Is being "offended" a sign of intellectual weakness?

[EGarrett]

Being "offended" by a statement has no effect on whether the statement is correct or not. It just seems to be a substitute term for attacking wrong and illogical ideas when one doesn't really understand why they're illogical.

I also noticed that the more I learned about various controversial topics (example: racism), the less offended and threatened I was by statements that opposed my point of view. Racist statements don't offend me, they might annoy me, but they don't threaten me anymore because I know why they're wrong and how to counter them.

I also find it disturbing whenever a Presidential candidate says they're "offended" by a statement.

[Drudgewire]

It wasn't that long ago the Jerky Boys made a CD of prank calls. One was a neurotic character who called a law firm and said he wanted to sue someone who had assaulted him. When they asked what the attackers did to him he responded "they hurt me with their words."

Now it isn't a joke anymore. :(

[RandFan]

Jerk.

[Drudgewire]

Jerk.


*runs home crying*

[EGarrett]

It wasn't that long ago the Jerky Boys made a CD of prank calls. One was a neurotic character who called a law firm and said he wanted to sue someone who had assaulted him. When they asked what the attackers did to him he responded "they hurt me with their words."

Now it isn't a joke anymore. :(
..."is it possible in any way then to sue you people?"
"Me? Why do you want to sue ME?"
"For punitive damages that you're giving me."
"Wait, you want to sue ME????"
"Why not?"
"ME????"
"Sue everybody!"

Nope. Never heard of it. :)

[bigred]

Being "offended" by a statement has no effect on whether the statement is correct or not. Absolutely.

It just seems to be a substitute term for attacking wrong and illogical ideas?

1 - Why is the given idea automatically wrong or illogical, since you just said being "offended" by a statement has no effect on whether the statement is correct or not?

2 - Being offended by a statement doesn't equate to "attacking" it.

Maybe I misunderstood - ? I get the impression that's what you were saying here.

when one doesn't really understand why they're illogical.One may or may not understand the given statement they are offended by...there's no direct correlation per se.

I also noticed that the more I learned about various controversial topics (example: racism), the less offended and threatened I was by statements that opposed my point of view. Racist statements don't offend me, they might annoy me, but they don't threaten me anymore because I know why they're wrong and how to counter them.:thumbsup:

I also find it disturbing whenever a Presidential candidate says they're "offended" by a statement.? Why so? Contrary to popular belief, they are human beings, and so can be offended.

[TragicMonkey]

There's nothing illogical about being offended by that which is offensive. You just have to provide better arguments against whatever-it-is than it hurts your feelings. For example, I'm offended by litterbugs. But I don't use my feelings as the basis for my vicious campaign of violence against them. I murderize them because I care for the wildlife, and the ecosystem, and property values. It's not out of anger, it's out of many logical, reasonable reasons, and those twelve jurors saw that logic and reason, too. And so can you!

[bigred]

If you got someone busted for littering, I owe you a drink. Major pet peeve.

[TragicMonkey]

If you got someone busted for littering, I owe you a drink. Major pet peeve.

Oh, I would never bother the cops with something so trivial. Justice is something that belongs to everyone, and everyone can help themselves to as much of it as they feel like dishing out. Especially if they have a crowbar. It's amazing what logical and rational arguments you can make with a crowbar.

[EGarrett]

1 - Why is the given idea automatically wrong or illogical, since you just said being "offended" by a statement has no effect on whether the statement is correct or not?It's not automatically wrong, and I didn't mean to imply that it is. I was simply describing the context in which I normally see "I'm offended by that!" used.

Usually, it's someone responding to an idea that is actually wrong, unsupported or illogical (i.e. maybe some racist ranting)...when most people don't really have the background or knowledge to point why it's wrong.

I should acknowledge though that religious people seem to claim offense at a lot of things when THEY are the ones who are usually in the illogical position. So it might be more accurate to just say it's a way to try and fight a statement you don't like when you lack the tools to do so.

One may or may not understand the given statement they are offended by...there's no direct correlation per se.I think that if you actually understand why the statement is wrong, you can just say why it's wrong and you don't have to be offended.

? Why so? Contrary to popular belief, they are human beings, and so can be offended.Because to me, it shows that they don't have the intellectual tools to better challenge whatever is offending them.

I'll give you a rough example...

Barack Obama said that Reverend Wright comparing the United States' military actions to terrorism was "offensive." And that's all he said.

What if Barack had said something like..."I also find it disturbing that Reverend Wright believes the United States military is equivalent to terrorists when the U.S. military does not target civilians in the way that terrorists do, and the U.S. military has a stated goal of freedom and democracy compared to the terrorist goal of religious dictatorship." Then he would've rebuked and crushed Wright's ignorant statement, and at the same time showed that he actually understood why it was wrong, and showed other people why it was wrong. And if you can do that, there's no reason not to...

[EGarrett]

There's nothing illogical about being offended by that which is offensive.I'm thinking about that, and I'm not sure I agree.

What does it mean to be offended in the first place? If you're offended, I'd say that it means that you're threatened or psychologically damaged by the statement in some way. If someone says something that's plainly wrong, and you know and understand WHY it's wrong, why would it offend you? Why would it threaten you or damage your self-image?

Random example: If I accused you of not knowing how to post an avatar on the message board...I don't think that would bother you or offend you, would it...because you obviously have an avatar and it would seem that you posted it yourself. It would probably annoy you, but you wouldn't feel offended, would you?

You just have to provide better arguments against whatever-it-is than it hurts your feelings. For example, I'm offended by litterbugs. But I don't use my feelings as the basis for my vicious campaign of violence against them. I murderize them because I care for the wildlife, and the ecosystem, and property values. It's not out of anger, it's out of many logical, reasonable reasons, and those twelve jurors saw that logic and reason, too. And so can you!But if someone asks you why they shouldn't litter, would you reply "because it offends me!" Or would you actually explain why it damages the ecosystem and property values. You'd explain right? So would you then agree that someone using "I'm offended" in place of an actual argument is probably showing intellectual weakness?

[bigred]

You seem to have concluded that offended = threatened and/or intellectually incapable of refuting something (either to others or one's self). And that might be the case, but isn't necessarily so.

As to your "If someone says something that's plainly wrong, and you know and understand WHY it's wrong, why would it offend you," how about because it's insulting and just plain rude, ie shows a callous disregard for the person(s) and/or groups it's aimed at?

Being inaccurate doesn't necessarily make an obnoxious statement benign.

[shemp]

I find this entire thread offensive.

[Jolly 11]

In my experience saying "I'm offended" Is usually a way to get another person to shut up and demonize their argument. A way of arguing without arguing.

[joobie]

Being "offended" by a statement has no effect on whether the statement is correct or not. It just seems to be a substitute term for attacking wrong and illogical ideas when one doesn't really understand why they're illogical.

i was going to reply to this with something so offensive that it offended even me, even though i have a pretty thick skin about most things. i changed my mind, since there are sometimes no places anyone should go.

:)

[hamelekim]

Why is intellectual weakness a bad thing? There are lots of intellectuals who are complete ******** and horrible human beings. I would argue that being an intellectual is the pinnacle of arrogance and self importance.

As for the idea that being offended by an idea is weakness... I don't even know how to answer such a ridiculous question... If you didn't get offended then you wouldn't be human. If you are emotionally invested in an idea, usually through action, then you are going to defend that idea, right or wrong.

[David Swidler]

I find this entire thread offensive.

I find this hard to believe. What could possibly offend someone so inured to offensiveness?

[jimtron]

In reply to the thread title: no. And it bugs me when people say that other folks shouldn't be offended by something that offends them. Everyone has the right to be offended by whatever. And there's no one that isn't offended by something.

I'm reminded of this thread on whether words can be offensive or not:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96488

[bjornart]

Being offended is human. Refusing to examine the offender's arguments and/or the causes of your own feelings is a sign of intellectual weakness.

[bigred]

Why is intellectual weakness a bad thing? There are lots of intellectuals who are complete ******** and horrible human beings. I would argue that being an intellectual is the pinnacle of arrogance and self importance.If you're contrasting "intellectual" with being intelligent, I generally agree (although it obviously varies from person to person). Nice to know someone else gets it, thx.

And the posts above pretty much sum up where I was coming from on this.

[TragicMonkey]

I'm thinking about that, and I'm not sure I agree.

What does it mean to be offended in the first place? If you're offended, I'd say that it means that you're threatened or psychologically damaged by the statement in some way.

Um, not necessarily. It can also mean "I have judged your/this action/statement/behavior/idea and find it repugnant. It is not only wrong factually, it is wrong ethically. It should be stamped on with great firmness, and the fact that you said/did such a thing suggests to me that you are a fool/jerk/terrible person. And I may or may not have to destroy you/your works/your civilization."


If someone says something that's plainly wrong, and you know and understand WHY it's wrong, why would it offend you? Why would it threaten you or damage your self-image?

It doesn't have to be a threat to "self-image" (whatever the hell that is). It can be a threat to anything you find good or decent. Like Scientology. I find it offensive that a bunch of jerks with money get away with crime, and fill the heads of idiots with nonsense.

Random example: If I accused you of not knowing how to post an avatar on the message board...I don't think that would bother you or offend you, would it...because you obviously have an avatar and it would seem that you posted it yourself. It would probably annoy you, but you wouldn't feel offended, would you?

It wouldn't annoy me at all. You can be as wrong as you like without offending me. If you say, however, that me and all my kind should be stoned to death, that would offend me. It wouldn't be a threat to my "self-image", it would be a threat to ME.

But if someone asks you why they shouldn't litter, would you reply "because it offends me!" Or would you actually explain why it damages the ecosystem and property values. You'd explain right?

Oh, no, I wouldn't explain. I don't feel the need to explain self-evident principles to fools, and someone is doubly a fool if a) they litter, b) they admit it to me. I would merely, in a friendly fashion, invite them to reconsider their views in light of the fact that if I catch them littering I will force them to eat whatever they littered. Life is not the JREF messageboard: you don't always have to present rational arguments for everything.

So would you then agree that someone using "I'm offended" in place of an actual argument is probably showing intellectual weakness?

No. It would only be intellectual weakness if you were incapable of giving a rational argument. Whether you choose to give one or not is up to you. A good politician wouldn't give a rational argument against something obviously wrong, because by doing so it would look as if they thought it was necessary. Nobody feels the need to present logical and rational arguments against the theory that the moon is made entirely of live flamingoes, wired together into a sphere, because it is self-evidently absurb and arguing against it would make you look just as silly as the theorist. And no politician is going to argue, in public, that they don't think the US military are terrorists because by doing so it would look like they thought it possible to confuse the two.

[Beerina]

Is being "offended" a sign of intellectual weakness?

No. It's the natural outgrowth of a society with unlimited freedom of speech*. Unlike Europe, where vox populi, vox dei in parliaments, Congress just can't outlaw some type of speech, like Nazi, or "making fun of religion", or whatnot.

But "being offended or hurt" has had some success in court cases as an adjunct to other injuries. So much so, you have people like those guys Kramer yelled at hooking up with Gloria All-red to claim so much psychological damage that it can only be repaired with millions of dollars.

In this case, freedom of speech should still be triumphant. The most important purpose of words is to get people to change their behavior, and this is by rational argumentation, or psychological manipulation.

If words "hurt you", oh well. When we became civilized, we outlawed throwing punches, instead mandating only words, and no more. We disallowed government to control words precisely because a government authorized to do that causes far, far more damage than mere "hurt feelings".

You cry and cry for months and feel scarred over the words? Bummer. It could be much worse. Such as a country where those words can be outlawed.









* I'll leave out the usual disclaimers like shouting fire in a theater** or egging people on to a fight or "them's fightin' words" or lying in contracts or fraud, etc.

** And sub-disclaimers like "but when there isn't actually a fire."

[EGarrett]

Why is intellectual weakness a bad thing?Did I say it was?

There are lots of intellectuals who are complete ******** and horrible human beings. I would argue that being an intellectual is the pinnacle of arrogance and self importance.Please stay on topic and discuss with rationality and good faith.

As for the idea that being offended by an idea is weakness... I don't even know how to answer such a ridiculous question...I didn't say weakness. I said intellectual weakness. And I've explained how. Please do not use strawman arguments.

If you didn't get offended then you wouldn't be human. If you are emotionally invested in an idea, usually through action, then you are going to defend that idea, right or wrong.Please read the original post, and not just the first line of it.

[EGarrett]

Um, not necessarily. It can also mean "I have judged your/this action/statement/behavior/idea and find it repugnant."Web definitions for repugnant
abhorrent: offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior ... " (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHB,TSHB:2006-48,TSHB:en&q=define+repugnant)

It is not only wrong factually, it is wrong ethically. It should be stamped on with great firmness, and the fact that you said/did such a thing suggests to me that you are a fool/jerk/terrible person.If this is what someone means by "I'm offended," then they are making unsupported assertions or ad hominem attacks...which would be signs of intellectual weakness.

It doesn't have to be a threat to "self-image" (whatever the hell that is).You realize of course, that adding "whatever the hell that is" is a sign that you yourself are taking offense to the suggestion and have hurt feelings?

That would support the theory that being offended means that your self-image is threatened.

It can be a threat to anything you find good or decent. Like Scientology. I find it offensive that a bunch of jerks with money get away with crime, and fill the heads of idiots with nonsense.This would bring us back to trying to determine exactly what we mean by the word "offended." So let's focus on the points above this before we can continue.

It wouldn't annoy me at all. You can be as wrong as you like without offending me. If you say, however, that me and all my kind should be stoned to death, that would offend me. It wouldn't be a threat to my "self-image", it would be a threat to ME.Yes, and I did say that being offended means your threatened in some way...not just mentally. Look at what I said again.

Oh, no, I wouldn't explain. I don't feel the need to explain self-evident principles to fools, and someone is doubly a fool if a) they litter, b) they admit it to me. I would merely, in a friendly fashion, invite them to reconsider their views in light of the fact that if I catch them littering I will force them to eat whatever they littered. Life is not the JREF messageboard: you don't always have to present rational arguments for everything.I would suggest that telling someone that you're going to make them eat what they littered, instead of explaining why littering is bad, is intellectually weak. And I think you know that.

(btw, my goal here is not to personally attack you, or personalize this topic. I'm only replying to examples you've given of your own behavior.)

No. It would only be intellectual weakness if you were incapable of giving a rational argument. Whether you choose to give one or not is up to you.I would suggest that not realizing that it's plainly better to explain why someone is wrong instead of threatening them or making unsupported assertions is also obviously intellectually weak.

I admit, the longer this goes, the more I'm starting to feel that I'm correct on this one. Or at least closer to being correct than you are at the moment.

A good politician wouldn't give a rational argument against something obviously wrong, because by doing so it would look as if they thought it was necessary. Nobody feels the need to present logical and rational arguments against the theory that the moon is made entirely of live flamingoes, wired together into a sphere, because it is self-evidently absurb and arguing against it would make you look just as silly as the theorist.Claiming that the United States is equivalent to terrorists is not equally as silly as claiming the moon is made of live flamingoes. There's not a remotely rational person on the planet who believes the flamingo claim. There are PLENTY of remotely rational people who incorrectly think that the United States is equivalent to a terrorist power. So no, it's not so self-evident that one doesn't need to explain it.

And let me add also that even if people LIKE what the politician says, that doesn't mean that what they said wasn't intellectually weak.

And no politician is going to argue, in public, that they don't think the US military are terrorists because by doing so it would look like they thought it possible to confuse the two.It is possible.

[EGarrett]

No. It's the natural outgrowth of a society with unlimited freedom of speech*. Unlike Europe, where vox populi, vox dei in parliaments, Congress just can't outlaw some type of speech, like Nazi, or "making fun of religion", or whatnot.

But "being offended or hurt" has had some success in court cases as an adjunct to other injuries. So much so, you have people like those guys Kramer yelled at hooking up with Gloria All-red to claim so much psychological damage that it can only be repaired with millions of dollars.

In this case, freedom of speech should still be triumphant. The most important purpose of words is to get people to change their behavior, and this is by rational argumentation, or psychological manipulation.

If words "hurt you", oh well. When we became civilized, we outlawed throwing punches, instead mandating only words, and no more. We disallowed government to control words precisely because a government authorized to do that causes far, far more damage than mere "hurt feelings".

You cry and cry for months and feel scarred over the words? Bummer. It could be much worse. Such as a country where those words can be outlawed.

* I'll leave out the usual disclaimers like shouting fire in a theater** or egging people on to a fight or "them's fightin' words" or lying in contracts or fraud, etc.

** And sub-disclaimers like "but when there isn't actually a fire."This post is interesting to me because you start out with "no," then you go on to say a number of things that seem to underline and agree with my point.

I said that claiming offense might be a sign of intellectual weakness, you replied that society causes people to become offended. I didn't say what caused people to be offended, and if society allows people to say offensive things, it can still be a sign of intellectual weakness that other people feel that offense. Your point doesn't disagree with mine.

Please explain where exactly you feel we differ.

[TragicMonkey]

"Web definitions for repugnant
abhorrent: offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior ... " (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHB,TSHB:2006-48,TSHB:en&q=define+repugnant)



It's very difficult to define a word without using the word or a synonym, isn't it?

My point is that you don't have to pretend to be Mr Spock from Star Trek in order to have rational reasons not to approve of something. You're allowed to find things offensive. It's not purely about emotion, and even if it were, that doesn't mean it's wrong. The intellect and emotions are not opposites.



If this is what someone means by "I'm offended," then they are making unsupported assertions or ad hominem attacks...which would be signs of intellectual weakness.

Um, no. You seem to have strange definitions of "weakness". Chairman Mao's ideas of how to treat the middle class were offensive. The opinions of Pat Robertson are offensive. Body odor is offensive. You may or may not present "arguments" against them, but the offensiveness doesn't change if you're just not good at debate.

I realize it's difficult, but do try to remember that life is not an internet messageboard. You don't score points by martialling "arguments" and evidence for things patently obvious. Just because something's opinion doesn't make it automatically wrong, nor does it require justification.

You realize of course, that adding "whatever the hell that is" is a sign that you yourself are taking offense to the suggestion and have hurt feelings?

No, it's a mild hint that you're using sloppy terminology. One may be offended by things that have nothing to do with one.


That would support the theory that being offended means that your self-image is threatened.

Only if you first define what my "self-image" is, then explain how you are "threatening" it, and why that would "upset" me.

This would bring us back to trying to determine exactly what we mean by the word "offended." So let's focus on the points above this before we can continue.

Dear me, do you imagine you're in a position to tell me what to do? This is your crappy argument, you must dig your way out of it as best you can.

Yes, and I did say that being offended means your threatened in some way...not just mentally. Look at what I said again.

Do you find what the Croatians did in WWII offensive? I do. But I wasn't alive at the time, have never met a Croatian who was, and am extremely unlikely to find myself in a position where it would matter to me on a personal level.

I find it intellectually offensive. Yes, that's allowed.

I would suggest that telling someone that you're going to make them eat what they littered, instead of explaining why littering is bad, is intellectually weak. And I think you know that.

You must be a real expert on what I know and think, eh? I think that you're defining "intellectually weak" as "anything I myself don't see the justification for".


(btw, my goal here is not to personally attack you, or personalize this topic. I'm only replying to examples you've given of your own behavior.)


I would suggest that not realizing that it's plainly better to explain why someone is wrong instead of threatening them or making unsupported assertions is also obviously intellectually weak.

Oh, my, this is a good one. So if someone's stabbing puppies for fun, are you going to make an argument for them? List the reasons, and back them up with evidence, as to why they are wrong?

Newsflash: right and wrong are ethical questions. It's philosophy, not science. You cannot provide evidence. It will always rest on assumptions...or threats, or appeals to emotion.

I admit, the longer this goes, the more I'm starting to feel that I'm correct on this one. Or at least closer to being correct than you are at the moment.

Dear me, is feeling oneself to be right intellectually strong?

Claiming that the United States is equivalent to terrorists is not equally as silly as claiming the moon is made of live flamingoes. There's not a remotely rational person on the planet who believes the flamingo claim. There are PLENTY of remotely rational people who incorrectly think that the United States is equivalent to a terrorist power. So no, it's not so self-evident that one doesn't need to explain it.

Which is a matter of opinion, dearie.

And let me add also that even if people LIKE what the politician says, that doesn't mean that what they said wasn't intellectually weak.

So?

It is possible.

And I'm sure you can find politicians willing to speak at Bob Jones University. It's not complete political suicide, but it sure as hell is a stupid risk.

[EGarrett]

It's very difficult to define a word without using the word or a synonym, isn't it?I already said that being offended includes being psychologically damaged. You said it may mean repugnant, which according to the dictionary, loops back to what I said.

My point is that you don't have to pretend to be Mr Spock from Star Trek in order to have rational reasons not to approve of something. You're allowed to find things offensive. It's not purely about emotion, and even if it were, that doesn't mean it's wrong. The intellect and emotions are not opposites.I didn't say it's wrong. I said it's probably intellectually weak.

Um, no. You seem to have strange definitions of "weakness".Intellectual weakness: Not reasoning well, not communicating well, not using the mind to its utmost.

I don't know what's strange about that.

Chairman Mao's ideas of how to treat the middle class were offensive. The opinions of Pat Robertson are offensive. Body odor is offensive. You may or may not present "arguments" against them, but the offensiveness doesn't change if you're just not good at debate.I disagree. This brings us back to the issue of what being offended actually means, but with the way I'm looking at them (which I feel is correct), it's perfectly logical that you'd be less offended if you could handle or respond to the comment/situation easily.

I think that if you DO know exactly why someone is wrong, they are less threatening and thus less stressful to deal with (stress occurs when the body puts itself into a heightened state of tension and awareness to deal with or prepare for threatening situations). After all, if you know exactly why someone is wrong, you can dispatch the person or their argument easily.

To put it simply...what's more threatening and stressful, a Rottweiler charging you or a newborn puppy growling in anger? If you can handle the situation easily it's not as threatening.

I realize it's difficult,You're slowly ramping up in attitude and personal aspersions. If you feel insulted then I apologize, and please leave the discussion. I'm here to consider ideas, not trade condescension and childish personal attacks and I can see where you're heading.

but do try to remember that life is not an internet messageboard.I would argue that discussion on message boards is intellectually stronger by and large than discussion in real life. Particularly here, where people try to hold each other to rational arguments.

Just because something happens "in life" doesn't mean it's somehow intellectually strong. So your point holds no water.

You don't score points by martialling "arguments" and evidence for things patently obvious. Just because something's opinion doesn't make it automatically wrong, nor does it require justification.Opinions do require justification. To suggest or act otherwise, is pretty obviously intellectually weak.

(Note: I'm not saying that YOU are intellectually weak. I'm arguing that not backing up an opinion is a sign of intellectual weakness, thus my argument holds that using offense instead of backing up your points is probably a sign of lacking intellectual strength)

No, it's a mild hint that you're using sloppy terminology. One may be offended by things that have nothing to do with one.Nope. I'm perfectly capable of asking someone to clear up what they mean without adding mild profanity. In fact, I'm asking people to explain things they say that confuse me in other replies.

Your tone is obviously getting worse. Again, if you're going to get to the point that you use weak and wrong arguments and personal attacks, please just leave the thread. Nothing's going to be accomplished but making enemies.

Only if you first define what my "self-image" is, then explain how you are "threatening" it, and why that would "upset" me.You said yourself that you feel littering offends you. Thus you count yourself as someone who is offended by things, and a thread that suggests that that might be a sign of intellectual weakness would also be suggesting that you yourself might be intellectually weak. Thus you would take offense to the topic and start throwing in attitude and personal remarks.

That's obvious though, and you know that. Do I really have to take the time to say these things? Don't drag the discussion downward.

Dear me, do you imagine you're in a position to tell me what to do? This is your crappy argument, you must dig your way out of it as best you can.If it's "crappy," then why are you unable to disprove it without using strawmen, incorrectly defined words and personal attacks?

Do you find what the Croatians did in WWII offensive? I do. But I wasn't alive at the time, have never met a Croatian who was, and am extremely unlikely to find myself in a position where it would matter to me on a personal level.

I find it intellectually offensive. Yes, that's allowed.I'm not clear what your point is here. You said that someone threatening to stone you to death would be a threat to YOU and thus offensive. And I already said that being offended means you are threatened in some way.

You backed up my point, and I don't know how or why you're now bringing up Croations and World War II.

You must be a real expert on what I know and think, eh? I think that you're defining "intellectually weak" as "anything I myself don't see the justification for".No, I'm defining intellectually weak as being poor at what the intellect is supposed to do. I.E. Reasoning, finding good ideas and evaluating them, communicating with and influencing others and so on.

Oh, my, this is a good one. So if someone's stabbing puppies for fun, are you going to make an argument for them? List the reasons, and back them up with evidence, as to why they are wrong?If someone ASKS me why they shouldn't do that, of course I'm going to tell them why. "Because it offends me" isn't a very good answer, because it's unsupported...and even people who don't know critical thinking will instinctively realize that you're not telling them anything.

Newsflash: right and wrong are ethical questions. It's philosophy, not science. You cannot provide evidence. It will always rest on assumptions...or threats, or appeals to emotion.No. You're flat-out incorrect there. Go the wikipedia article on altruism, for starters. Our ideas of what's "right" can be shown to lead to a functioning society where people can live well and have healthy children.

Dear me, is feeling oneself to be right intellectually strong?If I just claimed that I was right without giving reasons, it would be intellectually weak. Likewise, if I claimed that someone shouldn't do something because it was offensive to me, that would also be intellectually weak.

Which is a matter of opinion, dearie.No. Read what I said again. A terrorist's stated goal is Sharia Law. The U.S. military's goal is to protect or promote democracy and the ideals of the U.S. Constitution.

The Koran and the Constitution are two different documents with opposite goals. That's not opinion. Furthermore, the U.S. military's stated methods are different than the stated methods of Al Qaeda and the terrorists. Al Qaeda purposefully targets civilians. Look at the information for yourself. You may not like the military, but they are not equivalent, in word or deed, to the Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.

So?...so we're in a thread discussing whether being offended is a sign of intellectual weakness. You pointing out that people may like or agree with what the politician says without him having to make an argument is beside the point. Even if people love everything the politician says, it may still be intellectually weak. Thus what you're saying doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

And I'm sure you can find politicians willing to speak at Bob Jones University. It's not complete political suicide, but it sure as hell is a stupid risk.Again, you're throwing out things that are unrelated the topic. Please decide before your next reply if you're here to honestly discuss or if you're here to throw off attitude, bad logic, and tangets. If it's the latter. Please leave. I'm here to discuss the topic I brought up.

[TragicMonkey]

What a lot of words! And how terribly snippy people can get when they wish to pretend they're not feeling pecky!

[fuelair]

I find this entire thread offensive.And, how does the thread feel about you?:):confused:

[Beerina]

This post is interesting to me because you start out with "no," then you go on to say a number of things that seem to underline and agree with my point.

I said that claiming offense might be a sign of intellectual weakness, you replied that society causes people to become offended. I didn't say what caused people to be offended, and if society allows people to say offensive things, it can still be a sign of intellectual weakness that other people feel that offense. Your point doesn't disagree with mine.

Please explain where exactly you feel we differ.

Well, the psychological damage is what's feigned, not that it occurs because the person is intellectually weak.

With that in mind, whether the person was weak or not doesn't enter into it, though the person's ethics certainly does.

[Ron_Tomkins]

It's not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of many other things....

Okay, maybe weakness as well.


... oh.. bah. Screw you all.

[pchams]

Offense can be taken in so many senses.
Religiously, racially, your sibling taking the last piece of toast.
I think I agree with the sentiment of the OP as "water off of a duck's back" generally seems to work in social interactions better than a turf war.
To borrow from Dawkins, I think that it might be the ingrained meme that seems to have been offended, not you personally.
Once one identifies that it is the meme or cultural norm that is the target of offense, it becomes less personal.
So, in that sense, it takes a bit of personal restraint and thought to defuse situations that may occur when one feels offended.

[shemp]

I find this hard to believe. What could possibly offend someone so inured to offensiveness?

This post has been reported for offensiveness.

[Gazpacho]

While being offended is not necessarily a sign of weakness, saying "I'm offended" and expecting it to count for something in an argument is.

[Gazpacho]

Barack Obama said that Reverend Wright comparing the United States' military actions to terrorism was "offensive." And that's all he said.

What if Barack had said something like..."I also find it disturbing that Reverend Wright believes the United States military is equivalent to terrorists when the U.S. military does not target civilians in the way that terrorists do, and the U.S. military has a stated goal of freedom and democracy compared to the terrorist goal of religious dictatorship." Then he would've rebuked and crushed Wright's ignorant statement, and at the same time showed that he actually understood why it was wrong, and showed other people why it was wrong. And if you can do that, there's no reason not to...
If he had said something like that, he would have wasted his time because the press wouldn't be able to edit it for the news. He wasn't engaging in an argument; he was refining his image for voters.

[gumboot]

They should label a new logical fallacy - "Appeal to Political Correctness"

Typically when I observe someone declaring offence at the remarks of another it's nothing more than an attempt to suppress the other person's free expression by trying to gain the moral high ground afforded by the disease of political correctness.

There's nothing in itself wrong with being offended (although I know some people who get offended at so many things that I pity how miserable their lives must be), but I take issue with those who express their offence in a tone of outrage that infers they have the right not to be offended.

To give an example...

I worked in an office once with eight other people. One of these people was a Christian, and had religious images and so forth on their desk, as people are inclined to do. I was told upon starting at this office that I should not make any comments or jokes of a negative nature about Christianity because this person was a Christian and we didn't want to offend them.

Thus seven people had to suppress their opinions and thoughts in order to appease one person who felt they had a right not to be offended. Of course I rejected this stance out of hand and promptly commented that I found organised religion to be highly offensive; and further more that organised religion had proven vastly more harmful to mankind than a bit of religious mockery, so my offence was both rational and justified.

Needless to say this comment didn't go down very well... I guess they found it offensive.

[bigred]

They should label a new logical fallacy - "Appeal to Political Correctness"

Typically when I observe someone declaring offence at the remarks of another it's nothing more than an attempt to suppress the other person's free expression by trying to gain the moral high ground afforded by the disease of political correctness....speaking of logical fallacies...this particular one has already been handily exposed in this thread. I also love how you then you go on to tell us how you went out of your way to declare offense at religion and your co-worker's free expression of it. OK....

I take issue with those who express their offence in a tone of outrage that infers they have the right not to be offended....like you did in the example below. You really need to invest in a mirror.


I worked in an office once with eight other people. One of these people was a Christian, and had religious images and so forth on their desk, as people are inclined to do. I was told upon starting at this office that I should not make any comments or jokes of a negative nature about Christianity because this person was a Christian and we didn't want to offend them.

Thus seven people had to suppress their opinions and thoughts in order to appease one person who felt they had a right not to be offended. :rolleyes: No, all you had to do was act like an adult by being considerate and respectful a person's beliefs by refraining from totally unnecessary attacks on said beliefs, at least within earshot of that person. Oh the horror. How terrible it must have been for you, to be asked to summon the supreme effort to suppress that urge to attack someone out of nowhere for daring to believe something different than you! After all, that person is personally responsible for every wrong thing ever done by anyone associated with their religion, and as such, it's your right - nay, your duty - to rip that person a new one immediately. How dare they deny you that??

Of course I rejected this stance out of hand and promptly commented that I found organised religion to be highly offensive; and further more that organised religion had proven vastly more harmful to mankind than a bit of religious mockery, so my offence was both rational and justified.Even if we agree that your offense was justified, FYI your obnoxious attitude and actions weren't.

Needless to say this comment didn't go down very well... I guess they found it offensive.Gee go figure.

[gumboot]

I also love how you then you go on to tell us how you went out of your way to declare offense at religion and your co-worker's free expression of it. OK....

I didn't go out of my way. I was highlighting the hypocrisy of the collective work place's attitude. (And the comment was not made to the religious person by to my manager).


...like you did in the example below. You really need to invest in a mirror.

Not at all. My comment was not made with outrage nor with a declaration to not be offended. It was not even directed at the person practising religion.



:rolleyes: No, all you had to do was act like an adult by being considerate and respectful a person's beliefs by refraining from totally unnecessary attacks on said beliefs, at least within earshot of that person. Oh the horror. How terrible it must have been for you, to be asked to summon the supreme effort to suppress that urge to attack someone out of nowhere for daring to believe something different than you! After all, that person is personally responsible for every wrong thing ever done by anyone associated with their religion, and as such, it's your right - nay, your duty - to rip that person a new one immediately. How dare they deny you that??

Um, no. I don't think you understand at all. Firstly, the conversation occurred between my manager and myself, not me and the religious person. I never, in the entire time that I was at that place, spoke a single word to the religious person regarding religion. Second, I was not asked to be considerate and respectful of a person's beliefs by refraining from totally unnecessary attacks, I was told in no uncertain terms that any negative reference to Christianity in any form whatsoever would not be tolerated anywhere in the work place to any person solely due to the religious beliefs of one employee.

It goes without saying that it is inappropriate to attack a person's religious beliefs without provocation. The place I was working at had established policies on this matter and I was very clear on them.

The specific instructions to this particular small team were far outside the dictates of company policy and totally unjustified. It was only appropriate for me to express my unhappiness to the manager. I did so in a calm and reasoned way, with no expectation of my protests being acknowledged.

[GreyICE]

Being "offended" by a statement has no effect on whether the statement is correct or not. It just seems to be a substitute term for attacking wrong and illogical ideas when one doesn't really understand why they're illogical.

I also noticed that the more I learned about various controversial topics (example: racism), the less offended and threatened I was by statements that opposed my point of view. Racist statements don't offend me, they might annoy me, but they don't threaten me anymore because I know why they're wrong and how to counter them.

I also find it disturbing whenever a Presidential candidate says they're "offended" by a statement.

I have an observation. You're an idiot.

[bigred]

My apologies; I misunderstood.

Way to ruin a good rant. :mad: ;)

[Furi]

My normal response to anyone stating "I find that offensive" is "t'syour problem pal, deal with it"

I get offended by small annoying crap, but it's my problem, but if the government decides to stop crappy pop dance music being created then GFI, I also find that I am offended by people who find arguments offensive