|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 10, 2009 12:54:44 GMT
On reflection, you are quite right - if we all stopped to wonder who might take offence by our posts, we would either post nothing or it would be so dull everyone would be dozing off and knocking themselves out as they fall forward onto the computer screen.... there is NOTHING worse, on the boards, or in real life, than a group sitting around holding hands doing the kum ba ya stupidity
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 10, 2009 12:55:50 GMT
the reality is that life without conflict is like potatoes without salt
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 10, 2009 13:00:37 GMT
I don't understand why conversations about insulting/abusive posting on any board always end up talking about the same two things - free speech and no one having a right not to be offended. These are irrelevant remarks to my way of thinking. No discussion group (and that's all a messageboard like this is) at any level operates without a set of rules. From the United Nations to two of us in a pub talking into our beer, there are rules and limits. Often they are unspoken but all in the group know them. When we are (most of us) strangers to each other it's normal that the limits get tested and offence gets given, taken and expressed. It's also normal that we seek to understand what offends and seek to avoid a surplus of offence if we want to ensure longevity of the group. Free speech is not at all curtailed by phrasing opinions in an inoffensive manner. No one here is claiming a right to be offended but if they express offence that is their right under the free speech rule. It's not about free speech or rights, it's about civil discourse. everyone, everywhere, is free to be offended by whatever they wish. they are also free to express the fact that they are offended. however, it should not matter to anyone else. if someone is offended, it is THEIR failure, not the messenger's. it is impossible for anyone to offend me. you will NEVER see me boo hoo because some fool chose to demonstrate their stupidity by trying to insult me. in order to insult me, one is required to be at least a tenth as intelligent as i, and the mere fact that a clown tries to insult me is conclusive proof that they don't meet that criterion
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 10, 2009 13:13:01 GMT
There is a fundamental difference between being offended and being attacked in a manner that is designed to be intimidating or even to dehumanise the individuals or groups who are the targets of the abuse.
In 1930s Germany, for instance, the anti-Semitic cartoons of Julius Streicher played a major part in the demonisation of the Jew and laid the groundwork for genocide.
There is a thin line but it is nevertheless one that must NOT be crossed.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 10, 2009 17:53:58 GMT
Dearest Jumbo! Sometimes you like to save words and it sounds like you're attacking the poster as stupid and not a viewpoint! I think too a more effective way to deal with a viewpoint that you feel is off base is to present facts instead of a value or moral judgment. the thing is, many chaps choose to get offended by the truth. it would be morally irresponsible to pussyfoot around and acquiesce to what is comfortable for them, and allow them to continue with their delusion. actually, my telling someone to not be daft, is NOT saying that they are, it's telling them not to be, and is an effort to prevent them from being such. it is a kind thing to do That would be fine... If only your version of 'truth' was as universal as you are under the illusion that it is.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 10, 2009 17:55:49 GMT
the reality is that life without conflict is like potatoes without salt Better for you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 10, 2009 18:48:46 GMT
the reality is that life without conflict is like potatoes without salt Better for you? ;D But not half as tasty... AH
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 10, 2009 19:21:18 GMT
Dearest Jumbo! Sometimes you like to save words and it sounds like you're attacking the poster as stupid and not a viewpoint! I think too a more effective way to deal with a viewpoint that you feel is off base is to present facts instead of a value or moral judgment. the thing is, many chaps choose to get offended by the truth. it would be morally irresponsible to pussyfoot around and acquiesce to what is comfortable for them, and allow them to continue with their delusion. actually, my telling someone to not be daft, is NOT saying that they are, it's telling them not to be, and is an effort to prevent them from being such. it is a kind thing to do Dearest Jumbo! Being persuasive and being forceful are 2 different things in debating ideas! Being persuasive is much more likely to get a poster to doubt his opinion than being forceful! One of my favorite bedtime stories to tell children is the story of how the Sun and the Wind made a bet to see who could get a traveler to remove his jacket! The Wind tried first by violently trying to blow the jacket off the traveler, but the traveler clung onto his jacket! Then the Sun tried by gently shining on the traveler, who after a while removed his jacket!
|
|
|
Post by gus on Apr 11, 2009 6:06:29 GMT
There is a fundamental difference between being offended and being attacked in a manner that is designed to be intimidating or even to dehumanise the individuals or groups who are the targets of the abuse. In 1930s Germany, for instance, the anti-Semitic cartoons of Julius Streicher played a major part in the demonisation of the Jew and laid the groundwork for genocide. There is a thin line but it is nevertheless one that must NOT be crossed. hear hear..... well said gus
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2009 15:39:35 GMT
There is a fundamental difference between being offended and being attacked in a manner that is designed to be intimidating or even to dehumanise the individuals or groups who are the targets of the abuse. In 1930s Germany, for instance, the anti-Semitic cartoons of Julius Streicher played a major part in the demonisation of the Jew and laid the groundwork for genocide. There is a thin line but it is nevertheless one that must NOT be crossed. it is true that irish diplomacy is great. the ability to tell someone to go to hell so that he looks forward to the trip is fine. of course, there are many who are not able to understand the trip they're invited for to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2009 15:40:48 GMT
the thing is, many chaps choose to get offended by the truth. it would be morally irresponsible to pussyfoot around and acquiesce to what is comfortable for them, and allow them to continue with their delusion. actually, my telling someone to not be daft, is NOT saying that they are, it's telling them not to be, and is an effort to prevent them from being such. it is a kind thing to do That would be fine... If only your version of 'truth' was as universal as you are under the illusion that it is. by definition, there is no "version" of the truth. the truth is an absolute.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2009 15:41:38 GMT
the reality is that life without conflict is like potatoes without salt Better for you? ;D who'll eat them?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2009 15:43:20 GMT
But not half as tasty... AH for sure. while there may be some fans of castor oil, i'm not one of them. not many people enjoy eating something that doesn't taste good.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2009 15:46:43 GMT
the thing is, many chaps choose to get offended by the truth. it would be morally irresponsible to pussyfoot around and acquiesce to what is comfortable for them, and allow them to continue with their delusion. actually, my telling someone to not be daft, is NOT saying that they are, it's telling them not to be, and is an effort to prevent them from being such. it is a kind thing to do Dearest Jumbo! Being persuasive and being forceful are 2 different things in debating ideas! Being persuasive is much more likely to get a poster to doubt his opinion than being forceful! One of my favorite bedtime stories to tell children is the story of how the Sun and the Wind made a bet to see who could get a traveler to remove his jacket! The Wind tried first by violently trying to blow the jacket off the traveler, but the traveler clung onto his jacket! Then the Sun tried by gently shining on the traveler, who after a while removed his jacket! it all depends. i was a math whiz in school, and it always pissed me off when my mom would make me help my sister with her math. i detest explaining something to someone three times and have them still not smart enough to get it right it is the same with the lunatical idea of negotiating with idiots. the ONLY intelligent thing to do is to tell them what they are going to do, and make them sorry if they choose to be stupid enough to not do it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2009 15:47:42 GMT
There is a fundamental difference between being offended and being attacked in a manner that is designed to be intimidating or even to dehumanise the individuals or groups who are the targets of the abuse. In 1930s Germany, for instance, the anti-Semitic cartoons of Julius Streicher played a major part in the demonisation of the Jew and laid the groundwork for genocide. There is a thin line but it is nevertheless one that must NOT be crossed. hear hear..... well said gus especially appropriate words of advice for you lad
|
|
|
Post by gus on Apr 13, 2009 18:28:20 GMT
hear hear..... well said gus especially appropriate words of advice for you lad Yes from one who would never ever no not never cross that thin line I think it is good advice gus
|
|
|
Post by peterl on Apr 13, 2009 18:29:12 GMT
Censorship really isn't the answer. And this board is a paragon of virtue compared to some others I drop into from time to time. So when a posting that you object to pops up, then have a go back. Only do not seek to ban the views of others; however repugnant you find them. Solid post. Attacking posters is a bit off IMO, but attacking "people in the public eye" is fair game IMO. In fact, it is the very core purpose of boards like this. AH One of the perils of public life
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 13, 2009 20:31:38 GMT
That would be fine... If only your version of 'truth' was as universal as you are under the illusion that it is. by definition, there is no "version" of the truth. the truth is an absolute. well... there's the absolute AND your version ;D so that's at least 2.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 13, 2009 20:35:23 GMT
And that's before going into observational, metaphorical, philosophical, metaphysical and other kinds of truth.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 14, 2009 15:11:35 GMT
by definition, there is no "version" of the truth. the truth is an absolute. well... there's the absolute AND your version ;D so that's at least 2. no. there is NO "my version" or "your version" or anyone else's version. there is ONLY the absolute truth, which is immutable
|
|