever they want to say even if that what the say is motivated by offense. To suggest one does not have the right to be offended is to suggest one does not have the right to be angry, or annoyed; of course people have those rights.
Some advantages of freedom of speech are: it allows every voice to be heard, including the unpopular and it encourages competition of ideas and it helps create social movements. Being offended is a natural process of those advantages and an essential part of free speech. LGBT rights activists can absolutely be offended by people viewing them as evil, they do not have the right to physically prevent those who disagree with their views from speaking, but they certainly have the right to speak out against their opponents views or to offer alternative view points or even to say offensive things about their opponents.
I would suggest that not only do we have the right to be offended, being offended can actually be a positive motivator for change. Just because some people will try and hinder discussion when they hear something offensive does not mean that all instances of being offended lead directly to censorship.
People do not choose to be offended, even if they choose to listen.
In short, being offended is not the same as suppressing free speech; i'm offended that someone would suggest
they are the same, however, rather than respond with a post that aims to hinder free speech, I post with the intent to change minds and to offer an alternative view that others may or may not agree with. Thus being offended motivated my action, but my action was not in itself designed to hinder another persons rights.
|
On March 27 2012 04:25 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 04:11 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2012 04:04 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America STOP! You are about to read one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you have ever seen. Make sure you're ready for it. This column starts out like a bad joke; It's the product of a conversation between a radio talk show host who majored in Psychology (me), a certified Sociologist (a friend who observes and documents society and its' history), and a Philosopher (another friend, smarter than all of us combined). The three of us recently debated and discussed whether or not people in America have the right to be offended. We've been talking on the show a lot lately about rights and privileges. Most people are too stupid to know the difference, and if that's you, than just stop reading now and go smoke a bowl. This article is for those of you who want to challenge your long held ignorant beliefs and learn something. Let's first define what a right is. A right is something that, according to Webster's dictionary, is due to a person by law. In America, that means that you are owed a public school education, the ability to pursue your dreams (with no guarantees of success), independence with no ties to another human being, the opportunity to speak your mind (with no guarantee of anyone listening), and a variety of other things including the ability to own a gun. Your rights in America end when you misuse them to the point of infringing upon someone else's rights. In other words, once you commit a felony (thus infringing on someone's right to pursue life, liberty and happiness by say, raping them) you forfeit your right to own a gun legally. You also forfeit your right to independence by serving jail time, etc. So, given that premise, do you have the right to be offended? Well, by the letter of the law I guess you could say the answer is yes. I mean, after all no one but you can control your emotions. Technically, you have the right to feel however and whatever you want. However, you don't always have the right to act upon your feelings. For example, if a grown man feel attraction to a 7-year-old girl, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Technically, he has that right. If he acts upon that right though, he will be infringing upon her rights and that's not ok. So, do you have the right to be offended? Based on the Bill of rights and the Constitution of America, no you don't. For a variety of reasons. No where in our history has the protection from offensive behavior, writings or material been guaranteed to you. However, our laws and history very clearly guarantee other people the right to say, scribe and do offensive things (we call it the first amendment). When someone reacts to something they find offensive, that person is not, in fact, exercising their first amendment rights, they are in truth trying to suppress the other person's right to free speech. If a Christian stands on the corner preaching the word of Jesus and an offended Atheist walks by and calls the man a liar, it is only the Christian who is within his actual rights. The Atheist is hiding behind the first amendment to somehow proclaim that he has the right to react to his childish feelings of being offended. The fact of the matter is, the only right he has is the one to ignore the Christian and go along his way. It's the right to freedom, liberty and personal choice. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to be heard. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen. If I walk through the mall and am handed an offensive PETA pamphlet, I have the free will choice to simply throw it away…ignore it. However, if I choose to become offended by the pamphlet, I have just validated PETA's freedom of speech by allowing them to be heard. I have made the CHOICE to listen; therefore I do not have the right to be offended. Speaking your mind in America is a right. The opportunity to be offended by what is said is a privilege, one that is not granted to people in North Korea, Iran and dozens of other places in the World. If we allow citizens of America to mis-use their privilege to be offended in ways that stop others from speaking, we will add another block of destruction into our decaying social scrap heap. source http://robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/soapbox/right2beoffended.html The opening of this is outright fallacious and insulting (as well as extremely arrogant), as if this drivel passes for an intelligent argument. You basically just said "You can be offended but you also can't be offended". The author of these articles is pretty damn arrogant (the only page on the entirety of the internet without bullshit? Really?) as well, but that's neither here nor there. Being offended by something simply means that you feel violated, transgressed upon, or have hurt feelings as a result of something. That's it, that's all. You have the right to feel however you want, thus, you have the right to be offended by anything. The argument you are presenting somehow says you don't have the right to be offended, because it infringes on others freedom of speech. The problem for the argument is that it doesn't: being offended and acting on the feeling of offense you suffer are two completely different things. You have just as much right to say "I don't approve of what you're saying" as anyone else does to say what you don't approve of in the first place. You don't have the right to censor them for saying it, but you can voice your disagreement and your feelings of offense all you want. What this argument probably intends to say (but doesn't, which is what's wrong with it) is that you don't have a right to censor others. Being offended often leads to an attempt to censor, but that's not a given. Yep, it's just poorly written though, which is unfortunate. It's not just that, his example regarding the atheist and the christian is wrong too. The atheist probably *should* just ignore him, but he's perfectly within his rights to say "You're wrong" or "I think you're lying", regardless of his reasons for it. He can't tell the christian to shut up and stop talking because he's being offensive, but he can argue all he wants. As written, this argument basically boils down to "if an idea presented to you seems offensive in any way, you are not allowed to oppose the idea at all, you just have to ignore it." That's ridiculous. This argument as presented is one of the most moronic things I've read in a while, not at all, as claimed "one of the most well thought out, intelligent things you've ever seen." Talk about presumptuous. Censorship should not be permitted at all, especially not on the grounds of someone's hurt feelings, but that's not the same thing as saying that people should not be allowed to have their feelings hurt. You've summed up my reactions to that stupid article as well. The article propagates the common fallacy that the freedom of speech extends to protecting that speech against criticism. Both the Christian vs Atheist and the PETA example are just terrible interpretations of the 1st Amendment. I think it's that interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows so many people to make such presumptuous arguments. They feel that because of freedom of speech, their opinions should go unchallenged. In their minds, other people are faced with only two choices, listening or walking away. It never occurred to them that calling their opinions stupid is protected by the very same principle they are espousing.
You guys completely missed the point of the article, even after reading the preface. You don't have the right to be offended, but you have the privilege to be offended. That's not the same as saying that speech is protected from criticism, but rather that you can't act upon that criticism against them without violating their rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
