Do I Offend?

I guess I do.
It is said that people hurt other because they themselves hurt. It’s subconcious in a way. Maybe I’m quite kirt. Maybe I’m condemning beyond reason. But I’m tring to work on it. So, I’m sorry.

All anyone can do is try.

I’ve discovered that offense is a relative concept. Generally if something is offensive, it’s because it pertains to the person being offended in some way. I.E. Someone whose fat or has a fat person they care about, will get offended at fat comments.

to offence is to deliberatly say something with the intention of offending… if there is no intention… there is no offence… it’s at best an “accident”… or thoughtless…

If someone were to take offence at something you said without intending to offend… it’s their own problem… you have nothing to do with their inability to accept whatever it was you said.

That’s my take on it anyway

It is said…mainly by psychoanalysts who make way too much money spewing stupid platitudes like that.

Being ignorant shouldn’t be a valid excuse. The “tough shit” approach isn’t very enlightened either. Not to say that some people are looking for things to take offense over, but “I was thoughtless” shouldn’t be acceptable either.

I take no offense from what anyone says, no matter what. There is really no point in taking offence to anything. Everyone has their own opinions, so why get flustered? It’s silly to me.

This is an egotistical thread… But I’ll answer. Everyone offends someone. If you’re not offending someone you’re not living.

I don’t recall saying anything about being ignorant… only intention.

You don’t agree with me? Tough shit… :laughing:

see… it works quite well… since there is absolutely no standard for you to appeal to that I must accept… I have an opinion… if you feel offended by it… or find it lacking… that is your own problem… I am not responsible for your reaction towards my view unless my intention was to cause that reaction. You can hardly blame me for how you feel… well you could… but I wouldn’t care… Nor “should” I.

As for thoughtlessness not being an excuse… I’d seriously reconsider that one buddy… because otherwise you are going to feel offended all day long. There are so many unintelligent people in this world… one cannot take it personally when they speak before thinking… well… one could… but that would hardly be productive.

It’s quite true. If your agitated, you tend to share your missery.

Me personally, you don’t offend at all, but you do agitate a little. :wink:

By Will’s name, thy Heaven be done on Jesus as it is in earth!.. That didn’t work too well… :laughing:

By Nietzsche’s name, thy Will-to-power be done on earth, as there is no Heaven… That’s better!

So what made nietzche so smart that he can contrdict God, and limit all understanding to doubt all but your own personal desires. I guess if the ends justifies the means,… then nietzche would have the goal of errasing morality toward desires. He himslef gave up on world peace in hopes of justifing his own form of distraction from spiritual contentness.

So I guess it merely depends on your own desires to what philosophy you need to justify your actions.

I think you confuse disagreement with offense. I’m not offended because I believe that you have an ignorant outlook… I was merely stating an opinion based on your post.

Just because I have an ideal that believes people should be thoughtful in how they talk to others (it has to do with respect), doesn’t necessarily mean that it offends me. An ideal is an ideal. My ability to understand circumstance doesn’t prevent me from hoping it to be otherwise.

Also, you may not want to speak of the unintelligent (at least in the context you used the word)… some might consider you a hypocrite.

Man I love Socrates, he was such a bad ass. Saying things that could be taken personally, but not directly saying it…that’s so full of win. Just let people hang themselves with their own insecurities.

I’ll see your intention and raise you an interpretation. :wink:

Both are major pieces of the communication process, add in clarification and you have the holy trinity.

You have greatly offended me…
just kidding! :smiley:

I agree with you, in a way, that Nietzsche had the goal of erasing “Morality” with a capital M.
He hoped that mankind could get Beyond the Good and Evil that we created.

offense is a certain degree of disagreement… it all depends on how important the subject matter is to you.

That depends on how seriously you take it. Idealy no one will come to my home and rob me blind… but if it were to happen i’d be offended regardless of circumstance…

ok…

Some already do… but that just leads me back to the fact that there are unintelligent people about. :laughing:

ok… oO

I’ll call your bluff!

As stated… no one can be held accountable for what other people do/think unless it was their intent to provoke that perticular response… hence their interpretations are not your concern. It does not fall on your shoulders to mold yourself to other people’s expectations. They might as well make an effort to understand you as you might make an effort to be understood.

I’m drunk atm, so disregard if I make little sense. Clarification is a large part of communication. Why bother having a conversation, if you don’t plan to clarify your thoughts, when people misinterpret your intent? I’m also not saying that certain people look for things to take offense to. Because some do. Although it’s an ignorant outlook to not at least attempt to communicate with others. If you didn’t have some stake in the conversation, why bother in the first place. My stake in this conversation is a desire to lead you to enlightenment, rather than ignorance. I cannot change the world, but I can influence those I have interaction with.

I disagree about offense being a disagreement. It’s more akin to emotions than ideas. People take offense when the subject is a sensitive to them. A disagreement should be based on logic and reasoning, not emotion.

In summary why even bother to communicate, if you plan to not share thoughts and ideas.

Cheers :laughing:

Clerification is a process requiring both parties to be willing. If one is offended that is not likely to happen. If you were to suspend offense and seek out the intention… then there might be clerification.

Take note that my proposal goes two ways… on the part of the speaker… and on part of the listener…

you seem to be focused on the speaker while being oblivious to the listener… As if the speaker were the only participant of communication. If the listener would suspend offense until the intention was clear… then clerificaton would follow naturally.

More than you would think.

I cannot force another person to listen… or to understand what is being said. That is entirely up to them.

What makes you believe you know the path?

If they let you… keep that in mind… the world is not your playground… it does not bend to your will… some people will listen… and be influenced by you… others will not… All you can do is speak… and hope… and listen.

you said:

I said:

Far be it from me to point out the obvious… but isn’t that nearly identical… the only reason you disagree is because of your definition of what a “disagreement” should be.

So if i were to say rape is wrong because of the emotional distress it causes people. This would be based on the emotion of empathy on my part… and thus not a valid argument in a disagreement? I’d have to conjure up some kind of unemotional reason? Surely you jest.

What I plan and what others plan are not always the same. There are always two or more members involved in comunication… we both must want to share before it can happen.