So my friend and I were having a discussion about this Stephen Fry quote the other day:
I'm a bit torn on it, myself. I think it's stupid to get offended over little things: -"Oh, you want to lift that for me because I'm a woman? That's offensive!" "No bitch, that's called being polite." -"You think I'm a criminal because I'm black? That's offensive!" "No sir, we pat everyone down in the airport."
So I can understand where the quote comes from. People get offended over every little thing. Hell, comedians and shows like South Park get yelled at all the time for being offensive when it's very clear they're just saying those things as jokes.
But on the other hand, I see people use this quote (or some variation thereof) to justify the stupidest things. Extreme racism, putting people down, and (most controversially) religion/atheism.
There's definitely a difference between getting offended at comments that don't mean anything and comments that are meant to be scathing and offensive.
I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want, then get away by saying "Oh, if you get offended, you're just closed-minded." If you say something that's intended to be cruel towards someone, you should expect them to say something back.
-"You think I'm a criminal because I'm black? That's offensive!" "No sir, we pat everyone down in the airport."
you know racism is still a pretty big issue, innocent black people get accused on a much higher rate than white people, i don't think you actually should be saying it's stupid to get offended by such things; imo it's far more common for people to go "OOH BLACK PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE" even though there's a real issue than it's the other way around. I think being offended is a good phrase, like has been said you have the right to get offended it doesn't automatically mean you should get to impose restrictions on whatever is offending you though.
"I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want", then you probably shouldnt be living in a country where its built into your constitution
I think my boi squeezy jibbs makes a really good point with this video. Iirc you can post videos in here right? So many rules to keep track of on this forum TT
Bottom line is, people need to stop being such cry babies
I'm not sure about the complete context of the quote, but Mr. Fry is more likely focused on the fact that they words have lost value. He often "rambles on" (his own words) about the lack context and quality of the use of language:
So in this context I think he's quite right. The phrase is completely devoid of the actual content that speaker often assumes. The statement of it does nothing in an argument about things that are offensive. But I don't think he's really saying anything about actually being offended or what people are offended by.
On March 27 2012 01:36 AwayFromLife wrote: I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want, then get away by saying "Oh, if you get offended, you're just closed-minded."
I really, really hate the term "closed-minded". It's a lazy internet neologism that is slowly replacing the real term narrow-minded.
-"You think I'm a criminal because I'm black? That's offensive!" "No sir, we pat everyone down in the airport."
you know racism is still a pretty big issue, innocent black people get accused on a much higher rate than white people, i don't think you actually should be saying it's stupid to get offended by such things; imo it's far more common for people to go "OOH BLACK PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE" even though there's a real issue than it's the other way around. I think being offended is a good phrase, like has been said you have the right to get offended it doesn't automatically mean you should get to impose restrictions on whatever is offending you though.
As long as it is about just a viewpoint or opinion of somebody I can just say: free speech; be as offended as you want but it matters not, it is in fact rather stupid. I think it just means you have no other reasonable argument to make. If you have another argument to make: GREAT then make it. But don't think because you just feel pissed of that that alone is a reason your opinion should be heard.
We had Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands. A moviemaker and interviewer who always offended everyone, anyone. Until he offended the wrong people and got killed in a brutal way.
A monument was made for him. One of his friends, a Dutch standup comedian, spoke for him when it was shown to the public for the first time (dutch with english subtitles):
Since he offended some muslim girls in his speech they invited him in their program to talk about it, about freedom of speech and being offended in general. It became the Dutch tv moment of that year: (also subtitled)
In the context of TL, that argument is often used as an excuse by people who post stupid and immature things that got them moderated. Whenever I see somebody talking about other people getting offended easily, I picture a shitty poster whining about TL's moderation.
Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
On March 27 2012 01:51 decerto wrote: "I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want", then you probably shouldnt be living in a country where its built into your constitution
Apparently you didn't finish reading. It's great to say whatever you want, but you should also be prepared for other people to voice their opinions at what you say. I see so many online arguments (usually pirating, religion, or dumb things like consoles) turn into:
-I'm offended by that, that's not a polite thing to say. -I don't care if you're offended, this is America! So FUCK YOU!
If you purposefully say something that offends someone else, that's your right, but that person also has a right to get pissed about it, not get ridiculed for getting riled up over your obviously vitriolic words. If you insult someone and they sock you in the face, it seems stupid to say "Oh, but you're just too easily offended, I can say whatever I want so don't hit me."
I'm a bit torn on it, myself. I think it's stupid to get offended over little things:
Problem with this is that what constitutes a "little thing" is a matter of perspective. Ultimately, who gives a fuck? No matter what the action or speech is, someone somewhere will likely find it offensive, so just don't bother worrying about it unless your career or an important relationship is particularly at risk. Then say it anyway, and apologize later.
Sometimes reality hurts. If someone calls you fat, and its true, you have no right to be offended. Emotional responses are normal to humans, but one must learn to master those urges.
On March 27 2012 02:00 Sveet wrote: Sometimes reality hurts. If someone calls you fat, and its true, you have no right to be offended. Emotional responses are normal to humans, but one must learn to master those urges.
On March 27 2012 02:00 Sveet wrote: Sometimes reality hurts. If someone calls you fat, and its true, you have no right to be offended. Emotional responses are normal to humans, but one must learn to master those urges.
It depends in that case, though. Are you calling someone fat just to be a dick? Or are you pointing it out as an observation?
If it's like schoolyard bullying and you're picking on a kid because of his weight, he has every right to be offended. If you just say "hey man, you should work out a bit, that's not healthy", then no, they probably shouldn't be.
On March 27 2012 02:01 Djzapz wrote: Was just going to post that one from Steve Hughes. Offended people should just grow up, at least a lot of the time.
But again, like I said, it depends. Should that audience have just "grown up" when Michael Richards (the Kramer guy) stood on stage and just said the N-word repeatedly? No, I think they were well within their rights to get pissed at him.
On March 27 2012 02:01 Djzapz wrote: Was just going to post that one from Steve Hughes. Offended people should just grow up, at least a lot of the time.
But again, like I said, it depends. Should that audience have just "grown up" when Michael Richards (the Kramer guy) stood on stage and just said the N-word repeatedly? No, I think they were well within their rights to get pissed at him.
What's your rationale for that? Just because? The audience shouldn't give a fuck, it doesn't hurt them unless they let it.
And like Louis C.K said, what's that bullshit with saying "n-word", everyone knows what it means, man up and type it.
On March 27 2012 01:51 decerto wrote: "I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want", then you probably shouldnt be living in a country where its built into your constitution
No, it isn't built into our constitution. What is built into the constitution is a protection from criminal charges when you speak your mind, that does not mean you have protection from social consequences or other consequences. Yes you have the right to insult anyone and everyone you want, or say whatever you want that is offensive, but you can still be punished for it. Try calling your boss a raging asshole and then tell him to fuck off and see if you get to keep your job.
"But I have the right to free speech!" No, no you have the right to say what you want without consequences from the law, not from all consequences period.
And the law doesn't even extend to all circumstances: try shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire and see what happens to you.
As for being offended: if someone says something deliberately offensive, then chances are pretty good they intended for you to be offended. Yes, it's silly to state how you feel about something for no other reason than to state it, it doesn't really have any purpose other than to share information most people don't care about. That said, offending people probably isn't a very good way to get anything useful done.
I was raised to know that you shouldn't point out/comment on/ridicule things that are outside of a person's control (skin color, gender, handicaps, etc.), but that things within a person's control are fair game (shitty clothes, bad hygeine, ugly hairstyles, stupid behaviour). I think being offended by something works on a similar principle for me. I can't realistically get offended by something within my control, and I believe others shouldn't get offended by it either. But if it's not controllable, then it's ok to get upset when someone says something that offends you on it.
I should also note that I'm kinda an offensive prick with a thick skin, so really the people who can't deal tend to get cycled out of my life fast anyways.
On March 27 2012 02:01 Djzapz wrote: Was just going to post that one from Steve Hughes. Offended people should just grow up, at least a lot of the time.
But again, like I said, it depends. Should that audience have just "grown up" when Michael Richards (the Kramer guy) stood on stage and just said the N-word repeatedly? No, I think they were well within their rights to get pissed at him.
What's your rationale for that? Just because? The audience shouldn't give a fuck, it doesn't hurt them unless they let it.
Have you seen the video for it?
It wasn't that he used the word in a joke, he was actually genuinely being racist for the sake of being racist, putting another person down because of the color of their skin. And everyone should have just stayed silent and condoned it?
On March 27 2012 01:58 Lassepetri wrote: Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
Social norms are one thing. The whole "offended" idea has gotten way out of hand though. No, you shouldn't go out of your way to irritate your fellow humans, but your fellow humans also need to learn to deal with viewpoints that challenge their own
I agree with OP. Most of the time people shouldn't be offended by the most trivial of things. But then again there will always be people that doesn't care that others are offended by their plainly idiotic statements.
If you're going to tell other people to not be offended, then don't be offended if someone says or does something that attacks something that you value as well.
Honestly, you don't know why the person is getting offended so hold off on the judgement and just respect their dignity. You don't have to agree, understand, or believe the same thing to respect someone else. They may just be really immature and not have any self-awareness, but that's their problem. Or maybe they've experienced significant prejudice, hardship or pain and they feel violated.
It doesn't take much to just shut your mouth and not feel entitled to judge others. If they're a baby, let them be a baby, you don't have to be one too.
On March 27 2012 01:58 Lassepetri wrote: Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
What a ridiculous way of thinking. Idealism is strong in this one.
On March 27 2012 01:36 AwayFromLife wrote: So my friend and I were having a discussion about this Stephen Fry quote the other day:
I'm a bit torn on it, myself. I think it's stupid to get offended over little things: -"Oh, you want to lift that for me because I'm a woman? That's offensive!" "No bitch, that's called being polite." -"You think I'm a criminal because I'm black? That's offensive!" "No sir, we pat everyone down in the airport."
So I can understand where the quote comes from. People get offended over every little thing. Hell, comedians and shows like South Park get yelled at all the time for being offensive when it's very clear they're just saying those things as jokes.
But on the other hand, I see people use this quote (or some variation thereof) to justify the stupidest things. Extreme racism, putting people down, and (most controversially) religion/atheism.
There's definitely a difference between getting offended at comments that don't mean anything and comments that are meant to be scathing and offensive.
I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want, then get away by saying "Oh, if you get offended, you're just closed-minded." If you say something that's intended to be cruel towards someone, you should expect them to say something back.
Anyway, what are your thought, TL?
Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
The idea of getting offended is indeed stupid when used in todays world because people feel just because they have been offended there has to be some kind of measure against whatever they were offended against. If people want to point out that black people are infact black and that being black is bad then by all means, that doesnt mean we cant just shun these people and look upon them as idiots.
As for whenever people point out religion as if though its actually part of a person in the same sense that being of a certain ethnicity is, I always laugh.
On March 27 2012 01:58 Lassepetri wrote: Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
The fact that you don't know who Stephen Fry is offends me.
In a scenario such as a standup comedy show, people understand that they are entering into a space in which offensive language will be used to make them laugh. They have chosen to pay to enter, and it is expected that they do so fully understanding this fact. If the show was advertised as a "family" show, this changes things; the only scenario where somebody's offense is useful in a standup comedy show would be a "family" show whose comedian suddenly starts spouting racist jokes.
If you and your friends have a long history of dialogue about what offends whom, and everybody's opinions are out in the open, it becomes much like a comedy show - you're expecting what's to come, and have consented to it.
However, in any public space (yes, that includes the internet) there is a certain level of decency that is expected of people. There are certain comments and sets of language which are commonly considered offensive (I believe those of you saying "well, I just shouldn't say anything since I might offend somebody somewhere" are being deliberately ignorant.) because they offend wide swaths of people (entire subcultures, ethnic groups, genders, or other groupings of people who are considered a minority or have been oppressed in the past due to factors such as race or gender). Comments such as these are considered inappropriate and offensive for a reason, and it is not on the listener to "man the fuck up" or "stop whining so much." It's on you to be a more considerate speaker and learn the rules of society.
On March 27 2012 02:01 Djzapz wrote: Was just going to post that one from Steve Hughes. Offended people should just grow up, at least a lot of the time.
But again, like I said, it depends. Should that audience have just "grown up" when Michael Richards (the Kramer guy) stood on stage and just said the N-word repeatedly? No, I think they were well within their rights to get pissed at him.
What's your rationale for that? Just because? The audience shouldn't give a fuck, it doesn't hurt them unless they let it.
Have you seen the video for it?
It wasn't that he used the word in a joke, he was actually genuinely being racist for the sake of being racist, putting another person down because of the color of their skin. And everyone should have just stayed silent and condoned it?
No, that's fucked up, imo.
Nothing wrong happened in that situation. The man is a moron and people are free to express their anger, and then the media will pick that up and the man will lose a bunch of supporters. Self regulating, isn't it?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't condemn it, I do condemn racism myself, but please fucking realize that none of these person should feel hurt by one guy expressing racism. For every publicly vocal racist there's 10,000 quiet ones who hate brown and black people. Plenty of the people in that audience probably agreed with his bullshit. What does it fucking matter if the guy expresses it then? Will you feel better if people are quiet about it?
People shouldn't get worked up about these things. Big whoop racism is still alive and kicking, continue condemning it but don't get all worked up and cry in bed about it.
I consider myself to be very open-minded but also straightforward in my conversations, and I enjoy talking about "offensive" and/or not-politically-correct subjects all the time.
To be honest, Stephen Fry annoys me a little after this.
Any anti-homosexual or pro-religious statement will cause him to rant and go off on tirades, but apparently anything he says is vindicated because people are too easily offended?
On March 27 2012 01:51 decerto wrote: "I don't think you should just be able to just say whatever the hell you want", then you probably shouldnt be living in a country where its built into your constitution
No, it isn't built into our constitution. What is built into the constitution is a protection from criminal charges when you speak your mind, that does not mean you have protection from social consequences or other consequences. Yes you have the right to insult anyone and everyone you want, or say whatever you want that is offensive, but you can still be punished for it. Try calling your boss a raging asshole and then tell him to fuck off and see if you get to keep your job.
"But I have the right to free speech!" No, no you have the right to say what you want without consequences from the law, not from all consequences period.
And the law doesn't even extend to all circumstances: try shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire and see what happens to you.
As for being offended: if someone says something deliberately offensive, then chances are pretty good they intended for you to be offended. Yes, it's silly to state how you feel about something for no other reason than to state it, it doesn't really have any purpose other than to share information most people don't care about. That said, offending people probably isn't a very good way to get anything useful done.
it isn't even true to the extent that you are free from legal reprecussions, the "fire in the crowded theater" example for one. there are aspects of speech that aren't protected under the first amendment. vulgarity, being defined as language which brings nothing to a conversation. fighting words, being words which are likely to make the person to whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. also conspiracy, if you are discussing the overthrow of the government, in a serious manner, you can be arrested for it. the supreme court ruled that the government doesn't have to wait until the person or persons make an attempt, the intent to do so is sufficient. so your freedom of speech isn't so free as it would seem
On March 27 2012 01:36 AwayFromLife wrote: There's definitely a difference between getting offended at comments that don't mean anything and comments that are meant to be scathing and offensive.
I definitely disagree. Words are just words. Getting offended over any of them, regardless of their intent, is foolish.
Look at it this way, if the words you feel offended over were not meant to be offensive, you're overreacting. If they WERE meant to be offensive, you're playing right into their hand.
On March 27 2012 02:18 Vega62a wrote: Context is everything.
In a scenario such as a standup comedy show, people understand that they are entering into a space in which offensive language will be used to make them laugh. They have chosen to pay to enter, and it is expected that they do so fully understanding this fact. If the show was advertised as a "family" show, this changes things; the only scenario where somebody's offense is useful in a standup comedy show would be a "family" show whose comedian suddenly starts spouting racist jokes.
If you and your friends have a long history of dialogue about what offends whom, and everybody's opinions are out in the open, it becomes much like a comedy show - you're expecting what's to come, and have consented to it.
However, in any public space (yes, that includes the internet) there is a certain level of decency that is expected of people. There are certain comments and sets of language which are commonly considered offensive (I believe those of you saying "well, I just shouldn't say anything since I might offend somebody somewhere" are being deliberately ignorant.) because they offend wide swaths of people (entire subcultures, ethnic groups, genders, or other groupings of people who are considered a minority or have been oppressed in the past due to factors such as race or gender). Comments such as these are considered inappropriate and offensive for a reason, and it is not on the listener to "man the fuck up" or "stop whining so much." It's on you to be a more considerate speaker and learn the rules of society.
What the.. You're expecting decency out of people in the internet? o_O
On topic: Being offended by things other people say is silly. People need to learn to deal with opinions of other people rather then try to get them banned. The same goes for "banned" words. Yes I'm not an american and yes I don't get why "the n word" is soooo horrible for you people.
On March 27 2012 02:18 Vega62a wrote: Context is everything.
In a scenario such as a standup comedy show, people understand that they are entering into a space in which offensive language will be used to make them laugh. They have chosen to pay to enter, and it is expected that they do so fully understanding this fact. If the show was advertised as a "family" show, this changes things; the only scenario where somebody's offense is useful in a standup comedy show would be a "family" show whose comedian suddenly starts spouting racist jokes.
If you and your friends have a long history of dialogue about what offends whom, and everybody's opinions are out in the open, it becomes much like a comedy show - you're expecting what's to come, and have consented to it.
However, in any public space (yes, that includes the internet) there is a certain level of decency that is expected of people. There are certain comments and sets of language which are commonly considered offensive (I believe those of you saying "well, I just shouldn't say anything since I might offend somebody somewhere" are being deliberately ignorant.) because they offend wide swaths of people (entire subcultures, ethnic groups, genders, or other groupings of people who are considered a minority or have been oppressed in the past due to factors such as race or gender). Comments such as these are considered inappropriate and offensive for a reason, and it is not on the listener to "man the fuck up" or "stop whining so much." It's on you to be a more considerate speaker and learn the rules of society.
What the.. You're expecting decency out of people in the internet? o_O
On topic: Being offended by things other people say is silly. People need to learn to deal with opinions of other people rather then try to get them banned. The same goes for "banned" words. Yes I'm not an american and yes I don't get why "the n word" is soooo horrible for you people.
Not expecting so much as "foolishly wishing for."
On topic: You don't understand because you have never been a black man in America. This is what I mean - you need to learn to understand the context of people who are not you. This is part of having cultural awareness and sensitivity.
I grew up with ginger hair, a minority group, and don't think because it's only hair think that stops kids abusing you. Ask any kid with ginger hair.. I mean after all we have no souls right? we deserve it. You can be charged for racism for abusing skin colour, but not hair colour, so that gives kids free reign to bully others, but you know.. I can't actually think at any time I've been offended by someone calling me things to do with my hair colour after about age 5. I often told people if they were going to insult me, at least make it funny. Calling me a "ginger dickhead" "ginger wanker" or whatever, just show's a lack of imagination, and neither is funny or offensive. You learn to roll with the punches, my best friend at school was fat. We used to spend hours just verbally abusing each other for something to do.
People need to grow up, and either learn to respond in kind, or suck it up. I bet I have received more verbal abuse on a daily basis because of such a stupid thing as my hair colour, than most of the people who complain about being offended ever have in their lives. That's what offends me, I learnt to live with the torrent of abuse, and embrace it, even as a child. If any adults ever bitch about being offended in front of me.. they can go straight to hell for all I care.
and people can say it's all a jest about hair colour.. My own mother (who is also ginger) got told by one of her friends.. "no offense, but I hope I don't have ginger children, If I did I'd probably throw them in a canal." Now that is some venomous shit without any kind of basis.
On March 27 2012 01:58 andrewlt wrote: In the context of TL, that argument is often used as an excuse by people who post stupid and immature things that got them moderated. Whenever I see somebody talking about other people getting offended easily, I picture a shitty poster whining about TL's moderation.
QFT.
It's rare for a choice or words to offend me. What offends me is stupidity and immaturity. And I have little sympathy for people that get called out for it.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.)
On March 27 2012 01:36 AwayFromLife wrote: There's definitely a difference between getting offended at comments that don't mean anything and comments that are meant to be scathing and offensive.
I definitely disagree. Words are just words. Getting offended over any of them, regardless of their intent, is foolish.
Look at it this way, if the words you feel offended over were not meant to be offensive, you're overreacting. If they WERE meant to be offensive, you're playing right into their hand.
Words may be words, but the intent is what matters.
I don't call black people niggers (there, I typed it, happy?) for the same reason I don't call most women whores. Sure, it's just a word, it doesn't really mean anything, but when you say it, you are in essence belittling their character. And if they aren't doing anything to deserve such belittlement, then yes they are allowed to be upset at your use of it.
On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote: Context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnSByCb8lqY He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
This is a good example of context, and of what is commonly understood to be offensive or not. Christians, especially American Christians, are the dominant power in the country. They are not persecuted (despite their pleas to the contrary) in any practical way. I can't think of the last time somebody was lynched for being Christian. (Feuds between Catholics and Protestants don't count, that was a mutual exchange.) Jewish people have had it slightly worse, so I would consider them gray area. But making anti-Muslim comments would be considered offensive since good, honest Muslims are honestly discriminated against in many parts of the country.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.)
I honestly don't get the mentality of one extreme or the other extreme absolutely no compromise.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
On March 27 2012 01:36 AwayFromLife wrote: There's definitely a difference between getting offended at comments that don't mean anything and comments that are meant to be scathing and offensive.
I definitely disagree. Words are just words. Getting offended over any of them, regardless of their intent, is foolish.
Look at it this way, if the words you feel offended over were not meant to be offensive, you're overreacting. If they WERE meant to be offensive, you're playing right into their hand.
Words may be words, but the intent is what matters.
I don't call black people niggers (there, I typed it, happy?) for the same reason I don't call most women whores. Sure, it's just a word, it doesn't really mean anything, but when you say it, you are in essence belittling their character. And if they aren't doing anything to deserve such belittlement, then yes they are allowed to be upset at your use of it.
-"You think I'm a criminal because I'm black? That's offensive!" "No sir, we pat everyone down in the airport."
you know racism is still a pretty big issue, innocent black people get accused on a much higher rate than white people, i don't think you actually should be saying it's stupid to get offended by such things; imo it's far more common for people to go "OOH BLACK PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE" even though there's a real issue than it's the other way around. I think being offended is a good phrase, like has been said you have the right to get offended it doesn't automatically mean you should get to impose restrictions on whatever is offending you though.
I dont know if it's called racism that more blacks are accused than whites. 1 out of 8 black men are in prison in the US, around as many in prison as in college. Them getting accused just because they are black would be kind of racist.
that might be correct, but the reason as to why they are overrepresented in prison compared to white men is a class-issue rather than a skin-coulour-issue. If you look at it this way; most white/hispanic/black/whatever men/women in prison belongs to the american underclass.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
People, like Stephen-whatshisname, try to generalize moral and ethics, which is just downright ignorant. As I see it, it's a part of your human empathy to give a shit. If you dont thats fine but dont be a dick about it because whats the purpose? The quote OP presented is, to me, a very populist, very modern, narcissist viewpoint. The sad thing is when people take it as more than just that - a viewpoint.
On March 27 2012 01:58 Lassepetri wrote: Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
What a ridiculous way of thinking. Idealism is strong in this one.
What a ridiculous answer. Shall we find our clubs of idiocy and start hacking at each other? Oh wait thats right we don't have to.
On March 27 2012 01:58 Lassepetri wrote: Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
The fact that you don't know who Stephen Fry is offends me.
I believe in a simple answer to this.. Anything that offends you is your problem. If something offends you, stop being around that "it" or figure out some way to stop being offended by it if you insist on being around it..
I've been offended by things previously which no longer offends me, because I used my mind to think & ponder why something offended me and thus I uprooted the cause & as such I was never offended again.. .. .. by that which I uprooted.
and I still get offended to this day by many things, doesn't mean I cry "you offended me!" I merely see many tree's and stumps in myself in which to uproot because the problem lies in me, not in that which offends me.
I'm tired of hearing from privileged white males being tired of other people being offended. I don't give a fuck whether anyone is offended. What I care about is harm.
This fantastic blog post echoes my view and argues very elegantly for taking care of the cultural narratives we cultivate:
On March 27 2012 02:35 nalgene wrote: Isn't there something called "Fighting Words" in the US...?
yes, its the reason you can be arrested for attempting to incite a riot. if the words are meant to incite to violent action, they aren't protected speech
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
I can't believe the tendency of people to throw everything into two categories. Do you all have borderline personality?
Perhaps instead of looking at it like, "People should never be offended," or "People should always be allowed to be offended." You instead try a more middle of the road approach like, "Each case should be individually examined for the legitimacy of the offense."
Irrationally causing harm to other people, regardless of whether or not it is intentional will almost always be offensive.
I totally agree that it is a whine. When someone says they are offended, they really mean their feelings were hurt. So fucking what? Feelings get hurt, that's part of life. If you intentionally offend someone to hurt their feelings it's not nice. But there is no law against being mean to someone. In fact, capitalism encourages not caring about feelings, but only about profits. People act like they have a right not to be offended, but they don't. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt. When you live in a society, it will happen. 7 billion people can't all get their way.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:01 Djzapz wrote: Was just going to post that one from Steve Hughes. Offended people should just grow up, at least a lot of the time.
This topic has been discussed to death on these forums. I've seen those videos at least four times on these forums within the last year. X_X
On March 27 2012 02:36 Chessz wrote: I'm tired of hearing from privileged white males being tired of other people being offended. I don't give a fuck whether anyone is offended. What I care about is harm.
This fantastic blog post echoes my view and argues very elegantly for taking care of the cultural narratives we cultivate:
Maybe you'd prefer hearing it from privileged black people? How about privileged brown people? Maybe even privileged purple people? Ooh! How about green!?
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
People could be more polite and sensitive but on the other hand there is a lot of hysteria about being offended, just as if it gave people rights, just as the quotation in the opening post said. Some people just like being offended, which, IMHO, is a social problem if not actually a mild personality/psychic disorder, at least in the more extreme cases (like the woman getting offended because someone wanted to lift something for her). Or it can be a form of emotional blackmail. I feel sort of mildly offended actually by that kind of behaviour, which is a twist, I guess.
On March 27 2012 02:38 goldenwitch wrote: I can't believe the tendency of people to throw everything into two categories. Do you all have borderline personality?
Perhaps instead of looking at it like, "People should never be offended," or "People should always be allowed to be offended." You instead try a more middle of the road approach like, "Each case should be individually examined for the legitimacy of the offense."
Irrationally causing harm to other people, regardless of whether or not it is intentional will almost always be offensive.
I'm one of those people who say "People are allowed to be offended all they want, it never matters in the slightest and it's entirely their problem". Anything that's more relevant, like if actual harm is caused to the person, then it matters obviously - but at that point they're no longer merely offended - something ACTUALLY bad is occurring and we've moved beyond "offensive".
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
On March 27 2012 02:26 Gingerninja wrote: I grew up with ginger hair, a minority group, and don't think because it's only hair think that stops kids abusing you. Ask any kid with ginger hair.. I mean after all we have no souls right? we deserve it. You can be charged for racism for abusing skin colour, but not hair colour, so that gives kids free reign to bully others, but you know.. I can't actually think at any time I've been offended by someone calling me things to do with my hair colour after about age 5. I often told people if they were going to insult me, at least make it funny. Calling me a "ginger dickhead" "ginger wanker" or whatever, just show's a lack of imagination, and neither is funny or offensive. You learn to roll with the punches, my best friend at school was fat. We used to spend hours just verbally abusing each other for something to do.
People need to grow up, and either learn to respond in kind, or suck it up. I bet I have received more verbal abuse on a daily basis because of such a stupid thing as my hair colour, than most of the people who complain about being offended ever have in their lives. That's what offends me, I learnt to live with the torrent of abuse, and embrace it, even as a child. If any adults ever bitch about being offended in front of me.. they can go straight to hell for all I care.
and people can say it's all a jest about hair colour.. My own mother (who is also ginger) got told by one of her friends.. "no offense, but I hope I don't have ginger children, If I did I'd probably throw them in a canal." Now that is some venomous shit without any kind of basis.
So anyway, taking verbal abuse is unhealthy for the psyche.
For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable. It also doesn't mean people can say what they want and go about their merry way. If you're a comedian and say something the management of the place you're doing your show at doesn't like, they have every right to kick you out. But that's it.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
I'm sorry, but why is being offended bad? Seems to me it's more about specific instances where people shouldn't be offended, not against the entire idea.
No, I don't like it when rush limbaugh calls a woman a slut for discussing serious health issues. I don't like it when gays are compared to bestiality. I don't like it when people institutionalize or trivialize rape, murder, and slavery. That offends me as a human being.
Human dignity is a real thing that people try to destroy in the real world. "Being offended" seems to me like it just means you are standing up for human dignity. There's nothing bad about that.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:47 DoubleReed wrote: I'm sorry, but why is being offended bad? Seems to me it's more about specific instances where people shouldn't be offended, not against the entire idea.
No, I don't like it when rush limbaugh calls a woman a slut for discussing serious health issues. I don't like it when gays are compared to bestiality. I don't like it when people institutionalize or trivialize rape, murder, and slavery. That offends me as a human being.
Human dignity is a real thing that people try to destroy in the real world. "Being offended" seems to me like it just means you are standing up for human dignity. There's nothing bad about that.
Yes but why do you give Rush Limbaugh's words any value? For that matter why give any value to the words of any republican or religious person.
The starcraft community is patheticly easy to "offend". they get butthurt over anything, and they have proven their net nanny status in that one they smell blood, they will comb through all your replays, all your chat logs and any other information you make public in order to set you aflame. Witch Hunt central.
I agree with Stephen Fry, personally. Right to free speech, and all that. There are a lot of people who would silence you just because they don't agree with you, on any subject, let alone being offensive because you're mad or making racy jokes.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
On March 27 2012 02:36 Chessz wrote: I'm tired of hearing from privileged white males being tired of other people being offended. I don't give a fuck whether anyone is offended. What I care about is harm.
This fantastic blog post echoes my view and argues very elegantly for taking care of the cultural narratives we cultivate:
Maybe you'd prefer hearing it from privileged black people? How about privileged brown people? Maybe even privileged purple people? Ooh! How about green!?
Seriously did you read the post, jokes about privileged groups don't actually offend as much because it doesn't align with our implicit biases and power structures the way disparaging comments about marginalized groups do, which strengthens bias and institutionalization, so yes, it absolutely matters that the staunchest defenders of this viewpoint are white.
On March 27 2012 02:26 Gingerninja wrote: I grew up with ginger hair, a minority group, and don't think because it's only hair think that stops kids abusing you. Ask any kid with ginger hair.. I mean after all we have no souls right? we deserve it. You can be charged for racism for abusing skin colour, but not hair colour, so that gives kids free reign to bully others, but you know.. I can't actually think at any time I've been offended by someone calling me things to do with my hair colour after about age 5. I often told people if they were going to insult me, at least make it funny. Calling me a "ginger dickhead" "ginger wanker" or whatever, just show's a lack of imagination, and neither is funny or offensive. You learn to roll with the punches, my best friend at school was fat. We used to spend hours just verbally abusing each other for something to do.
People need to grow up, and either learn to respond in kind, or suck it up. I bet I have received more verbal abuse on a daily basis because of such a stupid thing as my hair colour, than most of the people who complain about being offended ever have in their lives. That's what offends me, I learnt to live with the torrent of abuse, and embrace it, even as a child. If any adults ever bitch about being offended in front of me.. they can go straight to hell for all I care.
and people can say it's all a jest about hair colour.. My own mother (who is also ginger) got told by one of her friends.. "no offense, but I hope I don't have ginger children, If I did I'd probably throw them in a canal." Now that is some venomous shit without any kind of basis.
So anyway, taking verbal abuse is unhealthy for the psyche.
Not at all, I'm pretty well adjusted, I just don't get offended by people making fun of others. If there's is humour there, laugh. If there is not humour, then why not? People take life too seriously. If someone is being offensive in a hateful manner, then there is a problem with that individual that needs fixed, banning the words themselves does nothing for the feelings that causes it, and or the social problems that created the hatred in the first place. If someone is offended by a joke that was not meant to be hateful, then they really need to check themselves and grow up.
On March 27 2012 02:01 Djzapz wrote: Was just going to post that one from Steve Hughes. Offended people should just grow up, at least a lot of the time.
But again, like I said, it depends. Should that audience have just "grown up" when Michael Richards (the Kramer guy) stood on stage and just said the N-word repeatedly? No, I think they were well within their rights to get pissed at him.
What's your rationale for that? Just because? The audience shouldn't give a fuck, it doesn't hurt them unless they let it.
It wasn't that he used the word in a joke, he was actually genuinely being racist for the sake of being racist, putting another person down because of the color of their skin. And everyone should have just stayed silent and condoned it?
No, that's fucked up, imo.
Now that, that's fucked up. But really, the guy he is insulting isnt doing very well either. Countering racism with racism is not the way to go. However, it is everyones right to be offended as well. But the correct response is to shrug and avoid. Or try in a court of law (as in this case). So I will admit. I was offended by that (prior hate towards his work might influence). But thats fine. I'll just be disgusted by him as a person too.
On March 27 2012 02:47 DoubleReed wrote: I'm sorry, but why is being offended bad? Seems to me it's more about specific instances where people shouldn't be offended, not against the entire idea.
No, I don't like it when rush limbaugh calls a woman a slut for discussing serious health issues. I don't like it when gays are compared to bestiality. I don't like it when people institutionalize or trivialize rape, murder, and slavery. That offends me as a human being.
Human dignity is a real thing that people try to destroy in the real world. "Being offended" seems to me like it just means you are standing up for human dignity. There's nothing bad about that.
Yes but why do you give Rush Limbaugh's words any value? For that matter why give any value to the words of any republican or religious person.
Because some of those people write policy that affect people's lives, that's why.
Anyway, are you supposed to only be offended by valuable speech? Who says that?
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote: Context:
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Frankly if you think you can justify nuking Japan twice with mathematics, most people here will agree that you're coming off as stupid. Even if it was justified (and I'm not saying it was), using mathematics like that is just speculative and not very useful. It's not far off from numerology really.
Stephen Fry, the man is a legend! Much respect to him.
But yeah it is rather silly to get offended by words/insults, i dont i just go with the flow. The only thing that angers me is my nerd rage :3 damn games.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote: Context:
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote: Context:
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Frankly if you think you can justify nuking Japan twice with mathematics, most people here will agree that you're coming off as stupid. Even if it was justified (and I'm not saying it was), using mathematics like that is just speculative and not very useful. It's not far off from numerology really.
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I literally fail to comprehend this logic (really a lack thereof).
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote: Context:
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Trying to derail the thread into a religious debate + insulting fellow debaters by telling them they come off as stupid.
dont know if its related to the topic..but today i went to a big supermarket with my school bagpack, and the security lady asked me to put it in a special bag they have.. i told her no , becouse all women are allowed to take their bags/purses and even a lot of men carry bags or sth with them... i decided to leave... but i saw there was a second place where i could enter while i was leaving..the security guy there said nothing..
im 21,male,dont look like i migth be trying to shoplift xD
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson.
Who started the college system? Oh yeah, the Catholic Church.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
What organization runs most of the colleges and private school institutions (at least in America)? I think you see where I'm going with this.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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?
On March 27 2012 01:58 Lassepetri wrote: Well thats marvelous for Stephen Fry - whoever he is - as long as he doesn't start pretending he's talking for everyone. If he think he can bypass social norms by thinking like that, then he can go ahead for all I care.
The fact that you don't know who Stephen Fry is offends me.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote: Context:
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Mods can you allow no moderation here apart from unnecessary spam please?
It is all about delivery, I can make black jokes to my black friends, call my german friends nazis and they wouldn't care, in fact laugh it off and return the favour.
Racism with the intent of hurt is different but it's not much of an issue in Australia, contrary to popular belief.
I don't understand how any1 can take offence to comments made on the internet.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Frankly if you think you can justify nuking Japan twice with mathematics, most people here will agree that you're coming off as stupid. Even if it was justified (and I'm not saying it was), using mathematics like that is just speculative and not very useful. It's not far off from numerology really.
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I literally fail to comprehend this logic (really a lack thereof).
What the hell are you even doing?
Yes, mathematics deal in facts, but you can use it in non-factual ways. You keep insulting my intelligence, but you're basically saying that maths can justify, single-handed, mass murder of Japanese people?
Let me explain why you're wrong, and a douchebag for throwing insults at me. Since social sciences are inexact, you don't get to explain of analyze events with mathematics. How many people died, how many were saved, what if things had happened differently? Mathematicians would be disgusted by your desecration of their field.
And stop insulting me. Show us those magic mathematics you're talking about, you joke, and people here will tell you why they're meaningless. Honestly, I posted 3 lines that were perfectly coherent, you called them incoherent in a really aggressive way, and you're expressing really ridiculous beliefs. I think you're probably mentally ill, or full out trolling me.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson.
Who started the college system? Oh yeah, the Catholic Church.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
What organization runs most of the colleges and private school institutions (at least in America)? I think you see where I'm going with this.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Yep, those 3 year old kids and hospitalized elderly folks totally deserved to be killed for something they didn't know about or understand, and should be counted as soldiers. Your logic makes sense.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...]
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about. The church has a place in todays society but pretending they've been "the good guys" through history is just pure ignorance.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson.
Who started the college system? Oh yeah, the Catholic Church.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
What organization runs most of the colleges and private school institutions (at least in America)? I think you see where I'm going with this.
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Universities came from the ideas of "guilds". They didn't start shit, they just made a new one.
You know nothing about physics, a Catholic priest built upon the idea of an expanding universe, he didn't pull the theory out of his ass by himself.
No the Catholic church was the cause of the Dark Ages and stopped all scientific progress, you should learn to read books.
Yes science said that the Earth was flat at one point because that was the strongest theory at the time, as new things were developed science changed. Several millions of people still take the bible literally.
They support it somewhat... They're the richest institution in the fucking world and their donations per overall capita is fucking low as shit.
Purely religious colleges always suck shit, nor do they make up the majority of universities. Who gives a shit if they have more private schools if the private schools are supporting the fucking retarded idea of a God.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
Peoples skin is too thin I think. Everybody is worried about being politically correct. Fitting in with the status quo. Not asserting themselves out of fear for stepping on other peoples toes.
Lots of it is not people actually being offended but rather intolerant of others with major differences to them.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 01:36 AwayFromLife wrote: There's definitely a difference between getting offended at comments that don't mean anything and comments that are meant to be scathing and offensive.
I definitely disagree. Words are just words. Getting offended over any of them, regardless of their intent, is foolish.
Look at it this way, if the words you feel offended over were not meant to be offensive, you're overreacting. If they WERE meant to be offensive, you're playing right into their hand.
This is the crux of the matter. Inevitably we are going to have an emotional response to some words or phrases, but by doing so you are playing right into the hands of those who said the words. Why does the Westboro Baptist church keep doing what they do, because it gets them attention. STOP giving them the attention. You cannot convince the racists and fundamentalists to change, so stop giving them the attention. Instead focus on promoting the positive agenda. Give attention to those that make a positive difference. Problem is our media is so screwed up. There will always be people who are racist, religious fanatics, or otherwise socially "insane," what we can control is how much attention they get.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
You barge in here and you call everyone stupid and you refuse to provide a source. You're just out of control kid.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
Ahh im too lazy or stupid to comprehend the insults you're slinging. Man your arguments sure are compelling!
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
That was a pretty good video. I totally forgot that guy even existed til this reminded me. A lot of great points in it. People can be offended all they want but it's completely meaningless, and nothing should happen because of it, or else you are infringing on someone else.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
He's a megalomaniac, simple as that.
False.
I have delusions of grandeur from my hypo-manic and manic episodes.
Although that doesn't make me a megalomaniac.
I've stated facts the entire time, a megalomaniac runs around without facts shouting out shit that isn't reasonable in practice or theory.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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?
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
Also, I'm a bit confused about what you want actually... you first post:
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
later:
On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote: And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Which to me seems to hint that you indeed find some things to not be acceptable. Or do you mean that while it is not nice to say some things, it should still not be enforced?
I find people talking about restricting freedom of speech, offensive.
Does that mean we should shut this thread down because it is offensive?
No, because you only intend to have it enforced in certain cases, with certain groups. Asking the government to pick sides against other parts of its society is not going to create a better, more harmonious society.
The only thing you are going to do is sow more discord, this time under the radar because the opposition can't even speak back without being silenced.
The government shouldn't pick sides like that. Learn to be big boys and talk it out with your words. If you feel offended, skip over it.
Stop trying to think that your hurt feelings are justification to strangle freedom of speech to death.
Ugh, how eager some of you are to destroy that which makes the first world so great. You inherit a fortune and now you are trying to find ways to squander it.
Past generations had to fight for this right. Expect to have a fight if you want to destroy it. A verbal fight, if that doesn't cause too much offense of course.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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...
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
He's a megalomaniac, simple as that.
False.
I have delusions of grandeur from my hypo-manic and manic episodes.
Although that doesn't make me a megalomaniac.
I've stated facts the entire time, a megalomaniac runs around without facts shouting out shit that isn't reasonable in practice or theory.
Again, may I recommend a dictionary?
Oh. Let me guess, you think you're actually spewing out facts, because you're calling them facts. I understand.
On March 27 2012 02:43 Dagobert wrote: For the same reason religion should always be separate from governmental affairs, free speech should be upheld at all times. Because one day, you might find yourself and your religion/opinion in the minority, and I bet you would not like it if you didn't have the means to oppose the majority just because you didn't want the minority to oppose you while you were in the majority.
That doesn't mean people can say what they want. A threat ("I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker") is unacceptable.
Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
On March 27 2012 02:47 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Mystical man in the sky < Police, Fire Departments, Army, Libraries, Education etc...
And using nuclear weapons on civilians was justified, look at the math behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
He's a megalomaniac, simple as that.
False.
I have delusions of grandeur from my hypo-manic and manic episodes.
Although that doesn't make me a megalomaniac.
I've stated facts the entire time, a megalomaniac runs around without facts shouting out shit that isn't reasonable in practice or theory.
Again, may I recommend a dictionary?
A quick glance at your posting history shows that you're definitely going to win the negative nancy award for 2012. I enjoyed making fun of the way you argue, "retard!, idiot! stupid!, i dont need to link facts to my argument! I'm not lazy for half assing my arguments and not linking facts! You're all lazy because you don't know how to read! GRRRRR!".
But now I realize you're just a sad person.
I'm sorry that you're sad =(. I used to be sad and angry all the time too, for really dumb reasons! Look at my first posts, I was awful! But then I did this thing called growing up, I matured and was able to actually argue with people without resorting to personal attacks, and it was rad.
On March 27 2012 02:47 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
[quote] Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:47 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Yep. It would be strange, wouldn't it. What if Christians became a minority, and they got put them in jail when they told other people "you're going to burn in hell for eternity".
I mean, that's kind of a rude thing to say, but it's accepted I guess. You get to threaten children with hellfire but you don't get to make jokes about skin color.
[quote] Oh give me a break, maths behind a moral debate, be serious.
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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...
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...]
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
Oppression is what a western civilization in theory should be straying away from.
So you saying "They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive". Is an oxymoron.
Galileo was going to be burned alive although because of his sponsors (who also gave money to the church) the church couldn't go through with it because of monetary issues. Trust me, the church has had no problem killing people for stating facts or going against them in any way, shape or form.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
Also, I'm a bit confused about what you want actually... you first post:
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote: And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing.
Which to me seems to hint that you indeed find some things to not be acceptable. Or do you mean that while it is not nice to say some things, it should still not be enforced?
Sorry if you're confused. I believe everyone should have freedom of speech with no censorship. That doesnt mean I dont find certain behaviours untolerable. But whether or not I find it offensive if someone holds a sign saying "God hates fags" at a soldiers funeral doesnt waver the fact that I believe in freedom of speech.
On March 27 2012 02:50 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
Actually you're wrong on how godwins law applies.
Let's assume that what you're saying is true...
You still have no point, yes if his "law" does stand true then what? Have we supported his "law"? Is that your point? If so what the fuck does that have to do with any of this?
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it.
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...]
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
1) See my edit, he unified the theory but it's not strictly his discovery. I was thinking of another theory. My bad 2) Very harsh indeed. 3) I was linking to non profit organizations, that's why your search differs. I do find it funny that Church charities turn a profit tho.. 4) Stubborn cause he was right. If the church didn't want to accept it that's their problem.. arresting him for talking bad about them is kinda bad don't you think?
Summary: The church isn't the good guys in history as your initial post would paint them out to be. They've done some shitty things too.
Anyway we're far off topic. Talk free people, censuring yourself is not a good idea for the mere potential of offending someone else.
On March 27 2012 02:50 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
I feel like its just situational, Yes there are those events like the ones you cited that people get offended over stupid shit that they shouldn't get offended over, but there are those situations where shit is actually offensive. The quote feels like he just wants people to stop "seeking" to be offended.
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...]
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
Oppression is what a western civilization in theory should be straying away from.
So you saying "They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive". Is an oxymoron.
Galileo was going to be burned alive although because of his sponsors (who also gave money to the church) the church couldn't go through with it because of monetary issues. Trust me, the church has had no problem killing people for stating facts or going against them in any way, shape or form.
You're the one saying bombing Japan is justified to win the war, but setting up a strict and restrictive caste system to keep the people from being killed horrifically is past the line? You have an strong sense of hypocrisy.
Galileo was never to be burned at the stake. One of his predecessors in heliocentricism was, but he also outright blasphemed the church during a time where that was illegal (which it isn't anymore in case you're not up on current matters). He was placed under house arrest, your conspiracy theories non-withstanding.
Why are people talking about censorship? It really has very little to do with anything. I think there are people who will freely be offended by a person openly denying the holocaust. But they don't have to say "you aren't allowed to do that." Of course not. You can deny the holocaust all you want and i can be offended all I want. Censorship doesn't really apply.
There's nothing wrong with being offended. Sure, there are people who try to get offended and are dumb but so what? That doesn't mean that being offended is inherently stupid.
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible.
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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.
On March 27 2012 02:58 MaddogStarCraft wrote: [quote]
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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...
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.
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?
No you're perfectly right as far as I'm concerned. I still can't believe some people would protest against a dead person.. If it boils down to it I'd let Hitlers inner circle have a proper damn funeral without anyone interfering like those people did. This is about respect for other people's right to mourn though, I'm not sure if you can apply this here on this topic =/
I'd consider shouting insults and protesting on someones funeral a VERY valid harassment arrest.
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.
Can we just stop addressing MaddogSC and continue on with the conversation? He's completely distracted this thread. I think it's an interesting discussion topic, and would like to see more relevant responses than sift through three pages of gunk.
To address the point, I'll just go ahead and say that I'm an advocate for free speech. Unless a person's seriously afflicted by a phrase or action to a point of a mental/physical harm, then speech can be easily casted away as it is cast out.
Its true people today are offended by the tiniest critism , maybe they do need to grow a pair and roll with the punches.
But there is always a line we do not cross, freedom of expression is not an excuse for you to say inappropriate or even hateful thing without reprecussion (shouting g_s the j_ws! or do hitler salutes came to mind).
Some words/action are just not productive and are designed to offend / discriminate or belittle specific group of people, logically speaking do we even need to do/say these things?
And lastly insulting people often came down articulation of your dislike towards them, not everyone is capable of doing so. When words fails you can imagine what will come next
On March 27 2012 03:41 ShamTao wrote: Can we just stop addressing MaddogSC and continue on with the conversation? He's completely distracted this thread. I think it's an interesting discussion topic, and would like to see more relevant responses than shift through three pages of gunk.
To address the point, I'll just go ahead and say that I'm an advocate for free speech. Unless a person's seriously afflicted by a phrase or action to a point of a mental/physical harm, then speech can be easily casted away as it is cast out.
I've continued to post about the OP.
My post about the topic in the OP is what started the whole religion debate.
It derived from my response to the OP.
Arguments are derived from other arguments, get over it.
On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote: Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
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.
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
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...
On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote: [quote] Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs.
Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths.
So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's.
That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization.
Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky.
I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past.
Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot.
Yes but the government provides something?
Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins.
Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas.
But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such.
Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...]
But hey, keep your blinders on.
Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest.
Who was shunned and ignored for ages. EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery
Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again.
The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol.
Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again.
Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time.
Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure.
Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out.
The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons.
Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit.
Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
1) See my edit, he unified the theory but it's not strictly his discovery. I was thinking of another theory. My bad 2) Very harsh indeed. 3) I was linking to non profit organizations, that's why your search differs. I do find it funny that Church charities turn a profit tho.. 4) Stubborn cause he was right. If the church didn't want to accept it that's their problem.. arresting him for talking bad about them is kinda bad don't you think?
Summary: The church isn't the good guys in history as your initial post would paint them out to be. They've done some shitty things too.
Anyway we're far off topic. Talk free people, censuring yourself is not a good idea for the mere potential of offending someone else.
1) Saw that a bit late, sorry. But it still stands, as no scientific discovery is built without predecssors. He was, in fact, the first to propose the expanding universe theory, despite the research related that he used beforehand. But that's not the point of it in the first place, it was to dissuade the idea that the Church is a science hating organization. 2) Yes, but (take it as you will), I'd rather have had that than have all written and recorded documents destroyed by rampaging scoundrels. 3) Profits go to paying Priests and upkeep on churches and the like. It's not to just buy things, it's generally for community works, restoration, and housing. 4) Well yeah Different times and what not, and no (relevant!) free speech during those times. He basically gave the finger to the ruling authorities in front of everyone in the know. It'd be like taking a dump in the Oval Office on camera.
Everyone's done some shitty things. The Church isn't always the good guys, but making it out to be the worst organization in the world is just as blind. It's run by humans, who do both good and bad, and have a large enough history to have plenty of examples of both.
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.
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 03:37 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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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 03:45 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Yea the article confused me too. We do the right to be offended. Being offended is not that big a deal. It's perfectly within your rights to criticize, ridicule, and condemn others. Mockery and irony are usually effective methods.
The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
On March 27 2012 04:38 liberal wrote: The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
What does this have to do with anything? What a random thing to say.
What's with the weird equivalence of Being Offended = Censorship. You realize Being Offended => Protesting which is a core American value.
I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
People stating they are offended/irritated by other people's statement of being offended.
...
None of it is really surprising and the quote carries little value. Both sides are silly, and it's sad, yet predictable, that this is a contentious topic.
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
What about a law that pays men less because they are lazy? Would you be offended by that? Or would you not care?
On March 27 2012 04:36 DoubleReed wrote: Yea the article confused me too. We do the right to be offended. Being offended is not that big a deal. It's perfectly within your rights to criticize, ridicule, and condemn others. Mockery and irony are usually effective methods.
What's wrong with telling someone to shut up?
No you don't have the right to be offended. You have the privilege to be offended. Not the same thing. That's why the article warned the reader that it shouldn't be read by people too stupid to tell the difference.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
On March 27 2012 04:36 DoubleReed wrote: Yea the article confused me too. We do the right to be offended. Being offended is not that big a deal. It's perfectly within your rights to criticize, ridicule, and condemn others. Mockery and irony are usually effective methods.
What's wrong with telling someone to shut up?
No you don't have the right to be offended. You have the privilege to be offended. Not the same thing. That's why the article warned the reader that it shouldn't be read by people too stupid to tell the difference.
No it's a right. Freedom of Speech. I have the right to say "I am offended!!" all fucking day long.
Just like I have the right to say that sociology is bullshit and that article is bullshit. Big deal.
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
Anyone who makes comments like "Females should get in the kitchen" are either attention whores seeking attention through shock value or are actually legitimate misogynistic assholes. They say such comments with the intent of being offensive.
On March 27 2012 04:38 liberal wrote: The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
What does this have to do with anything? What a random thing to say.
What's with the weird equivalence of Being Offended = Censorship. You realize Being Offended => Protesting which is a core American value.
You think everyone is content with just being offended and expressing their own opinion? You really don't think it goes beyond that? Even once we get people fired for speaking, we are getting into murky waters. Not strict government censorship, but effective social censorship.
Give it a few more time zones changes, I guarantee we'll hear calls for outright censorship by the government.
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
Anyone who makes comments like "Females should get in the kitchen" are either attention whores seeking attention through shock value or are actually legitimate misogynistic assholes. They say such comments with the intent of being offensive.
I agree, but that's not the point I was making so let's try to stay on topic shall we and probably not, they say them with the intention of being funny, they're not supposed to be genuine insults to women, they know society has evolved, which is the root of the joke...
On March 27 2012 04:42 rea1ity wrote: I don't give a shit if anyone is offended and I don't get offended. Remember that old saying, words will never hurt me?
It's just stupid. How could I feel personally offended if someone insults my race, gender, hair-type, height, weight, lifestyle or anything else meant in a demeaning manor, why would I give a shit about what someone else thinks?
Wrong: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Oh, I am so offended!
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: No we aren't, because ____________
Right: Woman: Males are so lazy! Male: Thanks for sharing your views, but I don't care.
Anyone who get's offended by statements such as "White men can't jump", "White men shouldn't listen to hip-hop", "Females should get in the kitchen" are just 100% attention whores.
What about a law that pays men less because they are lazy? Would you be offended by that? Or would you not care?
I wouldn't be offended, why the fuck would I? I'd question it though. What are you trying to say?
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote: You DON'T have the Right to be Offended in America
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.
First--the bold part. The atheist has a right to call the Christian a liar just as much as the Christian has the right to preach. Both parties can choose to ignore it or be offended. The atheist cannot punch or threaten the Christian, and the Christian cannot punch or threaten the atheist. The atheist calling the Christian a liar is not suppressing his freedom of speech--he is simply expressing himself just like the Christian.
Second--the rights granted in the Constitution (more specifically in the Bill of Rights) only protect you from the government. If a private person infringes on your freedom of speech, they may violate some federal or state law, but not the Constitution. If the police show up and muzzle you when you are trying to give a speech, that is a violation of your freedom of speech. If a private citizen says, "Shut up or I will punch you in the face," the Bill of Rights does not have any application--but there are laws for threatening people with imminent physical harm. If a worker at Apple gets called into his bosses office and the boss says, "If you make one more speech about how Apple victimizes its laborers, you are fired," the Bill of Rights has no application. Even though speech is being suppressed (in fact, political speech--the most protected form of speech) the Bill of Rights does not apply, because the government is not suppressing the speech.
Third--the article fundamentally misstates the rights/privileges distinction in American law. In America, you start with the fundamental idea that you are free to do absolutely everything you want. The Constitution grants the government specific powers to limit this absolute freedom--such as to criminalize certain behaviors (e.g. robbery and murder) and regulate certain activities (immigration and interstate commerce). Some rights were deemed so important that the framers of the Constitution decided to specifically list the freedoms that the government cannot infringe. Free speech is one of these "fundamental rights." You have other rights that are granted by states and counties and municipalities through laws and ordinances. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that someone besides you enables you to do, and that, should they decide to stop, you are without recourse under the law. A good example is driving. States regulate the licensing of drivers, Without the government there would be no roads, no traffic lights, no traffic enforcement, and no emergency services. Therefore, the government can set rules under which it can take away your driving privilege.
Fourth--"the choice to listen" is irrelevant. The article claims that you are free to disregard what you hear/read (the example being the offensive PETA brochure). This choice has no impact on your right to be offended. If someone hands you a note that says, "I have a gun, give me your money or I will kill you," you certainly are free to disregard that note and keep walking. But whether you ignore it or whether you comply is irrelevant with respect to whether you have a right to react in a certain way--whether you ignore it or give the guy your money or faint, it does not impact your right not to be robbed. Certainly we can choose to some extent whether to get mad at something offensive, and what to do about it. But the ability to ignore does not have anything to do whatsoever with whether you have a right to be offended.
Finally, when somebody begins their article like this: "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," you can pretty much assume you are going to read something pretty stupid. Especially if they follow it up by saying, "everyone who disagrees with my point is stupid/ignorant/a dopesmoking buffoon," as they did here. Einstein never said, "I have this theory that is the smartest thing you have ever seen. If you don't get it, you are a moron." He just explained why he was right.
Good ideas and arguments don't need the "I'm smart, agree with me or you're dumb," rhetoric. They stand on their own.
After all, I'm a genius--and if you disagree, you should be sterilized to preserve the gene pool.
On March 27 2012 04:38 liberal wrote: The simple truth of the matter is that the people in modern societies no longer value freedom, even though their ancestors fought so hard to ensure it for them. In the heirarchy of values, it's below even the desire to not be irritated.
What does this have to do with anything? What a random thing to say.
What's with the weird equivalence of Being Offended = Censorship. You realize Being Offended => Protesting which is a core American value.
You think everyone is content with just being offended and expressing their own opinion? You really don't think it goes beyond that? Even once we get people fired for speaking, we are getting into murky waters. Not strict government censorship, but effective social censorship.
Give it a few more time zones changes, I guarantee we'll hear calls for outright censorship by the government.
But it goes both ways. You shouldn't censor offended people and you shouldn't censor offensive people.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Just to correct something even though I generally understand/agree - you have the right to be offended in the same way you have the right to free speech - as expressing being offended is the same as expressing any other idea. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, as that would require other people not saying/doing things you don't agree with.
(29:20 min, seems like the time link didn't work.)
“Either if I see a YouTube film or read a blog, my eyes go below to the bottom of the screen. Because I get so fantastically upset by people who write comments. I don’t even know anybody who writes comments! I think that’s the point. The kind of people who put comments are themselves so weird and unhappy and alone and strange, it’s called ‘trolling’, you know, vicious comments about things. I mean, really weird. Either politically weird or religiously weird or just so intolerant or so desperate to be heard! So offensive! Just pleading: “Please listen to meeee!” they’re saying all the time. “Listen to me!” And of course you don’t want to, and if you do it just gets upset, you might even be tricked into replying with an aggressive reply to some idiot, and with vile opinions about things. Which they will use on a complete… it might be a puppy running around, some random Youtube thing, and it somehow manages to get a thread of nastiness into it. And they just want to be heard, and they are so resentful, and so annoyed, especially due to other people’s blogs, the fact that somebody’s reading someone else’s blog and not theirs is madly enough!” — Stephen Fry
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Just to correct something even though I generally understand/agree - you have the right to be offended in the same way you have the right to free speech - as expressing being offended is the same as expressing any other idea. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, as that would require other people not saying/doing things you don't agree with.
Expressing being offended is excercising the right to free speech. It is using that right to express that you feel the privilege of being offended by the topic. That's not the same as a right to be offended.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Just to correct something even though I generally understand/agree - you have the right to be offended in the same way you have the right to free speech - as expressing being offended is the same as expressing any other idea. You don't have the right to NOT be offended, as that would require other people not saying/doing things you don't agree with.
Expressing being offended is excercising the right to free speech. It is using that right to express that you feel the privilege of being offended by the topic. That's not the same as a right to be offended.
I'm sorry, what? I seriously don't understand the second sentence.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Mr. Black does a great job of explaining it as well:
This article is wrong.
First--the bold part. The atheist has a right to call the Christian a liar just as much as the Christian has the right to preach. Both parties can choose to ignore it or be offended. The atheist cannot punch or threaten the Christian, and the Christian cannot punch or threaten the atheist. The atheist calling the Christian a liar is not suppressing his freedom of speech--he is simply expressing himself just like the Christian.
Second--the rights granted in the Constitution (more specifically in the Bill of Rights) only protect you from the government. If a private person infringes on your freedom of speech, they may violate some federal or state law, but not the Constitution. If the police show up and muzzle you when you are trying to give a speech, that is a violation of your freedom of speech. If a private citizen says, "Shut up or I will punch you in the face," the Bill of Rights does not have any application--but there are laws for threatening people with imminent physical harm. If a worker at Apple gets called into his bosses office and the boss says, "If you make one more speech about how Apple victimizes its laborers, you are fired," the Bill of Rights has no application. Even though speech is being suppressed (in fact, political speech--the most protected form of speech) the Bill of Rights does not apply, because the government is not suppressing the speech.
Third--the article fundamentally misstates the rights/privileges distinction in American law. In America, you start with the fundamental idea that you are free to do absolutely everything you want. The Constitution grants the government specific powers to limit this absolute freedom--such as to criminalize certain behaviors (e.g. robbery and murder) and regulate certain activities (immigration and interstate commerce). Some rights were deemed so important that the framers of the Constitution decided to specifically list the freedoms that the government cannot infringe. Free speech is one of these "fundamental rights." You have other rights that are granted by states and counties and municipalities through laws and ordinances. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that someone besides you enables you to do, and that, should they decide to stop, you are without recourse under the law. A good example is driving. States regulate the licensing of drivers, Without the government there would be no roads, no traffic lights, no traffic enforcement, and no emergency services. Therefore, the government can set rules under which it can take away your driving privilege.
Fourth--"the choice to listen" is irrelevant. The article claims that you are free to disregard what you hear/read (the example being the offensive PETA brochure). This choice has no impact on your right to be offended. If someone hands you a note that says, "I have a gun, give me your money or I will kill you," you certainly are free to disregard that note and keep walking. But whether you ignore it or whether you comply is irrelevant with respect to whether you have a right to react in a certain way--whether you ignore it or give the guy your money or faint, it does not impact your right not to be robbed. Certainly we can choose to some extent whether to get mad at something offensive, and what to do about it. But the ability to ignore does not have anything to do whatsoever with whether you have a right to be offended.
Finally, when somebody begins their article like this: "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," you can pretty much assume you are going to read something pretty stupid. Especially if they follow it up by saying, "everyone who disagrees with my point is stupid/ignorant/a dopesmoking buffoon," as they did here. Einstein never said, "I have this theory that is the smartest thing you have ever seen. If you don't get it, you are a moron." He just explained why he was right.
Good ideas and arguments don't need the "I'm smart, agree with me or you're dumb," rhetoric. They stand on their own.
After all, I'm a genius--and if you disagree, you should be sterilized to preserve the gene pool.
Being offended is expressing being hurt by the statements or sentiments of others. As a person with any class, it would be expected that if you offended someone you're speaking to, you'd care enough to know that and not hurt them more.
Common decency sort of thing. No special rights or nothing though.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
"You lose the right to do something when it infringes on other people's rights," and "If it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right," are both common misconceptions.
First, we have tons of rights that infringe on other people's rights--for example, you have the right to trespass onto someone's property and jump in their pool if you are on fire. It is called the doctrine of necessity. If you damage their property in doing so, you have to pay for it, but you have the right to infringe on their property right (one of the most fundamental rights in America) to prevent your death.
You have the right to refuse to testify against yourself--even if you murder someone, and your testimony is the only evidence against you. There the right to refuse to incriminate trumps a victim's right to justice.
On the other hand, you don't have a right to everything not specifically prohibited by law--cooking zucchini is not prohibited by law, but if Whole Foods refuses to sell you zucchini, your rights have not been violated. The law does not forbid owning an Xbox, but you do not have a right to own an Xbox.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
On March 27 2012 05:13 plogamer wrote: Hi, I'm a privliedged white male. Why is every body so touchy about everything? - This is how I see Stephen Fry and his ilk.
You know what, why is he so offended by people saying they're getting offended - even if they're just whining. Why so touchy about people whining?
He's a gay jew by the way. And is bipolar. Yes, he's so privileged. Your comment doesn't even argue anything about being offended.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
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.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
You clearly don't understand what a privilege is. The distinction between a right and a privilege is simple: a right is inherent, you are assumed to have it always unless it is taken away. A privilege is granted: you are assumed not to have it unless it has been granted specifically. The purpose of the bill of rights is to prevent the government from taking away your rights.
Driving is a privilege: you have to obtain a license to drive. If you aren't given the license, you cannot drive. Being offended is a right: you simply do it. Nobody gives you the ability to be offended.
Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
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.
I'm also confused, isn't it supposed to be "You DON'T have the Right NOT to be Offended", you can are well within your rights to be offended by everything on tv etc, whats unreasonable is to expect never to be offended by anything.
Also the Hitch (RIP) makes one of the best points on free speech I'v ever heard
If you insult something that is out of the persons control and dont apolagize, if they are offended then your a dick. But you dont have to apoligize for things that are within that persons control and are bad or just personal choice you disagree with.
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excercising the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technilogical access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
Or maybe he just has an opinion which many people agree with and he's expressing it. And maybe you've swallowed a little too much in whatever classes you are taking and you are trying too hard to sound smart.
On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excersing the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
On March 27 2012 04:07 Djzapz wrote: [quote] 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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excersing the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "this isn't right, this isn't even wrong."
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.
Except the argument presented has nothing at all to do with that. Beyond the preface it never mentions that anywhere, and the examples have nothing to do with it. It's nonsensical. The article never even defines what a privilege is, it says what a right is then just goes on to make a ridiculously bad argument, and it never anywhere says that being offended is a privilege. I've seen middle school students write better papers.
And about how he said that anyone who doesn't understand it is too stupid: really?
And of course it's a right. Are there any laws specifically barring being offended? No? Perhaps you should look at the bill of rights again, specifically the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's right, it basically says that there are rights of the people that aren't discussed in the constitution, but they are still rights. More or less, if it isn't specifically prohibited by law, it's your right.
He does say that it is a privilege and not a right. And said that most people are too stupid to tell the difference, not that not knowing the difference makes you stupid. He only defines what a right is to show why it is not a right.
You don't have the right to be offended, because that infringes on others rights, and you lose the right to do something when it infringes on others rights. The privilege to be offended does not infringe on someone's rights.
While I don't think it's the most well written article, I at least understand what it is saying. The warning to the readers is there because of how easily people who don't understand it will misinterpret what it is stating.
Being offended, in no way shape or form, infringes on the rights of others. It's just plain WRONG. Censorship infringes on the rights of others, being offended is NOT THE SAME THING. It is simply a feeling. I don't understand how you can argue that certain emotions and feelings are a privilege. Did you at all read the previous posts I (and others made) discussing the problems we had with the article, or did you just not understand them?
Being offended =/= censorship. Expressing a feeling or even having a feeling is not the same thing as actively attempting to shut down the cause of that feeling.
Be offended all you want, that's what the privilege to be offended means. There's nothing stopping you. The right to be offended is different. The law gives people the right to say offensive things, not the right to be offended.
Being offended is covered under free speech. There is no difference between me expressing my thoughts on X subject, and me expressing my outrage over your thoughts on X subject. How you can say expressing your thoughts on one subject is a right and expressing them on another subject is a privilege is beyond me.
Being offended is covered and fine. I didn't say expressing thoughts on one subject is a right and on another is a privilege.
I said that expressing being offended, is excersing the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
This literally makes no sense.
lol.... My brain is starting to hurt trying to understand fyrewolf's point and I've given up completely.
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technilogical access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
Or maybe he just has an opinion which many people agree with and he's expressing it. And maybe you've swallowed a little too much in whatever classes you are taking and you are trying too hard to sound smart.
I can tell by your response that you have critically read and understood what I wrote, and have responded in a moderate manner devoid of emotion.
Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Going back to the quote in the OP, I think it's meaning is somehwat being lost in the post. If someone says or does something offensive and the only consequence of that is you feel offended, then it really shouldn't matter whether you're offended or not. Sure you can tell the person, but they shouldn't be expected to change anything if they don't feel they need to.
If your comments cause offense and some other tangible issue then it's the tangible issue that is once again the problem, and not any kind of right to not be offended.
Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
Your terminology is wrong in the first place. The former is a fact while the latter is an opinion.
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
A reduced capability of critical thought, huh? Since when? And based on what facts, or are you just another person making unfounded assumptions about this supposed "decline of western society" for no particular reason?
On March 27 2012 05:29 Fyrewolf wrote: I said that expressing being offended, is excercising the right to free speech expressing your privilege of being offended by the topic.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
Well, just shrug. You don't believe what they are saying to be true so you have no reason to be offended or even care about what they are saying. If they are happy about telling you that you are going to hell, they are probably not going to stick around in your life for long. Wouldn't want the tarnish on their soul or anything.
What Stephen Fry is referring to is the pointlessness (this word is great, i looks like it was made to be hissed out by Alan Rickman) of the statement "I'm offended by that.". There is no beginning or end to this statement, it just is. It exists without implications or impact on anything and should be avoided. If you are offended by something, you should be pointing out tangible reasons and discuss it. If you can't do that, people should realise that there is no reason to be offended at all.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege.
That's even worse. You're saying we don't have the right even to the freedom of thought.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege.
Wait, so this is even more asinine then I previously thought. You are saying that how I personally feel about something can be regulated and taken away?
You're just explaining the article right, you don't actually believe that pseudo-thoughtcrime nonsense?
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege.
Wait, so this is even more asinine then I previously thought. You are saying that how I personally feel about something can be regulated and taken away?
You're just explaining the article right, you don't actually believe that pseudo-thoughtcrime nonsense?
No no, not that kind of privilege that can be taken away. Perhaps perrogative is a better word for it. And of course I don't believe in thoughtcrime (though I don't think that's what the article was arguing, it was arguing you have a right to speech, but not to infringe upon others speech by claiming offense was taken), I just really like arguing devil's advocate.
EDIT: msl is more eloquent at this than I am, his post is much better at explaining it.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Myles wrote: Ok...simple question fyrewolf to maybe help me understand what you're trying to say.
What is the difference between saying "Twilight sucks" and "I don't like that you said Twilight sucks"? One is expressing an opinion and one is expressing an opinion on an opinion. Is having an opinion on other people's opinions a privilege?
The right is to speech. The privilege is to the idea or feeling being expressed. That's my understanding of what the article was expressing. Saying you are offended is the right of speech, being offended is the privilege.
Wait, so this is even more asinine then I previously thought. You are saying that how I personally feel about something can be regulated and taken away?
You're just explaining the article right, you don't actually believe that pseudo-thoughtcrime nonsense?
No no, not that kind of privilege that can be taken away. Perhaps perrogative is a better word for it. And of course I don't believe in thoughtcrime (though I don't think that's what the article was arguing, it was arguing you have a right to speech, but not to infringe upon others speech by claiming offense was taken), I just like arguing devil's advocate.
I'm still not understanding what privilege it is if it's not free speech or thought. Now, if the argument is that taking offense isn't enough to force other people to change their ways, then I completely agree.
edit; lol, I thought there was some other article or something based on what he said. His quote seems pretty clear cut to me so I don't even know how this got here, and I apologize for contributing to the misunderstanding.
Stephen Fry is indicating that he has observed a trend in the way people respond to the subjects they encounter. Opinion does not have a necessary condition of critical explanation, and I was only trying to think of a reason why people would turn to opinion more readily now (according to Fry) than previously.
Of course I can't empirically show than there has been a reduction of the capacity to critically think in Western societies, although the responses I'm recieving are indicative that those responding did not actually read critically what I wrote. I was not making an unfounded assumption, unless you consider that the increased technological use in the Western world is an assumption and not fact...
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
Your post employs the rhetorical trick of "bolstering." Basically, you say, anyone who thinks critically or is educated will recognize that Fry's "rhetoric" is a mere "emotional response." Either that, or you are agreeing with Fry, and your grammar and writing is just horribly unclear. For example--does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to Mr. Fry's statements as described in the OP, or does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to the "I'm offended" statements Fry is describing--your post is so vague that it could actually apply to either. In a paragraph that only had a single flawed statement, context might help determine the meaning--but the rest of your post does nothing to clear up the confusion.
Rather than trying to impress us with your (apparently expensive) education, why not engage in some of the critical thinking you love and tell us why Fry is wrong (or right--again, I can't tell)? I fully agree with your point that people often fail to think critically--your post is a prime example of a failure to think critically and to just coast on rhetoric.
Ironically, Fry is actually using a few short words of effective rhetoric to make the point you bumbled wordily through. Fry's point is, "Fuck being offended, tell me why I'm wrong." If Fry says to a Christian, "God is dead, and no one cares. If there is a hell, I'll see you there," and the Christian responds, "I am offended, you sinner," no one has learned anything--the statement literally has no value. But if the Christian says, "I am disappointed that you have chosen to express such a lie. God is alive and well in the hearts of all believers, etc." and goes on to honestly advocate for his belief, there might be a valuable conversation. "I am offended" is a conversation ender and an escape from critical thinking.
TL;DR -- Critical thinking is great, but that is not what you are doing. Before you insult a hemisphere and a nation's ability to reason, please ensure that you can do so yourself.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. And expressing my stupidity doesn't infringe on anybody's rights, so I don't understand that part.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
On March 27 2012 05:26 The Pale King wrote: Popular Western thought has steadily discarded the skills of critical thinking, or various ways of thinking, in favor of ease in technological access to what is considered knowledge. In short, why would an individual be concerned with analysis when simple answers to simple questions are made so accessible?
A possible side effect that could account for the rapid loss of emotional control when confronted with a difference of opinion or challenging thought experiment is that the ease of technological access to what could be called 'simple information' has led to the users of that technology to apply that format onto their actual reality. Life is not a series of simple questions that require simple information to answer. Because there has been a reduced capability of critical thought in the general Western population, this could account for individual's turning more readily to emotional responses.
When a loss of emotional control is combined with the traditional patterns of adversarial conflict solving, in the United States particularily, the result is a swell of Stephen fry's described rhetoric.
TL;DR: Take out a loan and go to school...
Your post employs the rhetorical trick of "bolstering." Basically, you say, anyone who thinks critically or is educated will recognize that Fry's "rhetoric" is a mere "emotional response." Either that, or you are agreeing with Fry, and your grammar and writing is just horribly unclear. For example--does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to Mr. Fry's statements as described in the OP, or does "Stephen Fry's described rhetoric" refer to the "I'm offended" statements Fry is describing--your post is so vague that it could actually apply to either. In a paragraph that only had a single flawed statement, context might help determine the meaning--but the rest of your post does nothing to clear up the confusion.
Rather than trying to impress us with your (apparently expensive) education, why not engage in some of the critical thinking you love and tell us why Fry is wrong (or right--again, I can't tell)? I fully agree with your point that people often fail to think critically--your post is a prime example of a failure to think critically and to just coast on rhetoric.
Ironically, Fry is actually using a few short words of effective rhetoric to make the point you bumbled wordily through. Fry's point is, "Fuck being offended, tell me why I'm wrong." If Fry says to a Christian, "God is dead, and no one cares. If there is a hell, I'll see you there," and the Christian responds, "I am offended, you sinner," no one has learned anything--the statement literally has no value. But if the Christian says, "I am disappointed that you have chosen to express such a lie. God is alive and well in the hearts of all believers, etc." and goes on to honestly advocate for his belief, there might be a valuable conversation. "I am offended" is a conversation ender and an escape from critical thinking.
TL;DR -- Critical thinking is great, but that is not what you are doing. Before you insult a hemisphere and a nation's ability to reason, please ensure that you can do so yourself.
If I hadn't written the last sentence urging people to go to school, you may have payed attention to what was being said. An explanation for the possibility which Fry is indicating, that opinion is cited more frequently than a response appealing to reasoning in day to day arguement, was offered. Rather than consider what was written, you became offended that there was a possibility I was working under a pretentious impetus. The actual content of what I wrote was passed over.
Because online communication is selfish in nature and does not directly sanction a discussional dialogue, you chose to ignore the relationship between technological use and increased emotional response I was only trying to think about and instead established the opinion that my words were rhetoric. I was just exploring the topic, I didn't mean to imply I was some great source of knowledge. It's okay, I made the mistake of assuming no one would read what I wrote, because I am just a selfish as you when I am online =D
Why would you bring up that my education is expensive however, is an interesting asumption that may indicate my previous thoughts about the increasing emotional aspect of the opinions people hold today. Just relax =P
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
EDIT: To further clarify. I am not saying expressing being offended is not covered by the freedom of speech or that freedom of speech only covers reasonable diskussion. I am simply point out that expressing being offended =/= expressing critisism. That the whole point of freedom of speech is to freely express criticism is something you said and I simply agree with ;-)
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
Thanks for compressing my painstainkingly composed paragraph down like that. I sure feel like a wordy bastard now :-).
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
Stephen Fry's point isn't that no one should get offended. It's that a person being offended is not cause to action. If what they are being offended by is actually affecting peoples lives then there can be a discussion about whether or not these things should continue but as long as the sole effect of an action is "random person is offended" that action is as harmless as can be.
His main point is that someone thinking that them being offended somehow is very serious and important is ridiculous and narcissistic. Being offended is an emotional state. It's not more important to other people than being happy or slightly tired. Being offended does not in itself give you the right to act out against people you don't like.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase".
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
We are in agreement then. To demonstrate: The following sentences are not mutially exclusive:
People have every right to express whatever stupid thing they want. Being offended =/= valid critisism
Also: Me expressing this view does nor mean I (or indeed Stephan Fry) want to take away peoples right to free speech. We're simply pointing out they are being idiots when they expect that them being offended is treated as valid criticism.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase".
Oh nice switch of topic there. Now suddenly it's okay for me to say that 'being offended' is a right. Lovely.
And I would argue it does have meaning. It's about the degradation of human dignity. I mean when someone is talking about gay sex is basically bestiality or how it's okay to beat/rape your wife I think it's okay to use words like "This is an affront to human dignity. It offends me as a human being that you wish to institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings." That should offend you.
Just because it may be overused or misused or does not mean it is useless.
On March 27 2012 06:49 StarBrift wrote: Stephen Fry's point isn't that no one should get offended. It's that a person being offended is not cause to action. If what they are being offended by is actually affecting peoples lives then there can be a discussion about whether or not these things should continue but as long as the sole effect of an action is "random person is offended" that action is as harmless as can be.
His main point is that someone thinking that them being offended somehow is very serious and important is ridiculous and narcissistic. Being offended is an emotional state. It's not more important to other people than being happy or slightly tired. Being offended does not in itself give you the right to act out against people you don't like.
I thought his main point is that it's a worthless phrase. Saying "I am offended" doesn't actually do anything. It's a complete waste of breath and time to even express it. You can criticize someone and say, I don't like what you are saying and here is why. But just saying you are offended is absolutely meaningless, it doesn't contribute anything. Hence why he doesn't respect it.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase".
Oh nice switch of topic there. Now suddenly it's okay for me to say that 'being offended' is a right. Lovely.
And I would argue it does have meaning. It's about the degradation of human dignity. I mean when someone is talking about gay sex is basically bestiality or how it's okay to beat/rape your wife I think it's okay to use words like "This is an affront to human dignity. It offends me as a human being that you wish to institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings." That should offend you.
Just because it may be overused or misused or does not mean it is useless.
The point is that the fact that it offends you is completely irrelevant.
You can say, "You shouldn't institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings because it is an affront to human dignity", that actually contributes something.
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
They have every right to do that, and you have every right to ignore them and continue talking.
Exchange: "Fuck you." "Shut up." "No I don't want to." "Well shit."
And that's exactly why Fry says "it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase".
Oh nice switch of topic there. Now suddenly it's okay for me to say that 'being offended' is a right. Lovely.
And I would argue it does have meaning. It's about the degradation of human dignity. I mean when someone is talking about gay sex is basically bestiality or how it's okay to beat/rape your wife I think it's okay to use words like "This is an affront to human dignity. It offends me as a human being that you wish to institutionalize hatred against people or that you want to trivialize the suffering of human beings." That should offend you.
Just because it may be overused or misused or does not mean it is useless.
Being offended is a feeling. Your right is to express this feeling (and sure, if you want to get very technical to have it in the first place). If you express this feeling without further qualifiers or thought you shouldn't have any expectation of altering the discourse. People do however, which seem to offend Mr Fry. If you manage to actually voice not only your feeling of being offended but why you are offended (as marvelously demonstraed by your example and/or Mr Frys quote) I think we all agree that not only you're exercising your rights, but doing it in a constructive way that people can engage with.
Why is it that you assume that criticising the way people use their righs means one wants to take them away? Seems quite a leap.
Regardless of whether people have the right to be offended or the right to offend or whatever, I'll give my personal opinion on being offended.
I work hard at not being offended by others opinions, choice of lifestyle, worldview etc. There in no point in being offended because someone believes something that runs contrary to what you believe. Fact is they won't/can't change their opinions because they offend you. So to offend me you need to be especially and deliberately offensive.
There is a difference between having a belief that others find offensive and expressing it in a deliberately offensive way.
Eg a Christian who says "I believe abortion is wrong" is different from saying "If you get an abortion then you are a baby murderer and deserve to rot in jail forever, you heathen". Also "I believe homosexuality is wrong" is different to saying "God hates fags".
Same as an atheist who says "Belief in god is illogical" is different from saying "Belief in god is strictly for idiots and half wits". Again saying "the church has in the recent past protected clergy who they believed were guilty of child molestation and rape and as a member of the church you need to deal with it" is different from saying "All clergy are a bunch of paedophiles, and all Christians are complicit"
I use these examples because I've had people say similar things to me, or people I know.
What I believe is this. We live in a world where people will hold vastly different beliefs than us, beliefs which challenge what we believe, and are, at their core completely incompatible to our beliefs. If we want the right to express our beliefs and opinions then we need to grant the right for others to do so as well.
But there is no value in expressing your beliefs in a fashion which deliberately belittles others. In the same way there is no value in becoming offended when others express their beliefs in a completely reasonable fashion.
I agree with Stephen fry in that "I find that offensive" is not an argument, but if you are acting like an arsehole, don't be surprised when people are offended by it.
Also, I'm a Christian, in the interests of disclosure or whatever.
On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote: But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
Your mistake is to assume to know what peope mean by phrases like "I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity". By themselves these statements mean nothing except that someones feelings were hurt (and except "I DONT LIKE IT; SHUT UP!" as a translation maybe). It is only when we're told WHY someones feelings were hurt that a dialog is possible.
Thats why I said yours was a good example, not because you phrased "I am offfended" differently, but because you also told us why you are offended. Basicly the assumption that the discourse must be halted or altered just because of your emotional state wasn't there.
On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote: But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
"You are insulting my dignity" and "it is an affront to human dignity" are not the same. Affront to human dignity is something any humans dignity would be affronted by, like torture, war crimes, etc. An "insult to my dignity" is something that is insulting to the individual, like demeaning them with name-calling(if the individual finds it offensive).
The fact that it offends you specifically does not contribute anything to an argument, since being offended is subjective. The fact that it is an affront to human dignity does contribute something to an argument.
Offense is utterly and completely subjective, you have every right to be offended by anything really; however this does not give you the right to censor others, just as they do not get to forbid you to say something they might find offensive. Surely free speech is more highly valued than any given indivduals hurt feelings.
While I agree wholeheartedly with Stephens sentiment, I believe he could have been more articulate.
What he's talking about is the recognition of a concept that one, based on upbringing, background and personal experience will find to be distasteful, in opposition behaviourally or morally, or precluding a physical threat. The content of instances one deems to be offensive pose no actual threat and are therefore in my opinion, a non-issue. My attempt at a quote would be:
"The entire concept of being offended is a falsehood spread by the incessant herd-minded populace that has somehow convinced us words shape reality and that difference is automatically associated with negativity."
On March 27 2012 05:42 DoubleReed wrote: Cut fyrewolf some slack. Being wrong isn't pleasant or easy. He's clearly just trying to weasel justification in so he doesn't have to be wrong.
On March 27 2012 05:37 Crownlol wrote: As an anti-theist I run into this all the time. "I find it offensive that you're disproving the bible in front of me! Or where I can even overhear it!".
The response has to be the same that Fry said: "So what?".
Frankly, I'm offended every time I see an adult cram religion down a child's throat, but I don't tap them on the shoulder and say that it's offensive.
Although, I might start doing that.
The reverse is also true. If they tell me I'm going to hell (and even happy about it) it's my right to explain why they are a sadistic jackass.
The freedom to be offended is the freedom to criticize which is pretty much the whole point of the freedom of speech.
Absolutely not. Being offended as it is commenly used simply means a certain viewpoint hurts your feeling or sensibilities in some way. Expressing this is not a critisism. Critisism to be valid and construcive and therefore a boon to public discurse must be reasoned. If you are arguing purely from a feeling (being offended) this is not the case. Which is Mr. Frys excellent point, I think. Obviously you can be, and have every right not to be offended. This however doesn't mean that the opinion expressed that offends you is invalid or should not be expressed.
To make it very simple: Being offended doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to express an opinion. If you have a reasonable objection to said opinion you obviously can express it. Simply being offended by something, however, is in itself not a reasonable objecion.
Who cares if the criticism is valid, reasoned, or constructive? I have the right to stupid speech as well. You don't get to silence me just because I happen to be an idiot. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to my criticism.
I don't care if being offended is not a reasonable objection. It's still an objection and I can raise it whenever the hell I want.
Obvioulsy you can and have every right. The point simply is that no one will (or should) take your objection serioulsy. No one is trying to silence you, the silence is a result of people simply ignoring you because you do not contribute to the discourse. Simply put: You may excercise your right to, as you so eloquently put it, stupid speech. It is the implied expectation that the public discourse should be halted or altered because of your unreasoned feelings that is the problem.
This is it exactly. When someone says they are offended, they aren't expressing criticism, they are trying to get you to stop offending them.
There's a difference in being offended, and having the right to be offended, and expressing it with the purpose of stopping another person's behavior. Even so, you have the right to do both, as long as you don't break the law while doing it.
Saying "I'm offended" is pretty silly, it really has no purpose unless you give more details, but there's a difference between doing that and actually being offended. Either way, it's silly to suggest that you don't have a right to be offended or a right to express the offense you feel.
On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote: But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
"You are insulting my dignity" and "it is an affront to human dignity" are not the same. Affront to human dignity is something any humans dignity would be affronted by, like torture, war crimes, etc. An "insult to my dignity" is something that is insulting to the individual, like demeaning them with name-calling(if the individual finds it offensive).
The fact that it offends you specifically does not contribute anything to an argument, since being offended is subjective. The fact that it is an affront to human dignity does contribute something to an argument.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
Hey if someone have stated something that goes against my believes, then I will be all means refute his argument by making him look like a total idiot in from the general public and there is absolutely nothing that you can do to alter this fact!
On March 27 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote: But that's exactly what people are saying when they say they are offended.
"I am offended" and "You are insulting my dignity" is the same statement. Why are you saying that one is good and one is bad?
"You are insulting my dignity" and "it is an affront to human dignity" are not the same. Affront to human dignity is something any humans dignity would be affronted by, like torture, war crimes, etc. An "insult to my dignity" is something that is insulting to the individual, like demeaning them with name-calling(if the individual finds it offensive).
The fact that it offends you specifically does not contribute anything to an argument, since being offended is subjective. The fact that it is an affront to human dignity does contribute something to an argument.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
ControlMonkey probably says it better than I did: "But there is no value in expressing your beliefs in a fashion which deliberately belittles others. In the same way there is no value in becoming offended when others express their beliefs in a completely reasonable fashion." His post is very good, I would refer you to that post for lots of clearer examples and well written arguments.
EDIT: The two posts below me are also very good at explaining why saying you are offended doesn't contribute to an argument.
I think the point he's making is saying "i'm offended by this thing" is stupid because being offended is not a universal feeling that everyone can share. Saying "i'm offended" is like saying "i so very much dislike what you just did/said, it hurts my feeling". So what? I don't care about your feeling if i said such thing in the first place, you should start by pointing at why such a thing is wrong and should'nt be done/said. If you can't tell why it's wrong then shut up because noone cares about what your opinion is. Being offended is matter of social culture and laws.
On March 27 2012 08:09 DoubleReed wrote:Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
The key is that while people agree with you that the comparison is offensive, the offense isn't the real issue. The comparison is problematic for many reasons, such as being objectively wrong, so why focus on the offense when you can instead address the real issue?
It's useless to simply say "I'm offended." It's a dishonest way of saying "shut up" and a logical fallacy. Instead, try to think about why you're offended, so that you can give a logical response. Merely saying "I'm offended" serves the same function as claiming that the argument is wrong without any justification for your position.
On March 27 2012 08:09 DoubleReed wrote:Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
The key is that while people agree with you that the comparison is offensive, the offense isn't the real issue. The comparison is problematic for many reasons, such as being objectively wrong, so why focus on the offense when you can instead address the real issue?
It's useless to simply say "I'm offended." It's a dishonest way of saying "shut up" and a logical fallacy. Instead, try to think about why, you're offended, so that you can give a logical response. Merely saying "I'm offended" serves the same function as claiming that the argument is wrong without any justification for your position.
True. It's important to not though that being offended is not useless, if being offended encourages discussion or enables a positive social movement, it can actually be healthy.
Stephen Fry's quote in the OP really isn't that profound, he's simply stating his dislike of whiner's and those who would hide behind a blanket phrase without facilitating a conversation are, in his view, whiners.
Meh. Words are just words. I never get offended and I really don't care if my honesty will offend someone. Generally we should all just grow a pair. :/
On March 27 2012 08:25 Xiphos wrote: Hey if someone have stated something that goes against my believes, then I will be all means refute his argument by making him look like a total idiot in from the general public and there is absolutely nothing that you can do to alter this fact!
I don't know if English is your first language, but if it is, you might want to do it verbally.
On March 27 2012 08:59 whiterabbit wrote: Meh. Words are just words. I never get offended and I really don't care if my honesty will offend someone. Generally we should all just grow a pair. :/
You never get offended? Really? That seems pretty unlikely. MORE likely is that nobody who's opinion you care about has been exceptionally rude to you about something that you care deeply about. Or nobody's opinion matters to you (which in general can be a good thing, but is not dogmatically true). Or you don't care about anything deeply (which is true for many and that's a tragedy).
On March 27 2012 08:09 DoubleReed wrote:Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
The key is that while people agree with you that the comparison is offensive, the offense isn't the real issue. The comparison is problematic for many reasons, such as being objectively wrong, so why focus on the offense when you can instead address the real issue?
It's useless to simply say "I'm offended." It's a dishonest way of saying "shut up" and a logical fallacy. Instead, try to think about why, you're offended, so that you can give a logical response. Merely saying "I'm offended" serves the same function as claiming that the argument is wrong without any justification for your position.
People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
The arguments that focus on trivializing serious issues are more obvious in this sense (rather than the ones that simply insult people). Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
It's all sort of realitive with how the phrase is said, in what context, the relationship between the two parties. But I do agree that there are people who get offended way to easily.
like that time that n***** guy said n*****, and everyone was offended? I wasn't offended, I was simply pissed that a person in his position could get away with it. Maybe I was offended, hmm I don't even know, but at least I'm happy.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
I'd also just like to say that the concept of being offended is more about a group of people deciding they don't want others to say something, and then enforcing their will upon the others. You basically make things unacceptable by generating a critical mass of people who care enough about it to stop the rest of society from mentioning them. All that this bullshit movement of 'why shouldn't I be allowed to offend you?' is just a futile backlash to these lobbies. Believe me, however seriously you take your desire to use the n-word, there are a lot of people with a lot stronger desires not to be reminded of a time when your ancestors literally OWNED theirs.
Stephen Fry is the best human being on the planet and he is always right...
... ok other people might not agree so easily so here's my take on this.
On March 27 2012 02:20 HereAndNow wrote: To be honest, Stephen Fry annoys me a little after this.
Any anti-homosexual or pro-religious statement will cause him to rant and go off on tirades, but apparently anything he says is vindicated because people are too easily offended?
This is the most important point IMO, and it's exactly right. If someone says something ignorant and homophobic for instance, Stephen Fry will destroy him because he's intelligent and eloquent and knows what to answer.
This "I'm offended" thing is a cop out for people who are not as smart as Fry. It's what allows stupid people to have their way even when they don't know what to say. You don't have to say "I'm offended" about racist, homophobic nazis because it's easy to see and tell what's wrong about it, you can destroy them publicly without the use of the magic phrase.
So what group is more offended than any other? Religious people. Because they're the ones who refuse any argument, they just don't want anyone to disagree with them and they're not ready to talk about it. This is what's so dangerous about people who are offended all the time. It kills all discussions because of the values of one small group, no matter how insignificant or stupid it is. If we keep going down this road everything will be found offensive by at least one social group, and no debate will be possible.
On March 27 2012 02:07 RA wrote: Bottomline isn't just about being less whiny or crybaby, it's about being less cocky, insensitve and rude, too.
I agree with this, and it's rather common sense.
It's a two-way street; there's a responsibility of both parties involved. Going out of your way to purposely insult someone for no constructive reason whatsoever is just you being a douchebag, and it's perfectly justifiable for the victim to become offended. On the other hand, sometimes constructive criticism or feedback (or just plain "reality") calls for certain things to be said, but with some level of tact, and you should accept the truth (which may sometimes hurt).
While there are sometimes shades of gray, I think the vast majority of situations are relatively clear cut as to whether the speaker was being offensive or whether the victim was being too thin-skinned.
I see a lot of people saying that a person should never get offended over words, or just never get offended in general. That's a really weird stance.
Let me give you an example: you're out with a loved one, spouse, girlfriend, little sibling, your child, whatever... and some douchebag comes up and starts saying all kinds of nasty hate-filled crap, calling the person you're with all manner of insulting and demeaning names, and trying to be as hurtful as possible without doing anything illegal, and your girlfriend, little brother, mom or whoever is sitting there in tears...
You're not going to get offended? You're going to instead tell the person you're with, "you shouldn't get offended it's just words", and do nothing? Really?? And if you WOULD get offended (which I hope you would) it does not take a huge mental leap to realize that others should and will get offended if you're the one spouting the obnoxious, hurtful shit.
I'm not saying it's right to up and get offended when clearly no harm is meant. And I would defend anyone's right to free speech. You can be the most spiteful, BM human being of all time, fine. But I also defend people's right to react to free speech, in ways that are within THEIR rights. Such as disinviting you from their home, property, business, etc. And since basically anywhere but your own house is gonna be someone else's property, if you're BM enough you're apt to get kicked out of every forum, workplace, commercial area, public space, internet forum etc. that you go shittying up with your hate speech. That's not a restriction on your free speech, that's just people reacting to how much of a flaming, mannerless douchebag you are.
On March 27 2012 09:31 divito wrote: He's right. Being offended is just a more legitimate way of whining.
No, being offended is human nature. Being ignorant and using only a feeling to dismiss a point of view rather than do something about the issue that offends you is whining.
Yeah, sometimes you have to grow some skin. Especially in dealing with people in the internet. I think its part of the maturity in life though, internet or real interaction. You gotta know which battle you can fight and which you can avoid.
I normally dont get offended. If I do, I just calm down and repay in kind. Nothing Extraordinary
Can someone who claims that they *never* get offended explain how that's possible? Do they just not have any strong opinions or feelings about anything, so they never take anything personally when someone says something negative? Do they just write every attacker off as an idiot, and just not take him seriously? Do they just disengage themselves from all confrontation and pretend that the attack doesn't exist? I don't understand how being offended isn't going to eventually happen to everyone, seeing as how there are surely plenty of people in this world who say and do things that each person vehemently disagrees with (morally, politically, etc.).
Well back in the time of Alexandre Dumas aristocracy loved to say "I take offence to that" after which they would slap the offender's face with their perfumed glove and what would ensue would be a duel with pistols. So I think on the whole we might be getting a little bit better as a society in regards to sensitive egos
On March 27 2012 09:33 MilesTeg wrote: So what group is more offended than any other? Religious people. Because they're the ones who refuse any argument, they just don't want anyone to disagree with them and they're not ready to talk about it. This is what's so dangerous about people who are offended all the time. It kills all discussions because of the values of one small group, no matter how insignificant or stupid it is. If we keep going down this road everything will be found offensive by at least one social group, and no debate will be possible.
I agree. Although I am religious myself, a religious person who uses the phrase "that is offensive" to avoid argument or discussion is just lazy. If you believe something be prepared to argue for it! Don't expect someone else to agree with you because it's the "nice" thing to do.
Also if you are offended every time someone disagrees with you, then you will be offended by everyone all the time. Have fun with that!
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing.
On March 27 2012 09:43 Tor wrote: No, being offended is human nature.
Fallacy; besides being irrelevant.
On March 27 2012 09:43 Tor wrote: Being ignorant and using only a feeling to dismiss a point of view rather than do something about the issue that offends you is whining.
Sorry, I should have clarified. Being ignorant and speaking out about what "offends" you is whining. There are plenty of well-adjusted people that don't feel the need to objectify their moral "superiority" by touting an act or statement because it "offends" them. They're only doing it for the sake of attention.
Look, sometimes there's problems that need to be addressed but these days they are few and far between. I say if there's no physical harm then move on and focus on bigger issues like the economy.
I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual".
Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
I guess the point is that rights mean nothing if you cannot secure them. What about the rights of the people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Rights are nothing but a social-construct. But I'd say claiming that you're offended is already a way to secure the rights. Communication, which might serve the purpose of preventing violence. When you say that I was breast-fed by my father I might find that rather offensive and decide to bitch-slap you down. If I tell you with a real badass mad face that I am offended you might apologize and we'd have avoided the dark side.
On March 27 2012 10:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Look, sometimes there's problems that need to be addressed but these days they are few and far between. I say if there's no physical harm then move on and focus on bigger issues like the economy.
I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual".
Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things.
Political correctness is a very funny concept sometimes. However, for the most part, the incidences in which it is used are quite reasonable. But yeah, the example that you gave is rather silly.
On March 27 2012 09:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Can someone who claims that they *never* get offended explain how that's possible? Do they just not have any strong opinions or feelings about anything, so they never take anything personally when someone says something negative? Do they just write every attacker off as an idiot, and just not take him seriously? Do they just disengage themselves from all confrontation and pretend that the attack doesn't exist? I don't understand how being offended isn't going to eventually happen to everyone, seeing as how there are surely plenty of people in this world who say and do things that each person vehemently disagrees with (morally, politically, etc.).
I wouldn't claim that I absolutely never get offended, but it rarely ever happens. I'm not very opinionated, no. What opinions I do hold I recognize as my own and recognize that other people aren't going to think the same way I do. I'm a really calm person, and don't take many things seriously. When someone says something negative, I either force myself to immediately forget about it or just look at it as no big deal. Yeah, basically I avoid confrontation completely. I can tell myself, "It doesn't matter" really easily, and completely believe it.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
I already responded to that. And that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the terms human dignity and individual dignity by equating them, and completely invalidating your argument because of it.
On March 27 2012 10:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Look, sometimes there's problems that need to be addressed but these days they are few and far between. I say if there's no physical harm then move on and focus on bigger issues like the economy.
I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual".
Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things.
That bill is the most retarded(as in stunted and backward) thing I've heard in a while. That's like people getting offended over someone using rape in a starcraft game despite the fact that the word has been used for centuries in a war context to describe plundering, ravaging, and despoiling the land.
On March 27 2012 09:43 Tor wrote: Being ignorant and using only a feeling to dismiss a point of view rather than do something about the issue that offends you is whining.
Sorry, I should have clarified. Being ignorant and speaking out about what "offends" you is whining. There are plenty of well-adjusted people that don't feel the need to objectify their moral "superiority" by touting an act or statement because it "offends" them. They're only doing it for the sake of attention.
Do you mean a logical fallacy? If you did then how was his statement a fallacy? There was no argument, therefore no logic, he simply said something that you don't think is true. there was no effort to back up this claim, just a void of support. (If you just think hes wrong that's understandable, claims about human nature get very dubious very quickly.)
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
Better question: is that statement even fallacious? Do you mean logically? It is a statement of feeling, not an argument, where is the fallacy there? sunprince refuted a fallacious argument but that has no relation to an emotional claim.
Being offended is not a logical fallacy, the statement "I'm offended by... this thread/gay sex/shades of blue" can only be fallacious if someone is lying about it and even then it's not a logical fallacy.
On March 27 2012 10:30 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Look, sometimes there's problems that need to be addressed but these days they are few and far between. I say if there's no physical harm then move on and focus on bigger issues like the economy.
I'm sick of legislators that spend their time passing bills renaming things to make them sound more politically correct. Here in the state of New Jersey we just got a law that renamed "mentally challenged" (already a PC term) to "intellectually disabled individual".
Come on. They're still going to get offended. Let them get offended and go make everyone happy by focusing on important things.
That bill is the most retarded(as in stunted and backward) thing I've heard in a while. That's like people getting offended over someone using rape in a starcraft game despite the fact that the word has been used for centuries in a war context to describe plundering, ravaging, and despoiling the land.
Knowing how much flak video games get for that kind of thing, someone's probably made a case against it already.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
I already responded to that. And that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the terms human dignity and individual dignity by equating them, and completely invalidating your argument because of it.
Sorry, I guess I missed that.
So I guess you do find the distinctions compelling. Maybe I'm not understanding you. I don't quite see how affronting someone's dignity is not an objective thing. Use the examples I gave (gay sex = bestiality and female contraception = sex). Those are not objective in their offensiveness?
On March 27 2012 10:45 TheFrankOne wrote:Better question: is that statement even fallacious? Do you mean logically? It is a statement of feeling, not an argument, where is the fallacy there? sunprince refuted a fallacious argument but that has no relation to an emotional claim.
It's not a fallacy when you take the words independently, but when you consider the context under which they are frequently used, then their usage is fallacious.
People frequently use variations of "I'm offended" in order to curtail and control other people's speech. In this context, it is fallacious, because it is used to dismiss people's ideas without providing any reasoning or argumentation.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it affects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
Now personally, I agree that people in general are way to sensitive these days. But, I also can't help speculating about a certain level of hypocrisy in this thread. Would those in favor of the "grow thicker skin" argument be in favor of a forum where homophobes can spout ignorant slander against gays? Can anti semitics spout inflammatory language about Jewish people? Listen, if you are offended by what they are saying then you need to grow thicker skin. It's just some random person posting random crap, right? Turn the channel if you don't like what you hear.
TL is quite the opposite though, isn't it? Here offensive comments are strictly moderated. Its one of the things that so many of us enjoy about TL. Do people need to grow thicker skin? Probably. Does that mean everyone should just walk around saying any and everything regardless of how it might make someone else feel? Absolutely not.
"If what I say offends you, then you need to "grow thicker skin."
"If what you say offends me, then you are a backwards hillbilly or some new breed of internet hipster and need to learn some respect."
It just doesn't work that way. Part of fostering good relations with your fellow man involves being sensitive to the things that might offend them.
Thankfully, the real world will never be anything like internet forums. People can run off at the mouth saying whatever to whoever behind their curtain of anonymity, but the reality is that the world is slightly less civilized in that it takes more than sophisticated hipster logic to get away with stepping on the toes of the people around you. I'd wager that even Mr. Fry takes into consideration the status and feelings of those around him before saying something that they might find exceptionally offensive.
On March 27 2012 10:45 TheFrankOne wrote:Better question: is that statement even fallacious? Do you mean logically? It is a statement of feeling, not an argument, where is the fallacy there? sunprince refuted a fallacious argument but that has no relation to an emotional claim.
It's not a fallacy when you take the words independently, but when you consider the context under which they are frequently used, then their usage is fallacious.
People frequently use variations of "I'm offended" in order to curtail and control other people's speech. In this context, it is fallacious, because it is used to dismiss people's ideas without providing any reasoning or argumentation.
Oh I get it. I can still use appeal to human dignity as the conclusion to the argument as long as I can back it up?
I suppose that's fine then. I certainly don't have an issue with that.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well.
On March 27 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest.
When human dignity is used as a rhetorical means of saying "shut up", then yes, it is fallacious. It's a red herring that shifts the topic from a logical discussion to an emotional one based on what most people believe to be offensive or not.
On March 27 2012 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
No. Human dignity is an amorphous term that doesn't have any agreed-upon meaning, and serves only as an appeal to emotion. It's been used for bullshit such as the UN declaring that treating people to remove genetic defects is an affront to human dignity. In other words, an affront to dignity is whatever people don't like, instead of being an objective right.
On March 27 2012 11:05 DoubleReed wrote:Oh I get it. I can still use appeal to human dignity as the conclusion to the argument as long as I can back it up?
I suppose that's fine then. I certainly don't have an issue with that.
It's fine to call something offensive and insulting. It just doesn't have any weight in a logical discussion. It's like saying "I don't like bugs"; you have a right to do so and it's fine for you to feel that way, as long as you understand that it's subjective and doesn't replace a logical argument.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well.
just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their inner+ Show Spoiler +
introvert edited
feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:People are offended when others degrade or trivialize their dignity. That's the "why". I can't think of an instance where that's not true.
Saying that your dignity is being insulted is equivalent to saying you're offended, as you noted. So the question is still: why do you feel your dignity is insulted? In the case of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, an example reason is that it's objectively an incorrect argument.
Example:
"I'm offended that you compare homosexuality and bestiality" <- fallacious "Comparing homosexuality and bestiality is incorrect because the former does not cause harm to animals <- non-fallacious
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Where beating your wife every now and then isn't considered a big deal. You know, as long as it doesn't become habitual.
That's another perfect example. Beating your wife isn't wrong because it's offensive. Beating your wife is wrong because it causes harm to a loved one. You keep focusing on the offense, instead of what really matters.
On March 27 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:My point is that "insulting dignity" and "being offended" is the same thing. I don't see why one is a logical fallacy and the other is considered to be a reasonable point. It just sounds like people are being swayed by the eloquence of "Human Dignity" and being condescending toward "Being Offended." What's the difference?
You're assuming that I'm swayed by the eloquence of "human dignity", but I'm really not. It's the same fallacy as "being offended".
Oh sorry, those were the others I was arguing you with. That's fair then.
You consider an appeal to human dignity to be fallacious? Err... hmm... interesting. An angle I hadn't considered to be honest. Usually human dignity is up there in consideration of human rights. It's part of it, along with liberty and property. I don't quite know how I'd come up with a good example though. Do you not consider human dignity to be fundamental in any way?
I already explained that "affront to human dignity" and "insulting my dignity" are not the same thing. Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings. They aren't the same thing.
Well it doesn't have to be that extreme. This isn't uncommon rhetoric in today's world.
Comparing gay sex to bestiality. Would you not agree that is degrading to the dignity of any gay person? Do you differentiate whether or not that's offensive to gay people individually, gay people as a whole, or humanity as a whole?
Suggesting that female contraception is only about sex rather than all the health benefits trivializes women's health issues. Are you simply differentiating whether a woman is offended as a woman or as a human?
I don't really find these distinctions very compelling. Do you?
I already responded to that. And that doesn't change the fact that you are misusing the terms human dignity and individual dignity by equating them, and completely invalidating your argument because of it.
Sorry, I guess I missed that.
So I guess you do find the distinctions compelling. Maybe I'm not understanding you. I don't quite see how affronting someone's dignity is not an objective thing. Use the examples I gave (gay sex = bestiality and female contraception = sex). Those are not objective in their offensiveness?
I don't know how I can explain it clearer. As I said before: "Using the term affront to human dignity means an objective offense to someone's humanity(torture, slavery, genocide, etc). Insult to your dignity means a subjective offense to your feelings."
This whole thing started when you tried to make the semantic argument replacing offense with dignity, and then dignity with human dignity. If I treat you with less respect than your station deserves, I am insulting your dignity, an offense to your feelings. If I hold you captive and torture you, it is an affront to human dignity(everyone's, not yours), an offense to your humanity.
just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all.
Well at least you've given us a good example of the attitude joedaddy was making an observation about. I have to disagree that you can just dismiss someone else by demeaning them as an "introvert" and basically saying you don't have to care about what anyone else thinks, I think that's an arrogant and untenable position to take anywhere outside of the internet.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well.
just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all.
I'm sick of people talking about offended for any reason (at least that I can think of), or using it as any sort of defense.
People have all the right in the world to BE offended, but to me it's like a logical fallacy or something (probably not the right word, but I don't know how else to describe it?) to use being offended to support any sort of argument, defend themselves, get their way, or anything else of a similar nature.
Address the FACTS, and reply in a civilized, productive manner. Someone saying that they're offended doesn't get anyone anywhere. Heck, when it comes to trolling or bullying (well some people might think bullying, but I'd actually say that's maybe one case that could help), one saying that they take offense to it might be exactly the goal, and by doing so the other side gets what they want.
If the assertion seems true (or at least irrefutable and the opposite not proven), then there's especially no reason to even be offended about it — it's important to live with the truth and deal with it, not mosey around in a fake reality.
Saying "suck it up" (anti-"I'm offended") isn't any sort of justification for biased views like racism, and I'd say that people could use it all they want. It doesn't mean it's effective or anything. Their argument can be torn up when facts are brought up.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well.
just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all.
I don't think you know what the word 'introvert' means.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well.
just as they can be offended and express about it, you have the choice to ignore their introvert feelings and go on about your way. I don't see how it is a big deal at all for both sides concerned. them being offended does not bound you with duties to be considerate about them at all.
I don't think you know what the word 'introvert' means.
yes I did use that word wrong, what I meant to say was inner feelings.
Well at least you've given us a good example of the attitude joedaddy was making an observation about. I have to disagree that you can just dismiss someone else by demeaning them as an "introvert" and basically saying you don't have to care about what anyone else thinks, I think that's an arrogant and untenable position to take anywhere outside of the internet.
I can't see how it is arrogant to be able to chose which offence you chose to care or dismiss. with OP's context, the quote is talking about trivial things that people take offense to which you should be able to dismiss without feeling like a dick.
I think something needs to be addressed when it comes to the idea of being offended.
Society is based on a mutual understanding and commonality between individuals. When that trust, that commonality becomes subverted--that is when people get offended. So while it is true that someone being offended does not constitute a valid argumentative case--the overwhelming presence of being offended suggests that no one on either side is actually communicating with each other. Which means there really isn't an argument, which means nothing valid is really being discussed.
[QUOTE]On March 27 2012 03:55 Fyrewolf wrote: [QUOTE]On March 27 2012 03:45 logikly wrote:
That's a very nice article. Any chance the original conversation is available as well? It would be interesting to listen to.[/QUOTE]
Oh man its from 2004 I dont think they have the audio files for that still. but here is the link for audio files if you want to check. [url=http://robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node/339]http://robarnieanddawn.com/index.php?q=node/339[/url]
The privilege to be offended (and to get heard) comes with power.
Sometimes powerless people have a community-driven power behind them, too, but thats rare. In common cases you see people with power being "offended", because noone, including you and me, listens to the others. We dont listen to them, the media dont listen to them, their opinions dont get broadcasted and multiplied.
People with power, be it money, political power, or the power of weapons or violence, are used to get heard and have possibilities to back up their positions, so for them saying "i am offended by this and that" is used more like a threat followed by possible prevention of such offensive behaviour/appearance/[insert whatever needed]
On March 27 2012 11:45 Xapti wrote: I'm sick of people talking about offended for any reason (at least that I can think of), or using it as any sort of defense.
People have all the right in the world to BE offended, but to me it's like a logical fallacy or something (probably not the right word, but I don't know how else to describe it?) to use being offended to support any sort of argument, defend themselves, get their way, or anything else of a similar nature.
Address the FACTS, and reply in a civilized, productive manner. Someone saying that they're offended doesn't get anyone anywhere. Heck, when it comes to trolling or bullying (well some people might think bullying, but I'd actually say that's maybe one case that could help), one saying that they take offense to it might be exactly the goal, and by doing so the other side gets what they want.
If the assertion seems true (or at least irrefutable and the opposite not proven), then there's especially no reason to even be offended about it — it's important to live with the truth and deal with it, not mosey around in a fake reality.
Saying "suck it up" (anti-"I'm offended") isn't any sort of justification for biased views like racism, and I'd say that people could use it all they want. It doesn't mean it's effective or anything. Their argument can be torn up when facts are brought up.
As sunprince pointed out, it is often used as a logical fallacy to either distract (red herring) or to just ignore the argument entirely (dismissal), if you accept that offending someone is bad/wrong, it can be used to support an argument. By itself or if being offensive is okay, it is then meaningless.
As you can gather from the comedians making fun of the topics that offend, the sheer comedy that is taking offense at something has permeated society. Maybe you won't express it, but there is something very funny at someone who is offended at this brash language or that rude action, and proceed to try to encourage legislation against it or legal proceeding against the man or woman who did it. I'd like to make a difference between a casual offense and a practice of taking offense at everything you wish to whine about. If my friend said something in very good faith and did not expect to find me opposed to it, I might bring up to him that what he said irritates, shocks, or offends me. I am merely letting him know of my opinion and we might get to know each other a bit better as friends afterwards.
The other sort of taking offense at something hurts the nature of race discourse and political discourse in the country I live in, America. Every man's passing phrase can be taken as an excuse for a righteous crusade, more than what is necessary to bring about correction of gross wrongs in society. Now the law books contain provisions for 'hate crime,' as if the motivations of criminals that are racist or homophobic necessitate making a public example of their punishment. Modern abridgements of free speech occur from these offenses. You take offense and tell others in a specific sector of society, then leverage your group power to shut down advertisers or force apologies from the position of power and not freedom.
Life is too short to be offended by someone's words or actions, we're not alive long, just enjoy life, forget those who offend you and move on.
Find people who go out of their way to make you feel good, not terrible. It's pretty simple to be honest, most people who purposefully offend people/someone have issues themselves, so why let them affect you with their negativity?
No doubt everyone has heard; "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" so with opinions comes ethics and ideals for one person. Who gives a shit if some jackass thinks black people are bad or "gingers" are soulless, it is probably their problem anyway, so don't let it be yours!
Do people really still use the "words are just words" argument? Try living without words - written, aural, spoken and visual. Words are a lot more than a particular arrangement of graphite marks on a piece of paper, or vibrating air molecules. Words function on a cognitive level (if you can say they "function" at all), which means they're deeply involved with many aspects of human behaviour, including the emotions. If you want to hurt a person, you could go out and break their arm, or you could make them believe that their personal experiences and aspirations are trivial and worthless. It's not about "you let them hurt you with their words because you are a weak person" - both acts are damaging (and one might argue that it's easier to heal a bone than to restore a person's self esteem).
There are a lot of nuances in this argument, and I think a lot of them are being missed between posts - probably doesn't help that there seems to be a tendency for Americans to jump on the censorship/free speech bandwagon as soon as possible, even when it's not necessarily relevant, and an often incomplete understanding of what the concept and its application actually entails.
On March 27 2012 12:54 khaydarin9 wrote: Do people really still use the "words are just words" argument? Try living without words - written, aural, spoken and visual. Words are a lot more than a particular arrangement of graphite marks on a piece of paper, or vibrating air molecules. Words function on a cognitive level (if you can say they "function" at all), which means they're deeply involved with many aspects of human behaviour, including the emotions. If you want to hurt a person, you could go out and break their arm, or you could make them believe that their personal experiences and aspirations are trivial and worthless. It's not about "you let them hurt you with their words because you are a weak person" - both acts are damaging (and one might argue that it's easier to heal a bone than to restore a person's self esteem).
There are a lot of nuances in this argument, and I think a lot of them are being missed between posts - probably doesn't help that there seems to be a tendency for Americans to jump on the censorship/free speech bandwagon as soon as possible, even when it's not necessarily relevant, and an often incomplete understanding of what the concept and its application actually entails.
Here's the truth in a nutshell.
People who don't get offended are the privileged upper class of society. They are the people who are well enough and stable enough that they have no fear of their livelihood becoming upturned. Their culture is the status quo, they're mind set is the status quo. To them, to think otherwise is silly because they are the privileged class and hence they don't need to have to think in other people's shoes. People who get offended often become offended because someone challenges their cultural and social norms.
For example. If a white person decided to light some sticks on fire for warmth, it should be considered normal. It's only really offensive if he burns two sticks shaped as a cross in front of a black person's home like they used to do in the US. The context of the situation is what makes the moment offensive.
So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless. If you simply state that one should never be offended--that is akin to saying that one should never feel great passion and intense emotion. Which is akin to saying that one should not care about much of anything.
It is a silencing argument wherein you are asked to simply only talk about things you don't care about so as to prevent you from actually trying to change things that matter to you.
Just using TL as an example here, but I can't help but chuckle at all this "I'm offended" talk. The gist that I am getting from a lot of people is that everyone should be allowed to say whatever is on their mind regardless of how it effects those around them. If what is said offends you, then you need to get over it. I'm sure that doesn't describe everyone, but its the overall theme I am personally picking up on.
This is exactly what I feel whenever I read these discussions as well.
I agree.
People like to pretend to take the high road when saying stupid shit. They act as if they're the ones being mature by telling others to "grow a pair" and not be so sensitive, when in fact they just want to rationalize their own immature comments and general ignorance.
Unless you believe that no one ever has any right to get angry at anything anyone says to them, then you need to shut the fuck up about this whole "don't be offended" shit. Whether its someone talking shit about black people, or if its someone calling your mother a useless whore, or even just your boss telling you how pathetically useless your work is on a daily basis, people are going to be "offended" by words.
Stephen Fry needs to look at his own idiotic comment and realize how close he is to describing himself there. He doesn't say the words "I'm offended by...", but its pretty clear he's offended by the fact that people get offended. His whole point is that people need to let things slide, but here he is not letting this issue slide. He's just as whiny as the people he describes.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless.
No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm.
For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:If you simply state that one should never be offended--that is akin to saying that one should never feel great passion and intense emotion. Which is akin to saying that one should not care about much of anything.
False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:It is a silencing argument wherein you are asked to simply only talk about things you don't care about so as to prevent you from actually trying to change things that matter to you.
No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
On March 27 2012 16:46 sunprince wrote: No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
Ok I'll take back my previous ranty post if this is what people are arguing for. Most of the time, the general feeling I get is that people are all "sticks and stones" to defend their own insulting comments and nothing more. However, if the whole point is that people should have a good reason to be offended before throwing that term out there then I can get behind that.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless.
No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm.
For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:If you simply state that one should never be offended--that is akin to saying that one should never feel great passion and intense emotion. Which is akin to saying that one should not care about much of anything.
False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:It is a silencing argument wherein you are asked to simply only talk about things you don't care about so as to prevent you from actually trying to change things that matter to you.
No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
No need to be so defensive. I have not contradicted the argument made supporting being offensive. Read what I said again.
A.) Something being a harmless offensive statement is purely objective. This goes both ways. It's subjective that the statement is harmless much like it is subjective that the statement is offensive.
B.) When you tell someone that what they're feeling (insulted) is irrelevant, you're telling them that their opinion on said subject is irrelevant.
C.) If you can't talk about things that offend you--then you aren't allowed to talk about things that actually matter to you. If you're not allowed to talk about the fact that that offensive topic offends you--then that's the same as not being allowed to talk about things that offend you. ie--it's a silencing tactic.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:A.) Something being a harmless offensive statement is purely objective. This goes both ways. It's subjective that the statement is harmless much like it is subjective that the statement is offensive.
Yes. However, you cannot base any sort of argument based on subjective harms. Frequently, however, claims of being offended are used to call for some sort of action, such as censoring that speech. That's completely flawed, since it's based on a subjective harm rather than an objective harm.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:B.) When you tell someone that what they're feeling (insulted) is irrelevant, you're telling them that their opinion on said subject is irrelevant.
Yes, we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant, and there's nothing wrong with that. Logical fallacies, such as claiming offense to silence others, are irrelevant to a real discussion. Not everyone subscribes to the touchy-feely bullshit that everyone's opinion is special like a snowflake and needs to be respected.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:C.) If you can't talk about things that offend you--then you aren't allowed to talk about things that actually matter to you. If you're not allowed to talk about the fact that that offensive topic offends you--then that's the same as not being allowed to talk about things that offend you. ie--it's a silencing tactic.
False. You can talk about things that offend you without substituting your outrage for logical arguments. No one's saying you're not allowed to whine; we're just saying we don't give a shit about your whining unless you can back it up with logic.
Of course people are offended. People get offended, the problem is people get openly offended and complain about it to a point they try to force people to do things. We've got entire generations of people who have been told "You are always correct and never will you know failure" People never learn that other people have other opinions and thoughts and they don't always agree but that's okay because people can work things out generally without resorting to violence.
So you've got a bunch of people who when someone says anything they disagree with or do something they don't like they get offended and what do they do? They try to make a law to stop it. Don't like gay people? Outlaw it. Don't like guns? Outlaw it. Don't like someone calling people mean things? Outlaw it. If you don't like something just make it illegal seems to be the easier way to handle things for a large majority of the populace. That's of course a pretty damn good reason to be worried when someone says "I'am offended"
You have a right to be offended. You do not, SHOULD not be able to stop people who you disagree with. Even if they are a bunch of hateful biggots -they- have that RIGHT to say these things. More then likely someone in your family or theirs or both died for the idea that they could march down the street in a neo-natzi outfit and proclaim Hitler to be the 2nd coming of Jesus.(proper permits for safety permitting of course)
Now conversely you have every right to watch and counter protest those people and they should not be able to hurt or stop you from doing so(Those permits come in handy for that let me tell you..)
That's what is something so very awesome about the concept of Freedom of Speech. You get to say what you want, with very few stipulations(I won't go into them I am not an expert on the US constitution but I am sure you could find out if you want)
It's worrisome I see people saying "We should have freedom of Speech except when X" You have to be -very- -very- careful when and what X is. Just because you don't like what they say isn't a good reason to have that exception.
Get offended, get angry get mad! I don't care go tell them why you disagree YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT but don't tell people they can't have a public thought on something.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:A.) Something being a harmless offensive statement is purely objective. This goes both ways. It's subjective that the statement is harmless much like it is subjective that the statement is offensive.
Yes. However, you cannot base any sort of argument based on subjective harms. Frequently, however, claims of being offended are used to call for some sort of action, such as censoring that speech. That's completely flawed, since it's based on a subjective harm rather than an objective harm.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:B.) When you tell someone that what they're feeling (insulted) is irrelevant, you're telling them that their opinion on said subject is irrelevant.
Yes, we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant, and there's nothing wrong with that. Logical fallacies, such as claiming offense to silence others, are irrelevant to a real discussion. Not everyone subscribes to the touchy-feely bullshit that everyone's opinion is special like a snowflake and needs to be respected.
On March 27 2012 17:13 lorkac wrote:C.) If you can't talk about things that offend you--then you aren't allowed to talk about things that actually matter to you. If you're not allowed to talk about the fact that that offensive topic offends you--then that's the same as not being allowed to talk about things that offend you. ie--it's a silencing tactic.
False. You can talk about things that offend you without substituting your outrage for logical arguments. No one's saying you're not allowed to whine; we're just saying we don't give a shit about your whining unless you can back it up with logic.
Sigh...
I have never said that being offended is a valid form of argumentation. I've simply said that telling people to stop being so sensitive is a silencing tactic of the privileged. You agree with me on this when you said that "we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant"--so let it go. There's no need for you to be so offended when we agree that what you're doing is a silencing tactic.
As for this statement.
No one's saying you're not allowed to whine; we're just saying we don't give a shit about your whining
If no one care's about people whining and being offended--then why does this thread exists? This thread was started because a bunch of people hate it that others whine and are offended. If no one cares that people are whining--then this thread is irrelevant.
Contrary to the belief that sticks and stones do not equal words, which supposedly do not hurt, there is a considerable body of linguistical evidence that words do hurt.
With human beings using language rather a lot, their perception is to a large extent language-driven: Though books, grass and sunshine, amongst other physical things, could be argued to be language-independent, many 'virtual' concepts exist for a large part only in the domain of thought -and therefore language.
An example of the way in which language shapes our life, and vice versa, can be easily demontrated in the 'language' of the Third Reich, where nazi ideology shaped the way the germans thought. The word 'Halbjude', or 'half-jew', a person with 2 jewish grand parents, did not exist before the national socialistic regime came to power, and to be classified as one could, aside from deportational possibilities, severely limit one's social and career opportunities. The new word helped the nazis shape the debate, as there wasn't any word (or concept) of 'Halbjude', even opponents of the regime were forced to use it and so 'implicate' themselves in the linguistical malpractice.
There are non-violent examples of language being used as in instrument. Certain government officials may marry people when some forms have been signed and they say something like 'you are now married!', police may verbally arrest one, judges and/or juries may declare one 'guilty/innocent'. While these are legally accepted situations in which language is used to operate in the 'real' world, there is some concensus that the relation between language and reality is permanent and does only differ in the degree in which one influences the other.
In the example of the Third Reich, the fact that the state media and a large portion of the non-state media as well as all the people all were in on the (linguistical) oppression, made the exclusion more tangible than if it were a case of one person calling another an idiot. And that is the last of the arguments, that humans are a social species: exclusion from the group causes stress. Even if the exclusion could be argued to be non-verbal, references to it have been shown to significantly increase stress and cause unhapiness for the excluded.
Therefore I argue that one should be careful with words, as they may very well harm a great deal. Calling people idiots for doing stupid things isn't much of a problem, but calling certain black people 'niggers' can't help but make them feel very bad, as their identities are being summarily put down. Same goes for religion: people are religious, which means that their identities include a very large part of their beliefs; they cannot help being offended, even if their rational thought more or less succesfully attempts to disregard any insult to their religion == themselves. In this case the religion-atheism debate elevates the insult above the 'idiot' level, as it is an expression of a larger existing conflict.
The extent to which this view impinges upon one's freedom to participate in social debates is of course left to the individual, however I do question the effectiveness of a confrontational approach to say, religious debate. A calmer and more argument-rich discussion could leave people less angry and more capable of processing arguments rationally.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I think this discussion has a surprising amount of rational thought in it so I put aside my oath never to participate in a general thread ever again and I hope things will improve from here on ^^
On March 27 2012 17:44 lorkac wrote:I have never said that being offended is a valid form of argumentation. I've simply said that telling people to stop being so sensitive is a silencing tactic of the privileged. You agree with me on this when you said that "we are indeed telling them their opinion is irrelevant"--so let it go. There's no need for you to be so offended when we agree that what you're doing is a silencing tactic.
We don't agree that it's a silencing tactic.
Telling someone that their opinion is irrelevant ≠ a form of silencing, no more than telling than someone they are objectively wrong is a form of silencing.
On March 27 2012 17:44 lorkac wrote:If no one care's about people whining and being offended--then why does this thread exists? This thread was started because a bunch of people hate it that others whine and are offended. If no one cares that people are whining--then this thread is irrelevant.
This thread was started because we think it's stupid that people whine about being offended. That doesn't mean we're trying to silence them. We're just pointing it out.
I think while it is important for us as a society to not only recognize when we're offending each other (and that is important), it's more important to understand why and how.
This is not an issue that we can brush aside so easily that a "Stop whining" will suffice.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless.
No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm.
For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:If you simply state that one should never be offended--that is akin to saying that one should never feel great passion and intense emotion. Which is akin to saying that one should not care about much of anything.
False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:It is a silencing argument wherein you are asked to simply only talk about things you don't care about so as to prevent you from actually trying to change things that matter to you.
No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
On March 27 2012 18:02 nepeta wrote: Contrary to the belief that sticks and stones do not equal words, which supposedly do not hurt, there is a considerable body of linguistical evidence that words do hurt.
With human beings using language rather a lot, their perception is to a large extent language-driven: Though books, grass and sunshine, amongst other physical things, could be argued to be language-independent, many 'virtual' concepts exist for a large part only in the domain of thought -and therefore language.
An example of the way in which language shapes our life, and vice versa, can be easily demontrated in the 'language' of the Third Reich, where nazi ideology shaped the way the germans thought. The word 'Halbjude', or 'half-jew', a person with 2 jewish grand parents, did not exist before the national socialistic regime came to power, and to be classified as one could, aside from deportational possibilities, severely limit one's social and career opportunities. The new word helped the nazis shape the debate, as there wasn't any word (or concept) of 'Halbjude', even opponents of the regime were forced to use it and so 'implicate' themselves in the linguistical malpractice.
There are non-violent examples of language being used as in instrument. Certain government officials may marry people when some forms have been signed and they say something like 'you are now married!', police may verbally arrest one, judges and/or juries may declare one 'guilty/innocent'. While these are legally accepted situations in which language is used to operate in the 'real' world, there is some concensus that the relation between language and reality is permanent and does only differ in the degree in which one influences the other.
In the example of the Third Reich, the fact that the state media and a large portion of the non-state media as well as all the people all were in on the (linguistical) oppression, made the exclusion more tangible than if it were a case of one person calling another an idiot. And that is the last of the arguments, that humans are a social species: exclusion from the group causes stress. Even if the exclusion could be argued to be non-verbal, references to it have been shown to significantly increase stress and cause unhapiness for the excluded.
Therefore I argue that one should be careful with words, as they may very well harm a great deal. Calling people idiots for doing stupid things isn't much of a problem, but calling certain black people 'niggers' can't help but make them feel very bad, as their identities are being summarily put down. Same goes for religion: people are religious, which means that their identities include a very large part of their beliefs; they cannot help being offended, even if their rational thought more or less succesfully attempts to disregard any insult to their religion == themselves. In this case the religion-atheism debate elevates the insult above the 'idiot' level, as it is an expression of a larger existing conflict.
The extent to which this view impinges upon one's freedom to participate in social debates is of course left to the individual, however I do question the effectiveness of a confrontational approach to say, religious debate. A calmer and more argument-rich discussion could leave people less angry and more capable of processing arguments rationally.
Actually I can get offended and don't give a shit when you say "so what?" bc I probably think I'm better than you - that's why I also get offended. Right?
Well, I usually don't give a shit so I don't really get offended easily.
In the other hand, I may get offended by people that actually care if I get offended - people that are close. Yes?
Who cares about other people and so why should I get offended by non caring persons?
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation.
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
On March 27 2012 18:02 nepeta wrote: Contrary to the belief that sticks and stones do not equal words, which supposedly do not hurt, there is a considerable body of linguistical evidence that words do hurt.
With human beings using language rather a lot, their perception is to a large extent language-driven: Though books, grass and sunshine, amongst other physical things, could be argued to be language-independent, many 'virtual' concepts exist for a large part only in the domain of thought -and therefore language.
An example of the way in which language shapes our life, and vice versa, can be easily demontrated in the 'language' of the Third Reich, where nazi ideology shaped the way the germans thought. The word 'Halbjude', or 'half-jew', a person with 2 jewish grand parents, did not exist before the national socialistic regime came to power, and to be classified as one could, aside from deportational possibilities, severely limit one's social and career opportunities. The new word helped the nazis shape the debate, as there wasn't any word (or concept) of 'Halbjude', even opponents of the regime were forced to use it and so 'implicate' themselves in the linguistical malpractice.
There are non-violent examples of language being used as in instrument. Certain government officials may marry people when some forms have been signed and they say something like 'you are now married!', police may verbally arrest one, judges and/or juries may declare one 'guilty/innocent'. While these are legally accepted situations in which language is used to operate in the 'real' world, there is some concensus that the relation between language and reality is permanent and does only differ in the degree in which one influences the other.
In the example of the Third Reich, the fact that the state media and a large portion of the non-state media as well as all the people all were in on the (linguistical) oppression, made the exclusion more tangible than if it were a case of one person calling another an idiot. And that is the last of the arguments, that humans are a social species: exclusion from the group causes stress. Even if the exclusion could be argued to be non-verbal, references to it have been shown to significantly increase stress and cause unhapiness for the excluded.
Therefore I argue that one should be careful with words, as they may very well harm a great deal. Calling people idiots for doing stupid things isn't much of a problem, but calling certain black people 'niggers' can't help but make them feel very bad, as their identities are being summarily put down. Same goes for religion: people are religious, which means that their identities include a very large part of their beliefs; they cannot help being offended, even if their rational thought more or less succesfully attempts to disregard any insult to their religion == themselves. In this case the religion-atheism debate elevates the insult above the 'idiot' level, as it is an expression of a larger existing conflict.
The extent to which this view impinges upon one's freedom to participate in social debates is of course left to the individual, however I do question the effectiveness of a confrontational approach to say, religious debate. A calmer and more argument-rich discussion could leave people less angry and more capable of processing arguments rationally.
Really, the concept of censorship itself is proof that language shapes reality.
Please stop trying to use 'nerd' as a token of covert coolness please, your language use is clearly distorting the fact that everyone, not just 'nerdy' (cool) people, should know a bit about it -^
On March 27 2012 18:26 sunprince wrote: A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Psychological damage can be measured as well, although the relations between words and stress/depression/neurosis is less clearly identifiable than that between a fist and an eye. Same goes for certain toxins, or STDs, whose effects may manifest years after exposure. Your argument for relative damage sustained may be said to apply to bruising as well; or else a blow to the stomach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do. You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think
If people wouldn't point out when you are being offensive I would still go around doing a lot of things blatantly offensive since my childhood. That obviously doesn't mean I always do this because it's basically impossible to avoid offending every single person in the world no matter what you do, but I question the level of empathy of people that don't give a crap if people are offended by what they say. Grow up.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:So when people say "harmless" offensive statements, what they mean is "harmless" according to their own arbitrary concept of harmless.
No. When someone says that offensive statements are "harmless" what we mean is that they don't cause objective harm.
For example, some people find a depiction of Muhammad harmless, while others find it harmful. Forbidding such a depiction based on the latter would be stupid, because it's obviously a subjective harm.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:If you simply state that one should never be offended--that is akin to saying that one should never feel great passion and intense emotion. Which is akin to saying that one should not care about much of anything.
False. You can care about many things without carrying about people saying bad things about you. I don't care if someone insults me, but I care if someone physically attacks me.
On March 27 2012 16:12 lorkac wrote:It is a silencing argument wherein you are asked to simply only talk about things you don't care about so as to prevent you from actually trying to change things that matter to you.
No one is saying that you can't be offended or state that you are offended. The point being made here is that you can't subsitute your emotional arguments for logic. Feel free to be offended all you want, but don't use that as a basis to demand anything.
I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
The legitimacy of punishing verbal assault could exist in the domain of responsibility: as a social mode of attack, many people carry a small amount of guilt, and it would be impractical to punish all the people responsible for the widely varying result of calling someone a nigger/jew/nerd/whatever. 5 cts fine for using the word 'nigger', 10 cts if shouted? And then a legacy-punishment of 0,01 ct every time someone calls someone a nigger after you have said it?
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation.
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
Sidenote: While I largely agree with you I find your implication that one cannot cause objective harm through insults false. If for example bullying is carried out purely verbally would the Bullies be within their rights to bully their victims?
The point must be that simply being offended is no basis to demand changes in other persons behaviour. Obviousl at some point language can go from subjectivly offensive to objectively hurtful. (In this case objectively hurtful would be definded by me as "any reasonable person being would be hurt by the kind of language we're talking about, not just a subset or an individual".)
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation.
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
Sidenote: While I largely agree with you I find your implication that one cannot cause objective harm through insults false. If for example bullying is carried out purely verbally would the Bullies be within their rights to bully their victims?
The point must be that simply being offended is no basis to demand changes in other persons behaviour. Obviously at some point language can go from subjectivly offensive to objectively hurtful. (In this case objectively hurtful would be definded by me as "any reasonable person being would be hurt by the kind of language we're talking about, not just a subset or an individual".)
EDIT: Further clarification: Hurt as in "objective hurt", not as in "feeling hurt".
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:I would be careful of your use of the concept of objectivity when it comes to language. The only thing that is objective about any word is the physical formation of the sound it makes when you say it - that is, the frequency of its pitch, its volume etc., and even that is only objective under certain ontology. Everything about a word's meaning is entirely subjective - if someone is harmed by something you said, whether you or not you intended to harm them has no validity of their pain.
Nothing I have said in this thread suggests that I consider language objective. In fact, the subjectivity of taking offense is the whole point, and the reason why you cannot use offense as a basis for logical argumentation.
On March 27 2012 18:12 khaydarin9 wrote:My next question is: what if there was someone didn't care if they were physically attacked, but they cared greatly if someone insulted them? Does that mean we should tell people who are assaulted (and like yourself, don't care if they are insulted) to not let it get to them and learn to deal with it better? Both physical and verbal assault can be damaging. I am unsure as to why one is considered to be more legitimate than the other.
A physical attack causes an objective harm. No matter how someone feels about it, there is harm that can be perceived in the real, physical world. You can empirically identify that harm, you can empirically measure it, and you can empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do not change physical harm, nor does that extent of that physical harm vary from person to person. By contrast, being insulted is not an objective harm. You cannot percieve it in the real, physical world. You cannot empirically identify it, you cannot empirically measure it, and you cannot empirically prove its existence. Your state of mind, sanity, etc., do affect psychic harm, and the extent of that psychic harm varies from person to person. In other words, physical harm is more legitimate than psychic harm because the former is objective, while the latter is subjective.
Here's a question to you: if someone considers insulting them to be as harmful as murder, should we punish people who insult them as we would punish murderers? There's plenty of religious people who believe that blasphemy is a sin on the order of murder or rape. Should we punish people who depict Muhammed because millions of people consider that offensive? What do we do about the fact that racists find eqality offensive? How about if I take grievous offense to you taking offense? Where do we draw the line?
Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - emotional states manifest themselves chemically in the mind and can be empirically measured, hence pharmacology treatments to depression and other mental illness.
I suspect my view on punishment is vastly different to yours, and that's a completely new digression if you want to get into it - for starters, I'm not sure if you're referring to punishment in legal discourse, or societal punishment, and again, Foucault has some interesting things to say on this point. I'm not advocating punishment on any front on this point - the question I was attempting to ask was: why is an act of verbal harm considered to be less grevious than an act of physical harm?
As to your first point: just because something is subjective doesn't mean it defies logic or cannot be used logically - if we agree that language is subjective, then we would have to forfeit language as tool with which to form rational arguments ... which wouldn't get us very far.
I believe that the "subjective" response of feeling offended can be a rational one, but that often people are not articulate enough to be able to express why they feel that way, and what it is about that statement that is hurtful, and so they get stuck on tautology of it, and the tautology is irrational.
When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
Here's a person that's well educated. Where are you? It's another world.
Yes. However, you cannot base any sort of argument based on subjective harms. Frequently, however, claims of being offended are used to call for some sort of action, such as censoring that speech. That's completely flawed, since it's based on a subjective harm rather than an objective harm.
Sunprince, you knocked the ball out of the park! You're giving me more hope that the counter-position to what the offense peddlers want you to think is still defended logically and easily. And by offense peddlers, I mean those whose job it is to gather collective whines about verbal offenses and use them for censorship and theft of money.
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote: Please stop trying to use 'nerd' as a token of covert coolness please, your language use is clearly distorting the fact that everyone, not just 'nerdy' (cool) people, should know a bit about it -^ ach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do. You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think
It would be nice if everyone knew a bit about it (the existence of this thread is a prime example as to why) - honestly, it's so rare for me to come across a cultural studies and/or humanities specialist outside of my degree (something about the demographics of the internet forums I tend to frequent, say) that my first instinct is to cry solidarity, though I always thought nerd was the opposite of cool ...
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
'Nerd' can be used by nerds as 'nigger' is used by black people, it then becomes a unifying token. But check your PM before we hit any more tangents here :p
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Psychological damage can be measured as well, although the relations between words and stress/depression/neurosis is less clearly identifiable than that between a fist and an eye. Same goes for certain toxins, or STDs, whose effects may manifest years after exposure.
What I mean is, there's no way to measure the damage caused by any particular verbal attack. A broken arm is a broken arm, regardless of who sustains it. But calling someone a racial slur can vary greatly across people, so how do we measure the harm of calling someone a racial slur?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Your argument for relative damage sustained may be said to apply to bruising as well; or else a blow to the stomach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do.
Delivering a blow to someone is still an objectively harmful act. By contrast, not all people find homosexuality offensive, though some obviously find it extremely offensive. Should we err on the side of not offending people, and ban everything that might offend anyone, or ban nothing at all?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think
Yeah, I'm aware I'm using rather explicit terms here, but it's in the interests of explaining what should be a simple concept to belligerents.
On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - emotional states manifest themselves chemically in the mind and can be empirically measured, hence pharmacology treatments to depression and other mental illness.
You can empirically measure the effect caused by any one verbal attack on an individual, but you cannot come up with an objective measure of how harmful that particular attack is. For example, how offensive is it to call someone a nigger? If you measure 10 different people, you'll get 10 different values.
On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:I'm not advocating punishment on any front on this point - the question I was attempting to ask was: why is an act of verbal harm considered to be less grevious than an act of physical harm?
Because it's subjective. That would be the point I'm making.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Psychological damage can be measured as well, although the relations between words and stress/depression/neurosis is less clearly identifiable than that between a fist and an eye. Same goes for certain toxins, or STDs, whose effects may manifest years after exposure.
What I mean is, there's no way to measure the damage caused by any particular verbal attack. A broken arm is a broken arm, regardless of who sustains it. But calling someone a racial slur can vary greatly across people, so how do we measure the harm of calling someone a racial slur?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:Your argument for relative damage sustained may be said to apply to bruising as well; or else a blow to the stomach of a boxer and a waitress should do equal damage, which it will be easily demonstrated not to do.
Delivering a blow to someone is still an objectively harmful act. By contrast, not all people find homosexuality offensive, though some obviously find it extremely offensive. Should we err on the side of not offending people, and ban everything that might offend anyone, or ban nothing at all?
On March 27 2012 18:42 nepeta wrote:You're thinking a bit black-and-white on both harmful domains I think
Yeah, I'm aware I'm using rather explicit terms here, but it's in the interests of explaining what should be a simple concept to belligerents.
Measuring the effects of a racial slur is nearly impossible if you want to go further than to state it is worse than calling someone an idiot. Personally I'd plead caution for using words one can't oversee the result of. Same goes for broken arms: for a child it's a few weeks rest, but for an old person it could be curtains. Could be administered in a situation of self defense, in war, by accident or just for kicks.
Also most concepts aren't simple :p And as to belligerents, I thought you were one as well until you made the post I'm now replying to ^^
On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - emotional states manifest themselves chemically in the mind and can be empirically measured, hence pharmacology treatments to depression and other mental illness.
You can empirically measure the effect caused by any one verbal attack on an individual, but you cannot come up with an objective measure of how harmful that particular attack is. For example, how offensive is it to call someone a nigger? If you measure 10 different people, you'll get 10 different values.
On March 27 2012 18:49 khaydarin9 wrote:I'm not advocating punishment on any front on this point - the question I was attempting to ask was: why is an act of verbal harm considered to be less grevious than an act of physical harm?
Because it's subjective. That would be the point I'm making.
You could hit ten different people with a force of, I don't know, 10N and you would get 10 different results varying from bruising to broken bones. In terms of damages - and in terms of punishment, which seems to be what you're coming back to - it's not the "objective" force of the attack that counts, but the results.
I've seen a kid do a Nazi salute while on a class trip in germany (not being hostile but just doing something he'd seen in a movie). Shouldn't people tell the kid that it's offensive or is that too much whine for you?
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
On March 27 2012 19:16 gruff wrote: I've seen a kid do a Nazi salute while on a class trip in germany (not being hostile but just doing something he'd seen in a movie). Shouldn't people tell the kid that it's offensive or is that too much whine for you?
Well, if the kid was honestly ignorant about history it sure would be helpful to explain WHY his funny armgesture is objectionable. Otherwise making up examples where the offensiveness of an action is clear to a reasonable person is not really helpful to the discussion at hand.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on my definition of common courtesy. There is no 'my definition'.
Which definition are we using then? And yes, you provide a vague term the definition of which only seems to be clear (and isn't really clarified by "Common courtesy is basically just etiquette." btw.) to you and then expect everyones behaviour to conform to your expaction.
My expaction of reasonable discourse (which to my mind falls under common courtesy or etiquette) for example would be that a person that claims to be offended by something that is being said can actually explain why this is. If I find his objection reasonable I might appologieze and alter my bahaviour. "I am offended" however is not a magical phrase that makes me appologieze without a clear reason. And just to be abolutely clear: Somebody being offended is in itself not a reason to appolgiese.
On March 27 2012 19:12 khaydarin9 wrote:You could hit ten different people with a force of, I don't know, 10N and you would get 10 different results varying from bruising to broken bones. In terms of damages - and in terms of punishment, which seems to be what you're coming back to - it's not the "objective" force of the attack that counts, but the results.
You can still measure the force of a blow as 10N. You cannot measure the force of calling someone a racial slur.
On March 27 2012 19:12 khaydarin9 wrote:You could hit ten different people with a force of, I don't know, 10N and you would get 10 different results varying from bruising to broken bones. In terms of damages - and in terms of punishment, which seems to be what you're coming back to - it's not the "objective" force of the attack that counts, but the results.
You can still measure the force of a blow as 10N. You cannot measure the force of calling someone a racial slur.
My point was, the 10N is irrelevant to the result - you don't object to someone hitting you with 10N of force, you object to someone breaking your arm. You don't object to someone forming a particular sound with his mouth, you object to the feeling of hurt, frustration and resentment you feel in response to cognitively processing that sound.
There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote: There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
I really am uncomfortable with the reapeted usage of "right to be offended". Being offended is an involuntary emotional response, your right is simply to express that you suffered said emotional response. And therein lies the point of Mr Fry. Stating that you suffered an emotional response to something has by itself no, nor should it have, implication for other peoples freedom to express themselves. It is, in this sense, a meaningless phrase.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote: There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
There is NO fucking difference between what you call an opinion and a personal attack. It's just semantics. Try getting away with "I think jews should die" as your personal opinion that's not an attack and therefor nothing to be offended about. People will most likely (*cough cough*) still see it as an attack and with good reason.
In general, people are way too emo over stuff that is "offending" them. Not regarding the extreme cases where gouvernments have an interest of stepping in to protect people form harm, literally all cases of "being offended" can be solved by this:
If someone calls me fat and disgusting I'd laugh in his face, call him a moron and move on with my life and without this person. Problem solved.
Now, if he calls someone fat and disgusting who FEELS fat and disgusting himself... he will cry and bitch that he's offended by this behaviour.
I'm offended by people being offended easily. Now what?
Not sure if the concepts behind this are easily to understand without further explanation, but the simple truth behind this stuff is this: Any verbal expression that comes towards you and challenges what you represent is nothing more but a test of your personal framing of the world.
On March 27 2012 19:27 khaydarin9 wrote:My point was, the 10N is irrelevant to the result - you don't object to someone hitting you with 10N of force, you object to someone breaking your arm. You don't object to someone forming a particular sound with his mouth, you object to the feeling of hurt, frustration and resentment you feel in response to cognitively processing that sound.
How you feel about the words is the result of your own beliefs, values, and opinions, all of which are mutable characteristics. The fact that a broken arm causes you harm is not a mutable characteristic.
Regardless, you're focusing all of your attention on a single example I gave you for why verbal harms are subjective. Nitpicking aside, I'm sure it's because you understand as well as most people do that insults are subjective harms.
On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote: There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
There is NO fucking difference between what you call an opinion and a personal attack. It's just semantics. Try getting away with "I think jews should die" as your personal opinion that's not an attack and therefor nothing to be offended about. People will most likely (*cough cough*) still see it as an attack and with good reason.
In general, people are way too emo over stuff that is "offending" them. Not regarding the extreme cases where gouvernments have an interest of stepping in to protect people form harm, literally all cases of "being offended" can be solved by this:
If someone calls me fat and disgusting I'd laugh in his face, call him a moron and move on with my life and without this person. Problem solved.
Now, if he calls someone fat and disgusting who FEELS fat and disgusting himself... he will cry and bitch that he's offended by this behaviour.
I'm offended by people being offended easily. Now what?
Not sure if the concepts behind this are easily to understand without further explanation, but the simple truth behind this stuff is this: Any verbal expression that comes towards you and challenges what you represent is nothing more but a test of your personal framing of the world.
You actually are making the same mistake your hypothetical easyly offended people make: You assume that your emotional responses can or should be universally applicable. The point is not to dictate people how to feel abourt things (being insulted seems to be the example of choice), but to point out that an unqualified statement of a feeling is not a valid reason to alter behaviour or discourse.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
The bare fact of someone feeling offense is not a morally relevant fact, because someone can be rightfully or wrongfully offended.
There was this smart guy named Aristotle (some may even say that he was as smart as this Steven Fry dude) who said something like "anyone can get angry, since that is easy, but to get angry with the right person at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way is difficult" in his 'Nicomachean Ethics.'
The point is that there are appropriate and inappropriate emotional responses. Sometimes it IS appropriate to get offended by something. The interesting feature of situations like this is not the bare fact of someone taking offense but rather the fact that there is something worth getting offended by.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
On March 27 2012 19:38 Podzz wrote: There has to be a distinction between a personal attack and an opinion. Both can be hurtful but both don't necessarily get the same response.
Personal attack - "Your fat and disgusting."
Opinion - " I think your fat and disgusting"
Free speech denotes that you can make a personal attack but the person being attacked dose have the "Right" to be offended and defend themselves. Just like you would expect to be able to defend yourself if it was a physical attack.
On the other had someone having an opinion that is offensive doesn't give you the right to automatically get offended. You can if you like but that's it your offended. Either voice your opinion or shut up. Don't expect someone to come with the pitch forks and torches to your defence.
Then we have the case of celebrities, they get a huge amount of cash for being in the public eye. Personal attacks are part of it and if they don't like it they can get out of the game.
There is NO fucking difference between what you call an opinion and a personal attack. It's just semantics. Try getting away with "I think jews should die" as your personal opinion that's not an attack and therefor nothing to be offended about. People will most likely (*cough cough*) still see it as an attack and with good reason.
In general, people are way too emo over stuff that is "offending" them. Not regarding the extreme cases where gouvernments have an interest of stepping in to protect people form harm, literally all cases of "being offended" can be solved by this:
If someone calls me fat and disgusting I'd laugh in his face, call him a moron and move on with my life and without this person. Problem solved.
Now, if he calls someone fat and disgusting who FEELS fat and disgusting himself... he will cry and bitch that he's offended by this behaviour.
I'm offended by people being offended easily. Now what?
Not sure if the concepts behind this are easily to understand without further explanation, but the simple truth behind this stuff is this: Any verbal expression that comes towards you and challenges what you represent is nothing more but a test of your personal framing of the world.
You actually are making the same mistake your hypothetical easyly offended people make: You assume that your emotional responses can or should be universally applicable. The point is not to dictate people how to feel abourt things (being insulted seems to be the example of choice), but to point out that an unqualified statement of a feeling is not a valid reason to alter behaviour or discourse.
I am very aware of emotional responses not being universally applicable.
The difference is, that if you make an effort to eliminate that factor you are left with two extremes:
a) Every statement can be laid out as offensive. b) Every statement can be laid out as not-offensive.
I would rather live in a society where b) is true compared to a).
The point is not to dictate people how to feel abourt things (being insulted seems to be the example of choice), but to point out that an unqualified statement of a feeling is not a valid reason to alter behaviour or discourse.
Agree. My point is, let's stay with insults, if someone calls someone fat the ONLY reason that person is offended by that statement is because he or she knows it's a) true and b) bad. That person just got feedback from their environment over the image said environment perceives about them. They then reflect the feedback and come to the conclusion that the feedback is TRUE and that being fat is a BAD thing. ----> You suggest they should not alter behaviour but instead be offended and bitch about.
Once again, if external feedback makes you feel offended it has to, in your view of the world, to be TRUE and suggest NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
EDIT:
On March 27 2012 20:29 r.Evo wrote:
Agree. My point is, let's stay with insults, if someone calls someone fat the ONLY reason that person is offended by that statement is because he or she knows it's a) true and b) bad. That person just got feedback from their environment over the image said environment perceives about them. They then reflect the feedback and come to the conclusion that the feedback is TRUE and that being fat is a BAD thing. ----> You suggest they should not alter behaviour but instead be offended and bitch about.
Once again, if external feedback makes you feel offended it has to, in your view of the world, to be TRUE and suggest NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS.
Hmm, I must be extremly unclear. I'll try again: I do not suggest any kind of specific reaction, because it is not my (or your) decision how somebody should react. That you have a valid theory of WHY they react the way they do does not give you the right to dictate behaviour, just as them being offended does not give them the right to to dictate behaviour.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied.
On March 27 2012 18:51 sharky246 wrote: When someone gets offended by what you say, you should say your sorry and refrain from doing it again, not talk back say 'so fucking what?'. It's common courtesy.
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
Agree. My point is, let's stay with insults, if someone calls someone fat the ONLY reason that person is offended by that statement is because he or she knows it's a) true and b) bad. That person just got feedback from their environment over the image said environment perceives about them. They then reflect the feedback and come to the conclusion that the feedback is TRUE and that being fat is a BAD thing. ----> You suggest they should not alter behaviour but instead be offended and bitch about.
Once again, if external feedback makes you feel offended it has to, in your view of the world, to be TRUE and suggest NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS.
Hmm, I must be extremly unclear. I'll try again: I do not suggest any kind of specific reaction, because it is not my (or your) decision how somebody should react. That you have a valid theory of WHY they react the way they do does not give you the right to dictate behaviour, just as them being offended does not give them the right to to dictate behaviour.
So erhm... what exactly is your solution to "I'm offended by that!" vs "Stop being a pussy!"?
Both sides try to dictate appropriate behaviour, that's just how humans work. If you say neither side should do that you're presenting an artificial solution that just isn't applicable. It's like having 300 people brawl somewhere and someone saying "Can you please stop hurting each other?" =P
I am offended by your unreasoned assertation. Please don't do it again.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied.
Sorry, somebody being offended is not a conflict. It's an emotional reaction that stems from the actual conflict. In my example the conflict is an opposing worldview (sky = green vs. sky = blue). The conflict is not resovled by B appolgiezing, it is simply ignored.
You make the assumption that A (the offended party) is automaticly right, just because he is offended. Which is exactly the kind of thinking Mr. Fry is critizising. Being offended =/= being right.
EDIT:
On March 27 2012 20:45 r.Evo wrote:
So erhm... what exactly is your solution to "I'm offended by that!" vs "Stop being a pussy!"?
Both sides try to dictate appropriate behaviour, that's just how humans work. If you say neither side should do that you're presenting an artificial solution that just isn't applicable. It's like having 300 people brawl somewhere and someone saying "Can you please stop hurting each other?" =P
I do not mean to offer an solution (which basicly comes across the same as trying to dictate behaviour). I just point out a fallacy. In reasonable discourse this will be responded to reasonably. Unreasonable bahaviour can be ignored or pointed out again. If we actually rule out reasonable discourse as a rule we have a whole different debatte on our hands then pointing out that "I am offended" is not a valid argument.
I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
You make two assertations:
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote:
On March 27 2012 18:57 sharky246 wrote:I did not bother mentioning this (because you can figure it out yourself), but you can't get offended by common courtesy (this is the one exception). That just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied.
Sorry, somebody being offended is not a conflict. It's an emotional reaction that stems from the actual conflict. In my example the conflict is an opposing worldview (sky = green vs. sky = blue). The conflicht is not resovled by B appolgiezing, it is simply ignored.
You make the assumption that A (the offended party) is automaticly right, just because he is offended. Which is exactly the kind of thinking Mr. Fry is critizising. Being offended =/= being right.
Suppose that A thought sky = green and B thought sky = blue. If A doesn't become offended at all by the difference in thought, it would result in no one being offended. By your logic, this situation would still be a conflict, which just doesn't seem to make any sense. There are people who believe in christianity and people who believe in hinduism. Does that mean they are conflict?
1) You define or have an exclusive right to the definition of common courtesy. This offends me. 2) You want to dictate everyones behaviour based on your definition of common courtesy. This also offends me.
Courtesy, common or otherwise does not offend me. So where is my sorry?
To further elaborate: Somebody believes the sky is green. I express my view that the sky is blue. This person is offended by my assertation that his dearly held believe that the sky is green is wrong and tells me so. By your standard I would have to applogize to this person and not mention again that the sky is blue within his hearing?
I don't have an exclusive right to the definition. Common courtesy is basically just etiquette. And i don't want to dictate everyone's behaviour based on 'my definition of common courtesy'. There is no 'my definition'.
On March 27 2012 19:05 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Yes, you can. People vary widely, and it's perfectly reasonable that someone could find literally anything offensive.
What if someone worships the devil, and finds courtesy an affront to their lord?
why would someone worship the devil?
This is ridiculous. What do you mean, WHY would someone worship the devil? Why would someone opt to become a serial rapist? If you asked them, I'm sure they have their own unique justification for doing such a thing. People are not perfectly rational beings. You still have not answered the question posed by msl. The point he's making is that your way of avoiding 'conflict' can lead to certain situations where apologising for their being offended is absurd. You have not answered his question because you, yourself, realise this.
if apologising (whether absurd or not) resolves the problem, then what does it matter whether or not it is absurd?
Because resolving conflict is not an universally good thing. Conflict is necessary, especially in shaping discourse. The assumption that the prime directive in human interaction should be avoiding conflict is troublesome to say the least.
how could resolving conflict not be a good thing? Conflict is necessary? Then why do people opt to resolve it?
good =/= universally good
Conflict is necessary because resolving conflict in a manner that actually accomplishes something is a good thing . By your rules conflicts are not being resolved, but ignored.
I don't see how it is ignoring, Conflict= A gets offended by B, B says sorry, A accepts apology, both A and B are satisfied, therefore conflict cease to exist. It is not being ignored as far as i can see, but resolved. Or if apology doesnt suffice, B offers some sort of compensation (not money, can be something else) that A is willing to accept, A accepts compensation, both A and B are satisfied.
Sorry, somebody being offended is not a conflict. It's an emotional reaction that stems from the actual conflict. In my example the conflict is an opposing worldview (sky = green vs. sky = blue). The conflicht is not resovled by B appolgiezing, it is simply ignored.
You make the assumption that A (the offended party) is automaticly right, just because he is offended. Which is exactly the kind of thinking Mr. Fry is critizising. Being offended =/= being right.
Suppose that A thought sky = green and B thought sky = blue. If A doesn't become offended at all by the difference in thought, it would result in no one being offended. By your logic, this situation would still be a conflict, which just doesn't seem to make any sense. There are people who believe in christianity and people who believe in hinduism. Does that mean they are conflict?
Obviously there is a conflict in worldview there. Definition of conflict I am using: A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash. Also a state of opposition between ideas, interests, etc.; disagreement or controversy
Every time someone says they're offended by something I always imagine them saying it in a very high pitched posh voice. I think he's absolutely right, saying you're offended like that means it should be stopped immediately is just whining and bitching with a fairly large sense of entitlement, as if your opinion should dictate the actions of others.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 23:14 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 23:14 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
On March 28 2012 06:45 Falling wrote: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.
Derision, scorn, or loathing, implied or otherwise, isn't a harm. While I heavily disagree with Neo-Nazi's, the fact remains that they are entitled to their views, and as long as they don't act on them they're free to do as they wish.
On March 28 2012 06:45 Falling wrote: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.
That's a straw man, as nobody has argued that you should be considerate of inconsiderate jerks. The only argument being made is that calling them inconsiderate jerks is pointless.
On March 28 2012 06:45 Falling wrote: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.
Again, a straw man, as nobody has argued that uncivilized speech is a good thing, merely that it must be permitted. Ad hominems like most hate speech are also frequently used as logical fallacies, but two wrongs don't make a right. Calling out hate speech for the reasons why it's wrong is far better than simply insisting it's offensive.
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.
Again, contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - feelings are for more complex than a choice. Most people do not "choose" to feel grief when someone they love dies. It's akin to saying that people "choose" to feel depression. Emotions are connected to physiological changes in the brain.
Again, I think you're switching between the idea of legal rights/punishment and social rights/punishment whenever it suits your argument, when they're entirely different discourses. There are, I'm assuming in your country, different legal rights for people have a mental disability - the insanity defence, or whatever. There is also the case of manslaughter. A murder is a murder - it's not legally "right" to murder someone for breaking your arm, it's not legally "right" for someone to murder someone for disrespecting them. The nuances social justifiability are more nuanced than that.
And again, I think there's a disparity between what you mean when you say "being offended" and what some other people are saying here. I understand "being offended" as the cognitive response of hurt and frustration, and it is my stance that people have a "right", or are justified in having the whole range of emotional responses to external stimuli. Others are identifying "being offended" as a sort of pseudo-political position, attached to the extremes of both the left and right wings, and in this context, I am inclined to agree that it is perhaps not the most productive of ideologies. Stephen Fry, in the OP, was probably somewhere in the middle.
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.
Nobody is gonna pay their life just because they offended someone. Be reasonable.
it what way is it detrimental to society? And look at it from this this perspective. If we did the opposite, instead of encouraging the idea that an offended person always gets their way, we would be encouraging inconsideration for others.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - feelings are for more complex than a choice. Most people do not "choose" to feel grief when someone they love dies. It's akin to saying that people "choose" to feel depression. Emotions are connected to physiological changes in the brain.
I'll concede that I don't have an advanced knowledge of psychology and psychiatry, but I will offer the observation that people do sometimes choose not to take offense at something, and it's not because it was merely less offensive to them. Likewise, I think it can also be readily observed that people sometimes choose to be easily offended by many things. Clearly, choice appears to play a role.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, I think you're switching between the idea of legal rights/punishment and social rights/punishment whenever it suits your argument, when they're entirely different discourses. There are, I'm assuming in your country, different legal rights for people have a mental disability - the insanity defence, or whatever. There is also the case of manslaughter. A murder is a murder - it's not legally "right" to murder someone for breaking your arm, it's not legally "right" for someone to murder someone for disrespecting them. The nuances social justifiability are more nuanced than that.
The question you've posed is why we privilege physical harms over verbal insults. The answer I've given is that the former is objective and the latter is not, and you haven't successfully addressed this.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:And again, I think there's a disparity between what you mean when you say "being offended" and what some other people are saying here. I understand "being offended" as the cognitive response of hurt and frustration, and it is my stance that people have a "right", or are justified in having the whole range of emotional responses to external stimuli.
I think people have a right to be offended; I haven't suggested otherwise. But at the same time, I don't think being offended entitles you to anything, whether that's legal/social restitution, or a free pass to use it as a logical fallacy.
Again, a straw man, as nobody has argued that uncivilized speech is a good thing, merely that it must be permitted. Ad hominems like most hate speech are also frequently used as logical fallacies, but two wrongs don't make a right. Calling out hate speech for the reasons why it's wrong is far better than simply insisting it's offensive.
So are you arguing that "I am offended" is completely useless as Stephen Fry seems to be saying. Or that it is inadquate on it's own? Because I would say essential to that phrase is the because... (insert reasons listed.)
But I don't think that makes the first part useless. 'I am offended' is the effect of a few reasons that would hwave presumably followed. And in a reasonable conversation, where one person says they are offended for x reason and x reason is reasonable, then the first person if they are being considerate would at the very least acknowledge that they didn't know it would be seen as offensive.
Now this obviously doesn't always happen and may in fact not even be the norm. But it doesn't for that reason make the phrase meangingless or purposeless. I agree that I don't necessarily think it requires government action.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, contemporary psychology and psychiatry would disagree with you - feelings are for more complex than a choice. Most people do not "choose" to feel grief when someone they love dies. It's akin to saying that people "choose" to feel depression. Emotions are connected to physiological changes in the brain.
I'll concede that I don't have an advanced knowledge of psychology and psychiatry, but I will offer the observation that people do sometimes choose not to take offense at something, and it's not because it was merely less offensive to them. Likewise, I think it can also be readily observed that people sometimes choose to be easily offended by many things. Clearly, choice appears to play a role.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:Again, I think you're switching between the idea of legal rights/punishment and social rights/punishment whenever it suits your argument, when they're entirely different discourses. There are, I'm assuming in your country, different legal rights for people have a mental disability - the insanity defence, or whatever. There is also the case of manslaughter. A murder is a murder - it's not legally "right" to murder someone for breaking your arm, it's not legally "right" for someone to murder someone for disrespecting them. The nuances social justifiability are more nuanced than that.
The question you've posed is why we privilege physical harms over verbal insults. The answer I've given is that the former is objective and the latter is not, and you haven't successfully addressed this.
On March 28 2012 09:08 khaydarin9 wrote:And again, I think there's a disparity between what you mean when you say "being offended" and what some other people are saying here. I understand "being offended" as the cognitive response of hurt and frustration, and it is my stance that people have a "right", or are justified in having the whole range of emotional responses to external stimuli.
I think people have a right to be offended; I haven't suggested otherwise. But at the same time, I don't think being offended entitles you to anything, whether that's legal/social restitution, or a free pass to use it as a logical fallacy.
You argue that the physical insults are objective and verbal insults are subjective; I've argued that both are subjective.
I'll reiterate, in anticipation of you waving the word "successfully" around: Both physical harm and mental harm manifest themselves physiologically. The degree to which physical harm and mental harm manifest themselves depends on the genetic, environmental and cultural context of the individual subject.
In response to your first point: there are people who "choose" to make a bigger deal out of being physically injured than others. These people are perhaps not looked kindly upon by general society - they are seen as "whiners" or even hypochondriacs - the fact that they are louder about expressing their pain does not illegitimate the fact that they are experiencing a certain degree of pain. They may simply lack the vocabulary or discourse (medical, political, philosophical) to properly articulate their thinking and feeling processes. Access to this vocabulary and these discourses, I would suggest, falls into the category of "privilege". If we deride people for not being able to articulate on this level, we fall into the danger of trivialising "legitimate" forms of protest.
On March 28 2012 09:50 Falling wrote:So are you arguing that "I am offended" is completely useless as Stephen Fry seems to be saying. Or that it is inadquate on it's own? Because I would say essential to that phrase is the because... (insert reasons listed.)
I take the position that it's useless to rational discourse. Of course, it can be useful for other reasons, such as using that information to avoid further offense, if avoiding further offense is something the other person wants to do. Claiming offence in order to demand that someone not offend you, on the other hand, is not legitimate.
On March 28 2012 09:50 Falling wrote:But I don't think that makes the first part useless. 'I am offended' is the effect of a few reasons that would hwave presumably followed. And in a reasonable conversation, where one person says they are offended for x reason and x reason is reasonable, then the first person if they are being considerate would at the very least acknowledge that they didn't know it would be seen as offensive.
The key here is that the first person is not required to be considerate. It's okay if they choose to do so, but the problem that Stephen Fry is alluding to is that people use offense as a logical fallacy to demand people to respect their views.
I don't owe anyone's views verbal respect; I choose to give it should I find it worthy. If I consider your views batshit crazy, then I'm not going to verbally respect it, no matter how offensive/inconsiderate you think I am.
If the topic of gay marriage comes up, the WBC is going to claim that they are offended. Are we supposed to acknowledge that we didn't know it would be seen as offensive, or shut up and stop advocating it?
That's why I put the caveat- if the reason is itself reasonable. However, you've again switched to a battle of ideas. If we're simply talking about ideas, then I have no problem with people vigoursly shutting down their opponents ideas. Mind you, I think it's generally helpful to remain civil.
But being offended covers so many things including personal hurt, vindictative needling, public mockery- particularly when betraying confidence. None of these are a matter of respecting people's views, but rather respecting their person. Perhaps I'm mixing up being 'hurt' and being 'offended' but I'm not sure if there is a dividing line.
On March 28 2012 10:46 Falling wrote:That's why I put the caveat- if the reason is itself reasonable. However, you've again switched to a battle of ideas. If we're simply talking about ideas, then I have no problem with people vigoursly shutting down their opponents ideas. Mind you, I think it's generally helpful to remain civil.
If the reason is reasonable though, then it's not the offense that matters. It's the aforementioned reason.
It's like how everytime we get a topic about an outrageous news article, tons of posters chime in to say that they're outraged. While they're welcome to feel that way or to share that they feel that way, it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. If, on the other hand, they instead talk about the substantive issues, instead of the emotions that the article provokes, then there's a real discussion.
The emotional response simply isn't relevant.
On March 28 2012 10:46 Falling wrote:But being offended covers so many things including personal hurt, vindictative needling, public mockery- particularly when betraying confidence. None of these are a matter of respecting people's views, but rather respecting their person. Perhaps I'm mixing up being 'hurt' and being 'offended' but I'm not sure if there is a dividing line.
I think you are conflating being offended with other things such as violating someone's trust, harassment, and defamation. It's key to note that you can words can be used as part of an action, and therefore, you can offend someone verbally as well as causing real harm.
For example, spreading malicious lies in newspapers about Mountain Dew shrinking male genitals is obviously defamation. In this case, it's a use of words to cause real, objective harm (in terms of sales). And while Mountain Dew might be offended by the lies, what really matters is that their business is harmed.
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.
Wait... what? I'm "trying to silence opposition"? Where the hell does that come from? You seem to think that every argument based on sympathy is a fallacy ad misericordiam. But then reciprocal ethics wouldn't work at all... if you're set to view it from a strictly logical perspective, just work with "I am offended by x, therefore x should stop." as an enthymeme, with the (mute) premise that not to offend someone is preferable to offending someone. And yes, of course there can be situations where other conditions outweigh someone's feelings, but that still doesn't mean that someone's feelings are irrelevant to me just because they're feelings.
Oh, and please stop telling me what I'm "really" saying... you can leave that to me. Instead, just try to make your own point, ok?
thomas jefferson wasnt locked for his "fighting words" under the "constitution". And he advocates people getting together TO OUST people from power, violemntly if necessary, just like what happened last year in Greece. I dont understand why people in the U.S. are so afraid to march and trample down the gates of their govt and remove them with hands on tactics. dont people in the U.S. own their government? if you have ownership you should be able to treat it how you like.
As far as general offensiveness, even racist or just vulgar words could be against the law, and a lawyer might successfully get you on it, provided enough money and time.
If it can be demonstrated that someone has "unpopular opinion X" and this opinion directly leads to "person Y getting physically violent over it", like calling black people niggers to their face, then it could be stated that saying the word is meant to incite violence or at least promote fear and hate, which will cause more violence later.
Of course then, if we're saying that "X" is too powerful of a psyche attack that people Y cannot control themselves and keep from becoming violent, then we are saying people have no "free will", becase they can be triggered to do what you want them to do.
So laws against offensiveness are laws that promote the idea of no self control or free will, and thus the entitlement state grows.
We have a lot of rules and laws set in the state that come from the idea that "mob mentality" will override individuals and that people can be "manipulated into bad actions". These laws state that people have no Free Will to make good rational decisions, by their very existence.
some people get offended, other laugh about it, yes, getting offended means nothing except for that particular individual, unless it has the power to get back at the offenders, but can't people take it for what it is?
"i am offended by this" is nothing more than a rephrased "i do not like this, in my opinion this is not right" if followed up by a reasoning it is ok imo, as a stand alone it is nothing more than a sign that the person is not comfortable with the situation, should you care? depends on the person you might have offended.
of course many people like to hide behind this word, get offended by even the little things, but when dealing with important matters, a persons opinion should not be invalidated simply because of the chosen words.
Speaking of getting offended, the Miss Canada transgender thread just got closed because people were saying un-PC things, like that they didn't think transgender women were the same as born-as women (the horror!).
Now I'm well aware that TL isn't a free-speech zone, it's a private forum and mods can do whatever they damn well please. I just think it's pretty damn laughable that Kwark closed the thread with a post basically calling everyone in the thread dumb and ignorant (also that he wished he could ban everyone who disagreed with him in it).
Hey, if we're dumb and ignorant, why not use your superior logic to destroy the dumb and ignorant peoples' arguments? Or, you know, you could just call everyone dumb and close the thread. Neener neener, I got the last word!
I think Kwark might be transgender which is why it hits home for him/her.
The issue there was that there were a lot of people (probably) saying "ugh transgender = gross no matter what". I cant be bothered to look, but that to me, would be a valid reason to close it off. Most people there were, however, talking about strict reality.
What that thread has told us is kind of precisely what Fry is saying, someone was offended, so used some power to destroy other people's ability to communicate and have an honest conversation about it.
People should live however they want, re: TG thread, but being honest about yourself and others is also important.
That thread wouldn't have been closed if it were an open hall walk-in forum in euro countries. people say some pretty harsh and critical things that can be considered anti-[specific religion] or anti-[whateverelse] and people get upset but they all talk it out and then go home. they don't pass laws or bar people from speaking about it in order to shut other people up.
In my opinion, being offended or not should come down to two considerations, often taken in sequence.
1. Is what the person is saying true? If you know in your heart what they are saying is true, then you should be thinking about what this says about yourself, and if there is anything you can do about it. If what they are saying is not true, then you proceed to step 2.
2. Do you respect this person's opinion? If you are insulted by a complete stranger... then so what? He/she doesn't know you or anything about you, so what does it matter if they insult you or not.. they are obviously ignorant to the situation, and you should not be offended and move on with your life. If this person is someone you know or is someone whose opinion you should respect, then it might be worth your time having a discussion with said person, and let them know why those comments were offensive, and why you believe them not to be true.
If you know in your heart what they are saying is true, then you should be thinking about what this says about yourself, and if there is anything you can do about it.
if people spent time trying to cancel out any thought they felt was right, we'd end up as a society of people who don't believe they can make correct choices and gibbering wrecks who don't know what to think or believe.
You have to pick your battles. Any lauded spiritualist or other people who seem like they "know the score" is really just a one sided appearance, and they don't express their own personal feelings on subjective subjects that are inflammatory, so they cant ever be accused of supporting something that some group will call negative.
... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
Certain standards of respect should always be held up. For example, if I am in a room and someone is talking about "stupid niggers" or "filthy jews" (even if he just uses these phrases in a joke), it doenst matter for me if there is no jew or black person around to be offended directly. If this person is spreading intolerance with this, everyone has the right to be offended.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
so then he fairly has the right to ridicule you.
Thats kind of the funny thing. People don't ridicule those who think racism is wrong, just races. people who think racism is wrong ridicule those who think its right, but not races.
I suppose you're like night and day complimenting each other, since all systems must have balance.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
so then he fairly has the right to ridicule you.
Thats kind of the funny thing. People don't ridicule those who think racism is wrong, just races. people who think racism is wrong ridicule those who think its right, but not races.
I suppose you're like night and day complimenting each other, since all systems must have balance.
Are you really thinking that just because it's possible to put the label "my opinion" on some bullshit like racism or antisemitism, it becomes suddenly logically dubious and morally intractable terrain? Well, then I guess in my opinion water isn't wet.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
So you think the way to deal with racism is just to ridicule them or let them know they are disliked? That solves nothing.
a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe, on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
so then he fairly has the right to ridicule you.
Thats kind of the funny thing. People don't ridicule those who think racism is wrong, just races. people who think racism is wrong ridicule those who think its right, but not races.
I suppose you're like night and day complimenting each other, since all systems must have balance.
Of course he (and those that feel the same) have the right to ridicule and dislike me based on my opinion.
Since when is it a right not to be condemned and ridiculed for your opinions?
Tolerance have gone too far when we say 'no matter what you say or believe, it's fine, nothing to be upset about - you are in fact wrong to be upset about something people just say' ?
It's like people who believe in faith healing, mediums, mystics etc, they certainly have a right to feel offended when I tell them they are complete and utter morons being scammed by swindlers. Doesn't mean I don't have a right to tell them that - since it's in fact what is happening. Wrong for them to be offended by it? Certainly not. That's their right. But if we start to discuss it, perhaps we'll get some facts in there and maybe some will be convinced that that whole business is just bullshit.
Since when is it wrong to be emotional about what you believe in? Should we condemn preachers for trying to convert people to their faith, because they are telling people they are wrong? Should we not care one bit if nazi's hold a rally where the message is to kill jews, blacks and handicapped people?
I think the idea that being offended by anything is stupid, is wrong. If you aren't upset about it, why would you bother spending time trying to correct their mistaken beliefs?
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
The thing about Orwell is that he was being cautionary ...
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
So you think the way to deal with racism is just to ridicule them or let them know they are disliked? That solves nothing.
Did I say that? No. So in the future, why don't you respond to what I am writing instead?
What I say that is if someone is racist, they should expect to be ridculed and disliked because of that.
In addition, of course, you make laws, you educate people, etc etc etc.
On March 28 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe. on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail.
He is a great comedian with a great point, however - if you substitute what he ridicules with racism, bigotry, etc, whatever you deeply believe is wrong, then it might not be so funny any more.
I certainly agree that people are taking it too far - that a lot of people think it's a right to go around not being offended. Which is just stupid. But I don't think the answer to that is to say - being offended by anything is just wrong, and dumb. That's taking it too far in the other direction.
If a comedian make a joke about muslims, you might certainly be correct to say that people that are being offended by that and try to get him banned are ridiculous (and in fact, you are ridiculing them and disliking them based on their opinion), but if a group holds a rally saying muslims should be killed or deported from the country ... well, you know, I find it ridiculous if someone say it's stupid of me to be offended by that. And, anyone participating in that rally, I would dislike based on that alone.
On March 28 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe. on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail.
Being a nazi can get you sent to jail in Germany I think.
Saying you hope someone would shoot the president, or your school, or your workplace, might send you to jail in the US.
An imam was recently sentenced to 5 years in prison in Norway (this week), for over several years, encouraging people to commit terrorist attacks against Norway, and political figures in particular.
Do you believe there should be no laws against discrimination and hate speech? A lot of people disagree with you.
On March 28 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe. on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail.
Being a nazi can get you sent to jail in Germany I think.
Saying you hope someone would shoot the president, or your school, or your workplace, might send you to jail in the US.
An imam was recently sentenced to 5 years in prison in Norway (this week), for over several years, encouraging people to commit terrorist attacks against Norway, and political figures in particular.
Do you believe there should be no laws against discrimination and hate speech? A lot of people disagree with you.
Saying you hope someone would shoot someone is implying a threat of force. Telling people to commit terrorist attacks is a threat of force. Saying to someone you don't like them because of their race, is an opinion. So no, I don't think there should be laws against people stating their opinions. Obviously threats of force should be treated as such. Can you see how these things are completely different and need to be treated like it?
On March 28 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe. on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail.
Being a nazi can get you sent to jail in Germany I think.
Saying you hope someone would shoot the president, or your school, or your workplace, might send you to jail in the US.
An imam was recently sentenced to 5 years in prison in Norway (this week), for over several years, encouraging people to commit terrorist attacks against Norway, and political figures in particular.
Do you believe there should be no laws against discrimination and hate speech? A lot of people disagree with you.
Saying you hope someone would shoot someone is implying a threat of force. Telling people to commit terrorist attacks is a threat of force. Saying to someone you don't like them because of their race, is an opinion. So no, I don't think there should be laws against people stating their opinions. Obviously threats of force should be treated as such. Can you see how these things are completely different and need to be treated like it?
wait... So you think people who have pro-nazi and other offensive opinions should not be punished?
I think everyone can use their common sense when it comes to what's acceptable and what's not... and the people who can't, probably can't be persuaded by discussion
On March 28 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe. on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail.
Being a nazi can get you sent to jail in Germany I think.
Saying you hope someone would shoot the president, or your school, or your workplace, might send you to jail in the US.
An imam was recently sentenced to 5 years in prison in Norway (this week), for over several years, encouraging people to commit terrorist attacks against Norway, and political figures in particular.
Do you believe there should be no laws against discrimination and hate speech? A lot of people disagree with you.
Saying you hope someone would shoot someone is implying a threat of force. Telling people to commit terrorist attacks is a threat of force. Saying to someone you don't like them because of their race, is an opinion. So no, I don't think there should be laws against people stating their opinions. Obviously threats of force should be treated as such. Can you see how these things are completely different and need to be treated like it?
wait... So you think people who have pro-nazi and other offensive opinions should not be punished?
I get your joke, but for the rest, right, I don't think that people with offensive opinions should be punished. Educated? Sure. Punished? No.
On March 28 2012 18:16 Kira__ wrote: I think everyone can use their common sense when it comes to what's acceptable and what's not... and the people who can't, probably can't be persuaded by discussion
Just like criminals can't be rehabilitated..... Right?
Offending and insulting are two different things. One is wrong objectively, the other is wrong subjectively.
EDIT: Oh, btw why i mention insulting is because a lot of people in this thread have, imo, derailed the topic into discussing insulting, which is not the subject.
On March 28 2012 18:25 NukeD wrote: Offending and insulting are two different things. One is wrong objectively, the other is wrong subjectively.
Some people believe morals are subjective. I do.
If you believe in universal moralism, I can see your point. I disagree however. I think it's all subjective. But the facts it's based on, can be objectively right or wrong.
i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
He is a great comedian with a great point, however - if you substitute what he ridicules with racism, bigotry, etc, whatever you deeply believe is wrong, then it might not be so funny any more.
This kind of mindset is the exact problem, i can be a fucking racist, you can be offended... thats it Being "offensive" to someone should end up with the certain faction/person/group "returning the favor" ( in a legal way, hopefully )or ignoring it/you and all the friends/afflicted factions/afflicted groups or simply persons/groups/factions who fell what you did was wrong doing the same. Its a fucking democracy, i have the right what the fuck i want in my private space as long as it doesn't physically harm other and express whatever option i fucking want in public/private space owned by me. If i want to carry a big banner with the message " I hate n*** " on it in a public space I would like to think that only a totalitarian country would take actions against it, if anyone is offended than i take the risk of there reaction against me. But bigotry, racism... etc should damn well not be against the law as long as i only express them via non physically harming way and do not enforce my opinion onto anyone/do not speak about certain opinion in the private space of another who does not want me to do it. Cuz, sadly, there is not "legal" difference between being offended by a bigot and being offended by a boy band, as long as the state does not take matters into its own hand to decide which is "good" and which is "bad", thus casting in a totalitarian way. Do note: I am nether a racist, a bigot ( im not even religious ) nor do i go around on a daily basis offending people for fun, i believe that doing so its certainly something that should be actively discouraged, but i do believe that people have the right to do so if they fell like it and should only be punished by society not by the justice system.
or to sum it up " If he offended you than ignore him, he is a dick"
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
Fell like adding this, kinda explains my thoughts in a fewer words
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
What I am attacking is the idea that there's no point in being offended. People are arguing that being offended, at all, is dumb.
People say and do stupid offensive shit, they deserve to be ridiculed and disliked because of it.
But certainly he has a point as I said, I just think the argument goes too far in the other direction. But - please note one thing here - I am not attacking him, he is a comedian, for comedic effect, he has to do that. And he is damn funny, and has a great point.
It's just the last bit, the one about people 'should not be offended' that I think is wrong. I certainly think he and others are correct in saying that, just saying 'that offends me' or similar, is absolutely worthless in itself, if not backed up by an argument.
As far as I've seen it's just the typical north american mentality to be offended over anything (and very few countries in Europe). Not everybody think the fact you are offended is some sort of irreversible rights-rape.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
so then he fairly has the right to ridicule you.
Thats kind of the funny thing. People don't ridicule those who think racism is wrong, just races. people who think racism is wrong ridicule those who think its right, but not races.
I suppose you're like night and day complimenting each other, since all systems must have balance.
Of course he (and those that feel the same) have the right to ridicule and dislike me based on my opinion.
Since when is it a right not to be condemned and ridiculed for your opinions?
Tolerance have gone too far when we say 'no matter what you say or believe, it's fine, nothing to be upset about - you are in fact wrong to be upset about something people just say' ?
It's like people who believe in faith healing, mediums, mystics etc, they certainly have a right to feel offended when I tell them they are complete and utter morons being scammed by swindlers. Doesn't mean I don't have a right to tell them that - since it's in fact what is happening. Wrong for them to be offended by it? Certainly not. That's their right. But if we start to discuss it, perhaps we'll get some facts in there and maybe some will be convinced that that whole business is just bullshit.
Since when is it wrong to be emotional about what you believe in? Should we condemn preachers for trying to convert people to their faith, because they are telling people they are wrong? Should we not care one bit if nazi's hold a rally where the message is to kill jews, blacks and handicapped people?
I think the idea that being offended by anything is stupid, is wrong. If you aren't upset about it, why would you bother spending time trying to correct their mistaken beliefs?
nazis preaching to convert to their faith and being emotional about what they believe in.
And apparently, the common view is that it is a right to not be condemned or ridiculed for different life choices and beliefs... unless those beliefs are condemned and ridiculed because they might include pagan sacrifice rituals or racism.
if someone makes fun of a fat person people say "be tolerant, they have a different life choice!" if someone makes fun of nazis or other races, people say "nice good for you"
This is irrespective of what side is good or bad to believe in, the point is that people do feel that you have the right not to be offended, put down, and called names if you're a certain type of person, while you don't have the right not to be offended, put down and called names if you're a certain other type of person.
-"You think I'm a criminal because I'm black? That's offensive!" "No sir, we pat everyone down in the airport."
you know racism is still a pretty big issue, innocent black people get accused on a much higher rate than white people, i don't think you actually should be saying it's stupid to get offended by such things; imo it's far more common for people to go "OOH BLACK PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE" even though there's a real issue than it's the other way around. I think being offended is a good phrase, like has been said you have the right to get offended it doesn't automatically mean you should get to impose restrictions on whatever is offending you though.
black people get accused on a much higher rate because blacks have higher crime ratio. I don't think anyone should have to be accused or second-guessed because of race but I do find some logic in it.
On March 28 2012 16:57 aebriol wrote: ... people get offended mostly when other people do or say something they perceive as morally / ethically wrong, or if they feel personally insulted and attacked (sometimes because they are part of a group being attacked, and they take it personally).
This may be some really dumb examples but: - A muslim taxidriver saying "hell no, I am not driving you to the synagogue you filthy jew". (offensive to ... most anyone that isn't a muslim, but not offensive to the most devout muslims for obvious reasons - however, can be equally offensive to moderate muslims).
- A white person saying "fuck off, you are not welcome here you dirty nigger". (offensive to ... most anyone, but not white supremacists for obvious reasons).
That is two things that are really offensive, and most anyone would agree, but isn't offensive to some, because they believe it's right.
The problem is when people say "hey, that isn't so offensive" or perceive it as PC going too far. Because, yes, someone somewhere is most likely offended by pretty much any statement. And if you see nothing wrong with something, you don't see why others are making a big deal about it.
I belong to those that think people get offended by way too much these days ... but I certainly believe that certain things are not okay to say, or believe, without people getting offended and telling you to basically fuck off and die for being a complete and utter moron (like the two examples above). You have a right to your opinion, but not a right not to be criticized and ridiculed and hated for it. Pretty much at least. Which is why it's funny to me when people say hateful shit about some group (gays for example), then get riled up when people hate them for it ...
For example, I think that being offended because someone - in any context whatsoever - use the word 'nigger' - is dumb. But I can understand why people find it offensive, and so I never choose to use it in real life. Where, well, I care a bit more about my reputation than I do here
I'm getting Orwellian flashbacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but some people have more of a right than others - ain't that the truth.
That is the truth yes.
And that is how most everyone feels. Do you disagree?
I have the right to think racism is wrong. You have the right to think that racism is okay because race X is inferior to other races. But you should expect to be ridiculed and disliked based on your opinion. Because it's not correct, or right. But you have the right to have that opinion - certainly.
so then he fairly has the right to ridicule you.
Thats kind of the funny thing. People don't ridicule those who think racism is wrong, just races. people who think racism is wrong ridicule those who think its right, but not races.
I suppose you're like night and day complimenting each other, since all systems must have balance.
Of course he (and those that feel the same) have the right to ridicule and dislike me based on my opinion.
Since when is it a right not to be condemned and ridiculed for your opinions?
Tolerance have gone too far when we say 'no matter what you say or believe, it's fine, nothing to be upset about - you are in fact wrong to be upset about something people just say' ?
It's like people who believe in faith healing, mediums, mystics etc, they certainly have a right to feel offended when I tell them they are complete and utter morons being scammed by swindlers. Doesn't mean I don't have a right to tell them that - since it's in fact what is happening. Wrong for them to be offended by it? Certainly not. That's their right. But if we start to discuss it, perhaps we'll get some facts in there and maybe some will be convinced that that whole business is just bullshit.
Since when is it wrong to be emotional about what you believe in? Should we condemn preachers for trying to convert people to their faith, because they are telling people they are wrong? Should we not care one bit if nazi's hold a rally where the message is to kill jews, blacks and handicapped people?
I think the idea that being offended by anything is stupid, is wrong. If you aren't upset about it, why would you bother spending time trying to correct their mistaken beliefs?
nazis preaching to convert to their faith and being emotional about what they believe in.
And apparently, the common view is that it is a right to not be condemned or ridiculed for different life choices and beliefs... unless those beliefs are condemned and ridiculed because they might include pagan sacrifice rituals or racism.
if someone makes fun of a fat person people say "be tolerant, they have a different life choice!" if someone makes fun of nazis or other races, people say "nice good for you"
This is irrespective of what side is good or bad to believe in, the point is that people do feel that you have the right not to be offended, put down, and called names if you're a certain type of person, while you don't have the right not to be offended, put down and called names if you're a certain other type of person.
lets at least accept this fact first off.
Where have anyone disagreed with those facts?
You are however too one-sided here with your examples here with "nice good for you" and "be tolerant". Not everyone believes that, not everyone will say that.
But it's very clear that being offensive and ridicule some people, or some groups, the majority believes is okay, while doing the same to other groups, and other people, the same majority believes is not okay.
However, people don't agree on what is okay, and what is not okay. It changes based on your subjective beliefs.
When you claim "people say" ... I would say ... sure some say, but not everyone, and sure some are offended, but not everyone ... but those that are offended, well, they certainly have a right to dislike you back for your opinion, and be emotional about it.
I can try to be as offensive as I can think of, and that's my right pretty much, but that people then don't want to be with me, employ me, be friends with me, like me, let me shop in their privately owned stores ... that's their right. Because, what I am doing is pretty much offending and pushing everyone around me away, by being a complete and utter moron. Still, someone, somewhere, will nod and believe what I am saying is right ... regardless of how stupid and offensive it is.
I mean, I can combine the following beliefs: - Women should not work, and should be the property of a male. They have no voice. The bible says so. - Black people should still be slaves to white people, they are naturally inferior. - Muslims are a danger to society, and should be killed on sight, or expelled from my nation. - Atheists should be hanged and sent on their way to hell. - Jews as a whole should be hunted down and shot for their collective guilt when they killed Jesus Christ.
... and a ton of other beliefs that are offensive to people.
I would have the right to have those beliefs. No one is disputing that. But I do not have the right not to have those beliefs challenged. Or people get offended by them.
I do not have the right not be disliked and ridiculed because of them. And if I combine them with suggestions that people 'should do something to fix it' ... it should perhaps land me in a jail cell, because I am advocating violence based on my beliefs.
(you can change them around based on any stereotype, I am not implying that those beliefs are common beliefs based on any type, but I am certain you will find someone, somewhere, that sadly agrees with them all - and I could do it with most any race / religion / sexual combination).
I simply think that tolerance is going too far when people expect all beliefs no matter how stupid to be treated equally. They should not. Beliefs that are wrong, should be treated differently from beliefs that are unprovable, and differently from those that are provably right.
Believing in evolution or gravity, believing in Jesus, and believing in race X being 'evil' or 'good' or 'inferior' or 'superior' by default ... those three beliefs should be treated differently.
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.
There's nothing wrong with being offended. It's not uncalled for to be offended. However, being offended is something that applies to you and you alone. You determine when you are offended, and others determine when they are offended. When you are offended, it starts, and should stop, with you, it is not a reason to force anything onto anyone. That quote was similarly in the post I was responding to, the point was he is saying you can use the emotional appeal of the offense to strengthen the argument, which is not right to do because being offended is subjective. It actually detracts from the argument, because you add in the validation that it's also wrong because you feel it's wrong and not just because of the rationale.
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.
Wait... what? I'm "trying to silence opposition"? Where the hell does that come from? You seem to think that every argument based on sympathy is a fallacy ad misericordiam. But then reciprocal ethics wouldn't work at all... if you're set to view it from a strictly logical perspective, just work with "I am offended by x, therefore x should stop." as an enthymeme, with the (mute) premise that not to offend someone is preferable to offending someone. And yes, of course there can be situations where other conditions outweigh someone's feelings, but that still doesn't mean that someone's feelings are irrelevant to me just because they're feelings.
Oh, and please stop telling me what I'm "really" saying... you can leave that to me. Instead, just try to make your own point, ok?
You said you can use the word to "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" That means silencing the opposition doing the offensive thing. And in the end, no one gives a crap about your feelings on an issue. Actually good arguments are what people give a crap about. When many people are involved, feelings do not make good arguments, 7 billion people on the planet all feel differently. "It feels wrong because" isn't a good argument and "It is wrong because" is. It actually detracts from the argument because you add in the validation that it's also wrong because you feel it's wrong and not just because of the rationale. It's no longer an objective argument, by including the subjectivity of your feelings, the argument actually is less good because of it.
On March 28 2012 09:50 Falling wrote:So are you arguing that "I am offended" is completely useless as Stephen Fry seems to be saying. Or that it is inadquate on it's own? Because I would say essential to that phrase is the because... (insert reasons listed.)
I take the position that it's useless to rational discourse. Of course, it can be useful for other reasons, such as using that information to avoid further offense, if avoiding further offense is something the other person wants to do. Claiming offence in order to demand that someone not offend you, on the other hand, is not legitimate.
On March 28 2012 09:50 Falling wrote:But I don't think that makes the first part useless. 'I am offended' is the effect of a few reasons that would hwave presumably followed. And in a reasonable conversation, where one person says they are offended for x reason and x reason is reasonable, then the first person if they are being considerate would at the very least acknowledge that they didn't know it would be seen as offensive.
The key here is that the first person is not required to be considerate. It's okay if they choose to do so, but the problem that Stephen Fry is alluding to is that people use offense as a logical fallacy to demand people to respect their views.
I don't owe anyone's views verbal respect; I choose to give it should I find it worthy. If I consider your views batshit crazy, then I'm not going to verbally respect it, no matter how offensive/inconsiderate you think I am.
If the topic of gay marriage comes up, the WBC is going to claim that they are offended. Are we supposed to acknowledge that we didn't know it would be seen as offensive, or shut up and stop advocating it?
That line I bolded really struck me as the heart of Fry's point. People think that the other person should stop offending them and respect their views, when in reality that is censoring the other person. The gay marriage analogy is a great example of why respecting people's feelings is secondary to the right of expression.
Fry says it has no reason to be respected as a phrase, and I agree, it is less than useless, it actually has a negative impact. It can make you look like an idiot that doesn't know how to argue a point correctly or jackass who can't function in society well because they hold their views to be more important than anyone else's, as in the example of a group claiming gay marriage offends them.
The gist of the article is that the lady finds the restaurant Earl's house beer called 'Albino Rhino' offensive because of the use of the word albino because of how albinos are treated in her home country. The argument against it is basically that the context Earl's uses albino is not offensive and completely unrelated to her issue.
On March 28 2012 17:53 xM(Z wrote: a moral law, set of laws, should be added to the current penal/criminal law that should punish 'offensive behavior' with ... community service (and maybe. on repeated offenses, with jail). making examples out of random people from time to time does't help anyone.
So you'd rather threaten someone with force and hope they don't just be 'offensive' when you can't hear them rather than educate them as to why that line of thinking is wrong. And here I thought fascism was going to die off. If you don't think the way I want you to, then go to jail.
you can not educate people in matters of morality, you have to let them educate themselfs while providing the adequate environment that allows/encourages/forces those people to interact with other people from different/various backgrounds, different races/social classes and what not. i chose community service as an example but it doesn't have to be limited to it.
The gist of the article is that the lady finds the restaurant Earl's house beer called 'Albino Rhino' offensive because of the use of the word albino because of how albinos are treated in her home country. The argument against it is basically that the context Earl's uses albino is not offensive and completely unrelated to her issue.
... I would say the argument is, if it was in her home country, it sure could be offensive, but not everything transcends culture and nations
On March 29 2012 07:06 achristes wrote: You don't get easily offended if you've spent the last year in 4chan.org/b/ Just a piece of advice if you get offended easily.
when you dance with the devil, he doesn't change, you change. I wouldn't suggest 4chan as "desensitization training", since you will have to deal with pictures, ideologies, and racism the likes of which people don't ever see and stay sane from.
I get offended not by words, but by bad food at restaurants. I'm a nobody, I get that, and I'm generally a nice dude; but... if I get bad service/food at a restaurant I unleash the fucking dragon.
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
If this is the case, this man has point, it's like quoting someone and putting ↑This or +1, it adds nothing to the discussion.
On March 28 2012 18:25 NukeD wrote: Offending and insulting are two different things. One is wrong objectively, the other is wrong subjectively.
Some people believe morals are subjective. I do.
If you believe in universal moralism, I can see your point. I disagree however. I think it's all subjective. But the facts it's based on, can be objectively right or wrong.
If morality isn't universal, then does that mean that what Hitler did was ok, and that the nazi's should have gone free? If you think morality is relative, and I come up to you with a gun and say that anyone committing murder is just using their relative morality, and I shoot you to death, is that ok? If I come into your house and steal your things, and if I were to believe stealing was ok, would you just let me have your things? Are you sure that morality is subjective?
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. One is logical, and the other is illogical. I don't believe for one second that Fry is stating that there isn't things to get offended over, but that people need to realize "I'm offended" isn't a reason, so much as it is an emotion related to something morally wrong.
On March 28 2012 18:25 NukeD wrote: Offending and insulting are two different things. One is wrong objectively, the other is wrong subjectively.
Some people believe morals are subjective. I do.
If you believe in universal moralism, I can see your point. I disagree however. I think it's all subjective. But the facts it's based on, can be objectively right or wrong.
If morality isn't universal, then does that mean that what Hitler did was ok, and that the nazi's should have gone free? If you think morality is relative, and I come up to you with a gun and say that anyone committing murder is just using their relative morality, and I shoot you to death, is that ok? If I come into your house and steal your things, and if I were to believe stealing was ok, would you just let me have your things? Are you sure that morality is subjective?
Your nazi exemple is proof that morality is subjective. Obviously they thought they were doing the right thing, that what they were doing was moral. Just because 50+years later everybody things they were nutjobs doesn't mean morality isn't subjective.
Your other points are useless imo, you're comparing morality with laws. You're saying that because someone things something is moral that is should trump laws and I fail to see why it should be so.
Just think of abortion, some people think it's moral others think it's not, but what's important if you do have an abortion is what the LAW says.
On March 28 2012 18:25 NukeD wrote: Offending and insulting are two different things. One is wrong objectively, the other is wrong subjectively.
Some people believe morals are subjective. I do.
If you believe in universal moralism, I can see your point. I disagree however. I think it's all subjective. But the facts it's based on, can be objectively right or wrong.
If morality isn't universal, then does that mean that what Hitler did was ok, and that the nazi's should have gone free? If you think morality is relative, and I come up to you with a gun and say that anyone committing murder is just using their relative morality, and I shoot you to death, is that ok? If I come into your house and steal your things, and if I were to believe stealing was ok, would you just let me have your things? Are you sure that morality is subjective?
Your nazi exemple is proof that morality is subjective. Obviously they thought they were doing the right thing, that what they were doing was moral. Just because 50+years later everybody things they were nutjobs doesn't mean morality isn't subjective.
Your other points are useless imo, you're comparing morality with laws. You're saying that because someone things something is moral that is should trump laws and I fail to see why it should be so.
Just think of abortion, some people think it's moral others think it's not, but what's important if you do have an abortion is what the LAW says.
The debate over abortion isn't what's moral, it's what matters more in morality. Women's rights vs. killing. You need to read up on the nuremberg trials and how the prosecution was able to state that there was a crime.
Your nazi exemple is proof that morality is subjective. Obviously they thought they were doing the right thing, that what they were doing was moral. Just because 50+years later everybody things they were nutjobs doesn't mean morality isn't subjective.
Your other points are useless imo, you're comparing morality with laws. You're saying that because someone things something is moral that is should trump laws and I fail to see why it should be so.
Just think of abortion, some people think it's moral others think it's not, but what's important if you do have an abortion is what the LAW says.
I would say that morality isn't subjective.
You can say that 1+1=2. This is a fact. You can say all bachelors are unmarried men. Utilitarianism is a theory that emphasizes overall happiness.
All those statements are true.
You can have truth values to moral statements because moral statements can be modulized with ethical theories such as utilitarianism or deontology. If you deny that, then you deny "1+1=2", and that "all bachelors are unmarried men" because I argue that both statements are objective just like "Utilitarianism is a theory that emphasizes overall happiness". The debate about abortion is really about what matters more in morality as Etrnity said.
Your nazi exemple is proof that morality is subjective. Obviously they thought they were doing the right thing, that what they were doing was moral. Just because 50+years later everybody things they were nutjobs doesn't mean morality isn't subjective.
Your other points are useless imo, you're comparing morality with laws. You're saying that because someone things something is moral that is should trump laws and I fail to see why it should be so.
Just think of abortion, some people think it's moral others think it's not, but what's important if you do have an abortion is what the LAW says.
I would say that morality isn't subjective.
You can say that 1+1=2. This is a fact. You can say all bachelors are unmarried men. Utilitarianism is a theory that emphasizes overall happiness.
All those statements are true.
You can have truth values to moral statements because moral statements can be modulized with ethical theories such as utilitarianism or deontology. If you deny that, then you deny "1+1=2", and that "all bachelors are unmarried men" because I argue that both statements are objective just like "Utilitarianism is a theory that emphasizes overall happiness". The debate about abortion is really about what matters more in morality as Etrnity said.
The three truths you stated were simply analytic statements. Normative claims aren't analytic.
An example of the conclusions I could derive from your logic:
I define a moral act to be one in which a male rapes a female. This is an objective fact because this is how I've defined moral acts. Therefore, males raping females is a moral action. Moral actions, by definition, ought to be performed. Males ought to rape females.
Analytic truths cannot lead to moral oughts as a result of this obvious flaw. Analytic truths are only true because of the way we've defined them.
my main issue with being offensive to others is that it openly advertises others to possibly congregate and cooperate together to find more ways to hurt people. this could just lead to a bunch of people having stupid gossipy racist meetings in their own homes or it could lead to something like randomly lynching a stranger in the middle of the night.
a single person being a dick is nothing to be bothered about, but it can easily get out of hand when they might have the chance to share their hatred with someone else and, dare i say, "brainstorm" a means of really getting their message through. a lot of people are satisfied with just badmouthing strangers on the internet, but others may not be convinced that they are being heard and will want to go out and really do something about it.
to take the michael richard's nigger-palooza incident into context, he was a sole person. he did not actually hurt anybody but himself. he ended up ruining his career and his image by openly trying to offend people. he got what was coming to him. but when people don't have to worry about risking their professional career through offending people, they can just go about doing what they want with no repercussions because its a free country. that's wrong, in my opinion, since as i mentioned before, people don't try and offend people publicly to put the people down, they are trying to rally others who think like them so that they can become a more potent threat.
On April 28 2012 03:36 megapants wrote: my main issue with being offensive to others is that it openly advertises others to possibly congregate and cooperate together to find more ways to hurt people. this could just lead to a bunch of people having stupid gossipy racist meetings in their own homes or it could lead to something like randomly lynching a stranger in the middle of the night.
a single person being a dick is nothing to be bothered about, but it can easily get out of hand when they might have the chance to share their hatred with someone else and, dare i say, "brainstorm" a means of really getting their message through. a lot of people are satisfied with just badmouthing strangers on the internet, but others may not be convinced that they are being heard and will want to go out and really do something about it.
to take the michael richard's nigger-palooza incident into context, he was a sole person. he did not actually hurt anybody but himself. he ended up ruining his career and his image by openly trying to offend people. he got what was coming to him. but when people don't have to worry about risking their professional career through offending people, they can just go about doing what they want with no repercussions because its a free country. that's wrong, in my opinion, since as i mentioned before, people don't try and offend people publicly to put the people down, they are trying to rally others who think like them so that they can become a more potent threat.
Just because some people can use freedom of speech to hurt others, does not mean freedom of speech is wrong, and I think you are pretty bold in your conclusion to why people publicly attempt to offend. A lot of people who might be racist, and might even openly be racist, would never go beyond that. Claiming that in every situation they are attempting to organize some movement against whatever they disagree with is absurd.
Let me give you a non-racist example, Lets say I have the opinion that baseball is a dumb sport, someone starts talking about baseball and is clearly an avid fan, I tell him "baseball is stupid." Naturally hes going to get offended, but does that mean that im trying to start some militant movement against baseball? Of course not, I was simply stating my opinion, and a lot of times people will state their opinion with the goal of getting a rise out of people and have absolutely no plans of going further than that. If everyone had this same mentality of "protecting" everyone about everything, the world would be a shit place. (Some people use cars irresponsibly, ban cars, some people use guns irresponsibly ban guns, ban drugs, ban alcohol, ban swimming because some people drown, ban this, ban that, the list goes on and on). Freedom has a price, and I think you'll find that as soon as you start sacrificing certain freedoms, others begin to get taken away as well.
On April 28 2012 03:36 megapants wrote: my main issue with being offensive to others is that it openly advertises others to possibly congregate and cooperate together to find more ways to hurt people. this could just lead to a bunch of people having stupid gossipy racist meetings in their own homes or it could lead to something like randomly lynching a stranger in the middle of the night.
a single person being a dick is nothing to be bothered about, but it can easily get out of hand when they might have the chance to share their hatred with someone else and, dare i say, "brainstorm" a means of really getting their message through. a lot of people are satisfied with just badmouthing strangers on the internet, but others may not be convinced that they are being heard and will want to go out and really do something about it.
to take the michael richard's nigger-palooza incident into context, he was a sole person. he did not actually hurt anybody but himself. he ended up ruining his career and his image by openly trying to offend people. he got what was coming to him. but when people don't have to worry about risking their professional career through offending people, they can just go about doing what they want with no repercussions because its a free country. that's wrong, in my opinion, since as i mentioned before, people don't try and offend people publicly to put the people down, they are trying to rally others who think like them so that they can become a more potent threat.
Just because some people can use freedom of speech to hurt others, does not mean freedom of speech is wrong, and I think you are pretty bold in your conclusion to why people publicly attempt to offend. A lot of people who might be racist, and might openly be racist, that doesn't mean they are attempting to organize some movement against whatever they disagree with.
Let me give you a non-racist example, Lets say I have the opinion that baseball is a dumb sport, someone starts talking about baseball and is clearly an avid fan, I tell him "baseball is stupid." Naturally hes going to get offended, but does that mean that im trying to start some militant movement against baseball? Of course not, I was simply stating my opinion, and a lot of times people will state their opinion with the goal of getting a rise out of people and have absolutely no plans of going further than that. If everyone had this same mentality of "protecting" everyone about everything, the world would be a shit place. (Some people use cars irresponsibly, ban cars, some people use guns irresponsibly ban guns, ban drugs, ban alcohol, ban swimming because some people drown, ban this, ban that, the list goes on and on). Freedom has a price, and I think you'll find that as soon as you start sacrificing certain freedoms, others begin to get taken away as well.
How often are people persecuted or beaten or murdered for playing baseball? If it were a common enough occurence, the very same words that "baseball is stupid" might convey a different meaning, and if you honestly believed that baseball was a stupid sport, but felt no ill will toward its practioners, and did not condone harming them, then it would be quite reasonable to expect you to properly qualify and measure your statements if you honestly don't want your speech to be taken as inflammatory and possibly even threatening.
On April 27 2012 23:48 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: People just need to be less sensitive. There is a lot to be offended about in this world. You can't wage war on all of them.
That's too apathetic for me. Are you seriously saying that since there are too many atrocities in the world that we should just ignore some, and that we should just love our enemies?
On April 28 2012 03:36 megapants wrote: my main issue with being offensive to others is that it openly advertises others to possibly congregate and cooperate together to find more ways to hurt people. this could just lead to a bunch of people having stupid gossipy racist meetings in their own homes or it could lead to something like randomly lynching a stranger in the middle of the night.
a single person being a dick is nothing to be bothered about, but it can easily get out of hand when they might have the chance to share their hatred with someone else and, dare i say, "brainstorm" a means of really getting their message through. a lot of people are satisfied with just badmouthing strangers on the internet, but others may not be convinced that they are being heard and will want to go out and really do something about it.
to take the michael richard's nigger-palooza incident into context, he was a sole person. he did not actually hurt anybody but himself. he ended up ruining his career and his image by openly trying to offend people. he got what was coming to him. but when people don't have to worry about risking their professional career through offending people, they can just go about doing what they want with no repercussions because its a free country. that's wrong, in my opinion, since as i mentioned before, people don't try and offend people publicly to put the people down, they are trying to rally others who think like them so that they can become a more potent threat.
Just because some people can use freedom of speech to hurt others, does not mean freedom of speech is wrong, and I think you are pretty bold in your conclusion to why people publicly attempt to offend. A lot of people who might be racist, and might even openly be racist, would never go beyond that. Claiming that in every situation they are attempting to organize some movement against whatever they disagree with is absurd.
Let me give you a non-racist example, Lets say I have the opinion that baseball is a dumb sport, someone starts talking about baseball and is clearly an avid fan, I tell him "baseball is stupid." Naturally hes going to get offended, but does that mean that im trying to start some militant movement against baseball? Of course not, I was simply stating my opinion, and a lot of times people will state their opinion with the goal of getting a rise out of people and have absolutely no plans of going further than that. If everyone had this same mentality of "protecting" everyone about everything, the world would be a shit place. (Some people use cars irresponsibly, ban cars, some people use guns irresponsibly ban guns, ban drugs, ban alcohol, ban swimming because some people drown, ban this, ban that, the list goes on and on). Freedom has a price, and I think you'll find that as soon as you start sacrificing certain freedoms, others begin to get taken away as well.
sorry if i sounded sensationalist or something but that was not the message i was trying to send. i only used extreme examples as those are the most obvious outcomes. i was more talking against people being offensive rather than someone getting offended, which may have just been off point of the thread. if so, my bad.
i think the point of the thread is that whether someone tries to stop it or not, there will always be people who try and jerk a negative reaction out of someone else. there's no way to stop it, so why bother getting worked up over it? my point is that its a two way street. there will also always be people who have a legitimate reason for wanting to change people, so why get worked up over them? be offensive, but the cost is that you are risking getting chewed out by someone in the process. if you don't like that then don't be offensive or get over those people. they are free to do as they please just as much as anybody else.
you can't justify one side and smack talk the other when the argument is valid on both ends. its just in the case of people getting defensive about feminism, racism, nationalism, professionalism, what have you, there seems to be more people who back that side of the argument since it promotes the idea peacefulness, civility, equality, etc. whereas people who back up their need to be offensive are viewed as self-centered, arrogant, unsympathetic, etc.
On April 28 2012 03:36 megapants wrote: my main issue with being offensive to others is that it openly advertises others to possibly congregate and cooperate together to find more ways to hurt people. this could just lead to a bunch of people having stupid gossipy racist meetings in their own homes or it could lead to something like randomly lynching a stranger in the middle of the night.
a single person being a dick is nothing to be bothered about, but it can easily get out of hand when they might have the chance to share their hatred with someone else and, dare i say, "brainstorm" a means of really getting their message through. a lot of people are satisfied with just badmouthing strangers on the internet, but others may not be convinced that they are being heard and will want to go out and really do something about it.
to take the michael richard's nigger-palooza incident into context, he was a sole person. he did not actually hurt anybody but himself. he ended up ruining his career and his image by openly trying to offend people. he got what was coming to him. but when people don't have to worry about risking their professional career through offending people, they can just go about doing what they want with no repercussions because its a free country. that's wrong, in my opinion, since as i mentioned before, people don't try and offend people publicly to put the people down, they are trying to rally others who think like them so that they can become a more potent threat.
Just because some people can use freedom of speech to hurt others, does not mean freedom of speech is wrong, and I think you are pretty bold in your conclusion to why people publicly attempt to offend. A lot of people who might be racist, and might openly be racist, that doesn't mean they are attempting to organize some movement against whatever they disagree with.
Let me give you a non-racist example, Lets say I have the opinion that baseball is a dumb sport, someone starts talking about baseball and is clearly an avid fan, I tell him "baseball is stupid." Naturally hes going to get offended, but does that mean that im trying to start some militant movement against baseball? Of course not, I was simply stating my opinion, and a lot of times people will state their opinion with the goal of getting a rise out of people and have absolutely no plans of going further than that. If everyone had this same mentality of "protecting" everyone about everything, the world would be a shit place. (Some people use cars irresponsibly, ban cars, some people use guns irresponsibly ban guns, ban drugs, ban alcohol, ban swimming because some people drown, ban this, ban that, the list goes on and on). Freedom has a price, and I think you'll find that as soon as you start sacrificing certain freedoms, others begin to get taken away as well.
How often are people persecuted or beaten or murdered for playing baseball? If it were a common enough occurence, the very same words that "baseball is stupid" might convey a different meaning, and if you honestly believed that baseball was a stupid sport, but felt no ill will toward its practioners, and did not condone harming them, then it would be quite reasonable to expect you to properly qualify and measure your statements if you honestly don't want your speech to be taken as inflammatory and possibly even threatening.
Sure, racism is a bigger cause of violence than a lot of other things, but I just don't see how the government can effectively make a law that bans "racist gatherings," Direct racism isn't protected under the 1st, Indirect racism is highly frowned upon and leads to a multitude of social consequences, obviously any violence is illegal. I just don't see how the government can ban "social gatherings that might lead to violence against a specific group of individuals," because that would knock out a hell of a lot more than KKK gatherings and whatnot. I feel like these thoughts would lead to a slippery slope, what about religious gatherings? what about political party gatherings? what about nationalistic gatherings? Hell, this is teamliquid, what about specific game gatherings? I've seen plenty of violent, honest, legitimate HATE over people playing different games, even on this website. Sure, most of it would never amount to anything(exactly the same as racism) but, in some cases it leads to violence.(I've heard stories of fights breaking out amongst different game players at tournament events, for example) it really doesn't matter what the group of like-minded individuals is gathered for, there will ALWAYS be some violent ones.
I read this a while ago and I think it puts an end to this silly semantics stuff.
I actually don’t care whether anyone is offended. Offense is a vague, amorphous concept, and it is completely subjective, as my friend pointed out. Anyone can claim to be deeply, mortally offended by anything, and it may very well be true; even if it’s not, there’s no way to dispute it. “You don’t really feel what you claim you feel,” is a line of argumentation that doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
What I care about is harm. What I ultimately said in this other argument was:
The problem with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, etc., remarks and “jokes” is not that they’re offensive, but that by relying for their meaning on harmful cultural narratives about privileged and marginalized groups they reinforce those narratives, and the stronger those narratives are, the stronger the implicit biases with which people are indoctrinated are. That’s real harm, not just “offense.”
(29:20 min, seems like the time link didn't work.)
“Either if I see a YouTube film or read a blog, my eyes go below to the bottom of the screen. Because I get so fantastically upset by people who write comments. I don’t even know anybody who writes comments! I think that’s the point. The kind of people who put comments are themselves so weird and unhappy and alone and strange, it’s called ‘trolling’, you know, vicious comments about things. I mean, really weird. Either politically weird or religiously weird or just so intolerant or so desperate to be heard! So offensive! Just pleading: “Please listen to meeee!” they’re saying all the time. “Listen to me!” And of course you don’t want to, and if you do it just gets upset, you might even be tricked into replying with an aggressive reply to some idiot, and with vile opinions about things. Which they will use on a complete… it might be a puppy running around, some random Youtube thing, and it somehow manages to get a thread of nastiness into it. And they just want to be heard, and they are so resentful, and so annoyed, especially due to other people’s blogs, the fact that somebody’s reading someone else’s blog and not theirs is madly enough!” — Stephen Fry
On March 27 2012 01:53 The_PhaCe wrote: I think my boi squeezy jibbs makes a really good point with this video. Iirc you can post videos in here right? So many rules to keep track of on this forum TT
There are 2 worlds here, one that is online and the actual real world. You cannot get "offended" on the internet, because there will always be people looking to do just that. I am not even talking about trolls that roam Youtube and pretty much every forum out there (including TL). But there are websites that have been built around pissing people people and offending them to generate hits.
In the real world Stephen Fry must live in a rich, upper and/or middle class neighborhood, because his quote:
"i am offended" well so fucking what?"
Shows a lack of knowledge and showcases how he lives in a bubble. In most other countries, where the none rich people live, offending someone will get your ass beat, i am not talking about you getting into a argument, we are talking a fist fight here. That is how it is for majority of the world.
Thus it makes him, and everyone else look like a internet tough guy with this whole "i dont care who i offend maaaan'!!" when in reality, trust me: you do. You just live in a safety bubble where you can feel like a big man. No matter what you think you can do, or how badass you have convinced yourself you are, or how many imaginary UFC titles you have won, trust me, there are people out there waiting for you just to give them a glance.
Out there, in the concrete jungle, there are many people walking around hoping and wishing that you will even say anything that could be remotely taken as a diss on them, all this just so they can blow their fuse and use their fists/weapons on you.
But back to the internet part, i think everyone has figured it out, everyone is trying to be as offensive as possible on the internet and people have caught on and almost become immune to it by now.
It has taught people that hiding behind your own anonymity means that your words have literally no weight to them. As anyone is capable of saying whatever they want. Thus no reason to be offended.
The problem I have with that quote is the problem I have with the use of a lot of quotes in this direction: whatever good it may have is undone by the fact that it's often used by assholes to defend themselves or others being assholes.
In the United States, the government cannot infringe upon your right to say things (within reason). That does not extend to other people. If you say something offensive, you should not be surprised that people get offended. Free speech goes both ways; you can say whatever prickish things you want, but the rest of us don't have to put up with you and can ostracize you for it.
There is often this idea that being offended by someone's statement is somehow the "fault" of the person being offended. That they should "stop being such cry babies," or "chill out a bit," or whatever.
Why? If you have the right to say what you want, then so do I. Being offended by some asshole saying something dickish is just as much my right as it is your right to say something dickish.
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
Ironically, people are now using his statement in place of an honest argument defending people who say offensive things. It all comes full circle.
And quite frankly, I shouldn't have to explain why I'm offended by racism. I mean seriously, do we need to have a discussion about why <insert target X-ism> is bad and offensive? It's just a waste of words; the assholes don't believe "all people are equal" (because generally, if they did they wouldn't be assholes), so it's not a convencing argument to them. And the people who aren't assholes... will either be offended by it or understanding of why someone was offended by it.
In short: it's just adding pointless extra words that we all know and decided long ago about our feelings on them. I see no need to have to make a "convincing argument" to people who are unconvincable.
This is just one of those reddit pictures someone posted up, and then everyone who upvoted thought was a smart comment. There are obviously times when someone can say something offensive and you don't want them to be offensive so you tell them.
Shows a lack of knowledge and showcases how he lives in a bubble. In most other countries, where the none rich people live, offending someone will get your ass beat, i am not talking about you getting into a argument, we are talking a fist fight here. That is how it is for majority of the world.
Thus it makes him, and everyone else look like a internet tough guy with this whole "i dont care who i offend maaaan'!!" when in reality, trust me: you do. You just live in a safety bubble where you can feel like a big man. No matter what you think you can do, or how badass you have convinced yourself you are, or how many imaginary UFC titles you have won, trust me, there are people out there waiting for you just to give them a glance.
Stephen Fry is obviously referring to rational debates, not inner-city social interaction.
On April 28 2012 05:27 NicolBolas wrote: The problem I have with that quote is the problem I have with the use of a lot of quotes in this direction: whatever good it may have is undone by the fact that it's often used by assholes to defend themselves or others being assholes.
In the United States, the government cannot infringe upon your right to say things (within reason). That does not extend to other people. If you say something offensive, you should not be surprised that people get offended. Free speech goes both ways; you can say whatever prickish things you want, but the rest of us don't have to put up with you and can ostracize you for it.
There is often this idea that being offended by someone's statement is somehow the "fault" of the person being offended. That they should "stop being such cry babies," or "chill out a bit," or whatever.
Why? If you have the right to say what you want, then so do I. Being offended by some asshole saying something dickish is just as much my right as it is your right to say something dickish.
On March 28 2012 18:49 Railxp wrote: i think you've slightly misinterpreted what Stephen Fry meant.
he's attacking "I'm offended!" because it has been used in place of a honest argument.
"you should not be racist because i'm offended" is not really a valid point "you should not be racist because all men are equal" now that is more of convincing argument.
Ironically, people are now using his statement in place of an honest argument defending people who say offensive things. It all comes full circle.
And quite frankly, I shouldn't have to explain why I'm offended by racism. I mean seriously, do we need to have a discussion about why <insert target X-ism> is bad and offensive? It's just a waste of words; the assholes don't believe "all people are equal" (because generally, if they did they wouldn't be assholes), so it's not a convencing argument to them. And the people who aren't assholes... will either be offended by it or understanding of why someone was offended by it.
In short: it's just adding pointless extra words that we all know and decided long ago about our feelings on them. I see no need to have to make a "convincing argument" to people who are unconvincable.
I completely agree with this post. "Stop being offended" is such a silly thing to say. Fry is correct to point out "I'm offended by that" isn't an argument, but that doesn't mean it's a meaningless or useless thing to say. It's an expression of an attitude. If someone says "I really liked The Matrix", and you didn't like The Matrix, it would be ludicrous to say to them "Stop liking The Matrix!"
On April 28 2012 06:55 Blennd wrote: It's an expression of an attitude. If someone says "I really liked The Matrix", and you didn't like The Matrix, it would be ludicrous to say to them "Stop liking The Matrix!"
That's not analogous; in fact, it showcases the very point we're arguing. The person shouting "stop liking the Matrix" is the one claiming they're offended. It offers nothing to the conversation, and is a hollow statement.
Now, if they happened to actually elaborate and say, x, y and z are the reasons I didn't really enjoy the Matrix (or x, y, z are why that offends me or could you please not talk about x, y, z around me), then a discussion can be had and actually progressed from its current point; but on its own, it just serves nothing and no one.
I actually don’t care whether anyone is offended. Offense is a vague, amorphous concept, and it is completely subjective, as my friend pointed out. Anyone can claim to be deeply, mortally offended by anything, and it may very well be true; even if it’s not, there’s no way to dispute it. “You don’t really feel what you claim you feel,” is a line of argumentation that doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
What I care about is harm. What I ultimately said in this other argument was:
The problem with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist, etc., remarks and “jokes” is not that they’re offensive, but that by relying for their meaning on harmful cultural narratives about privileged and marginalized groups they reinforce those narratives, and the stronger those narratives are, the stronger the implicit biases with which people are indoctrinated are. That’s real harm, not just “offense.”
This is why I shake my head when i see a bunch of kids post youtube videos about straight, white, middle class men saying some form of "who cares if something is offensive, suck it up!!!"
As a black male, it is not a racist joke(or comment) itself that bothers me, it is the implied racial bias that pervades the nation and influences interactions with many if not all of the people I meet. When someone uses the n-word, its a quick but harsh reminder that to many people my college education, do good personality, and non-aggressive demeaner will always be overshadowed by my own complexion. To some passing me by on the street, that is all they will note. Not only that, the comment that they say will no doubt be repeated again and fuel the bias of younger generations and hurt the self-esteem of younger black generations. They would probably call my negative reaction in that situation "being offended".
I am sure there is a similar feeling when it comes to homophobic, sexist, etc comments and those that are affected by them, but I can't speak directly for them.
Words are powerful. The sooner you realize that the quicker you gain some sense of maturity.
On April 28 2012 06:55 Blennd wrote: It's an expression of an attitude. If someone says "I really liked The Matrix", and you didn't like The Matrix, it would be ludicrous to say to them "Stop liking The Matrix!"
That's not analogous; in fact, it showcases the very point we're arguing. The person shouting "stop liking the Matrix" is the one claiming they're offended. It offers nothing to the conversation, and is a hollow statement.
Now, if they happened to actually elaborate and say, x, y and z are the reasons I didn't really enjoy the Matrix (or x, y, z are why that offends me or could you please not talk about x, y, z around me), then a discussion can be had and actually progressed from its current point; but on its own, it just serves nothing and no one.
You missed the point. I explicitly state "I'm offended by that" isn't an argument. If someone uses it as one, you are correct in calling them out. However, many people also use "I'm offended" as an expression of an attitude. "I like the Matrix" is expressing an attitude. They are analogous. It doesn't offer much to a conversation, but at least you know where the person stands on the issue of the Matrix. If someone tells me "stop liking the Matrix", I honestly have no clue what they mean by that. It's a much more hollow statement than "I like the Matrix".
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EX5v4.jpg)
it doesn't automatically mean you should get to impose restrictions on whatever is offending you though.
![[image loading]](http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/243/561/afc.gif)
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyfnwkheRH1qhv6pa.jpg)
