This was my stand, but then someone mentioned bullying which is for the purpose of offending and is one over and over again. When the bullied person finally is offended it's not his fault, I think.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Being Offended by Something Grounds to Claim Being Harmed by it?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I don't think the purpose or motivation of bullying is to offend, but rather to exert power or intimidation. The primary reaction of the bullied is fear or submission, not offense.
What you wrote looks right so I looked it up.
Offence: annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one's standards or principles.
I think you are right.
Offense is taken, not given.
Now whilst I support punishing bullying behavior, I'm kind of against this whole "protecting people from being offended" thing.
The world doesn't owe you an offense free existence. And what is "offensive" is highly subjective anyway, so how would you police such a thing.
Now whilst I support punishing bullying behavior, I'm kind of against this whole "protecting people from being offended" thing.
The world doesn't owe you an offense free existence. And what is "offensive" is highly subjective anyway, so how would you police such a thing.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Not at all.
There is absolutely no weight or meaning to anything that anyone says to me other than what I choose to give it. To argue otherwise, I believe, is to give into this fairly modern concept that hearing a dissenting opinion is somehow the same as being oppressed. Most "oppressed" people today have no idea what it's like to actually suffer oppression. Feeding into their idea of victim-hood only perpetuates the problem.
If you don't like it, go f*&k yourself.
Something I spotted today is interesting....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/24/madison-gesiotto-reports-threat-after-pro-life-col/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/24/madison-gesiotto-reports-threat-after-pro-life-col/
Not at all.
There is absolutely no weight or meaning to anything that anyone says to me other than what I choose to give it. To argue otherwise, I believe, is to give into this fairly modern concept that hearing a dissenting opinion is somehow the same as being oppressed. Most "oppressed" people today have no idea what it's like to actually suffer oppression. Feeding into their idea of victim-hood only perpetuates the problem.
If you don't like it, go f*&k yourself.
Good stuff brother.
thanks, but I wish I was wrong. I wish free speech was worth defending.
I support the right to be woefully wrong.
Why?
Because I don't trust anyone else to administer any laws against it.
I refuse to allow people to shut their eyes & stop up their ears. Things have happened. You can spit in the face of reality all you want, but you aren't allowed to look away and say it isn't there.
I sympathize, but you & I would not be the ones determining what's true.
It would be people appointed by some pandering politician, eg, Sara Palin (had she won).
Do you really want to hand such power over to government?
There needs to be some manner of authority . I'm not the biggest fan of democracy, especially not the kind practiced here in the states. Populism is a poison, something that should be rooted out and burned away. I would rather an uncaring, unflinching government who enforces a limited set of laws.
When the system changes such that I have ultimate power, then I'll go along.
Until then, I prefer the chaotic cacophony of ideas we have.
This cacophony isn't really chaos. Chaos would allow for the punishment of those against you. This is just a poorly-defined, weak & apathetic order ran by a handful of special-interest groups with their heads in their ***.
I trust allowing diverse stupid ideas to run rampant more than I trust government to ban them.
Free & open inquiry at least allows good ideas to be seen by all.
But with gov running the show, politics would result in bad ideas pushing good ones aside.
How well does this work in N Korea?
North Korea is but one example. Also note, I said "limited". The Kingdom of Prussia allowed free discourse while also coming down with an iron fist against certain acts. Badmouth the King all you want, nothing will happen. But do not shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
There are just as many good examples as bad examples. The same is true of democracies.
The limit I like is that government doesn't decide any more than they do now.
Tis a convenient place to draw a line.
Scott C.
Just one guy
Yes of course some opinions expressed can do harm to others. If I tell a 12 year old that he or she is horribly ugly and stupid and will never amount to anything in life, that may very well do emotional and psychological harm. But I voted "No" meaning that I don't favor the oppression of free speech on the notion that some speech does harm. That is a slippery and dangerous slop.
Why the hell did I say that? Actually, the jury did award Albert Synder millions of dollars. Upon appeal, the district court reduced the award; the Circuit court reversed the verdict on the grounds that the Westboro picketers were engaged in speech on matters of public concern, and, because the statements on their signs (e.g., “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “**** Doom Nations,” “You’re Going to Hell,” “God Hates You”) are not provably false, they were just “hyperbolic rhetoric,” and the Supreme Court agreed: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
Even though the issue is settled, I must say that I agree with Alito’s lone dissent in this case. (It hardly ever happens that I agree with a lone dissent in Court ruling.) It just seems to me that Westboro’s picketing of soldiers’ funerals and the statements on their signs are not just acts of political speech on some matter that a legislature may take up, but are intended to personally injure people at what is probably the most painful times of their lives--when they are burying their child who has been killed in a war. To my mind, in most any other circumstance the statements on their signs are speech that the First Amendment protects (e.g., the same words posted on a website would be protected). I don’t perceive that legitimate political speech, on “matters of public concern,” would have been threatened in any way by finding the Westboro picketers liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress in this case. To my mind, there is even a discernible distinction between this case and the circumstance of people who hang around in front of abortion clinics and yell and try to hand pamphlets to women entering the clinic.
Moreover, as Alito points out, given Westboro’s defense and the ruling in this case, it basically means that there really isn’t any such tort of IIED in the US, that the First Amendment protects such acts and speech regardless of how outrageous and intentionally injurious they may be.
By the way, everyone posting on RF agrees to abide by the rules that forbid certain speech, such as personal insults. Do you believe that there are important opinions on issues that such rules prevent you from expressing?