How come theists take offense so readily, and how to avoid offending them?

[(Q)]

Being offended is such a subjective phenomenon that you could not possibly have a set of rules that would make you inoffensive under any circumstances.

Possibly, but most certainly we observe many who follow rules that are highly offensive to the point of pure hatred towards others.

 

[S.A.M.]

Possibly, but most certainly we observe many who follow rules that are highly offensive to the point of pure hatred towards others.

Then there is a clear intention to offend. Which is a whole other ball game.

I once had a genuine desire not to be offensive. In time, fire and brimstoners convinced me that it is because I fear eternal damnation.

No one can convince you of anything without your permission.

 

[(Q)]

Then there is a clear intention to offend. Which is a whole other ball game.

Of course, that's why many are offended, yet the offended are told they are the ones who are offensive, simply because they have been offended.

No one can convince you of anything without your permission.

But, they can offend you and continue to offend you without your permission, and you can do absolutely nothing about it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course, that's why many are offended, yet the offended are told they are the ones who are offensive, simply because they have been offended.

And they are right. It was the intention to offend, so by being offended the offended have played into their hands and they are open to any censure.

But, they can offend you and continue to offend you without your permission, and you can do absolutely nothing about it.

Not true. Society has two major means of dealing with it. One, social ostracism, which is what we call etiquette or good breeding, where one does not display that one is offended but makes the offender accountable nonetheless. The other is freedom of expression, where one objectively debates the issue which is offensive. The first requires deception, which is a sign of intelligence, the second, a liberal attitude to argumentation, which is a sign of being open to opinions other than your own.

There is also retaliation, which is a more base form of reprisal but sometimes, oh so effective.

 

[wynn]

If it is not your intention to be offensive, then its simply a case of trial and error. Being offended is such a subjective phenomenon that you could not possibly have a set of rules that would make you inoffensive under any circumstances. Most people appreciate good intentions and civility and good manners can take you far in most situations. Even a soft suggestion that it is not your intention to offend will work out with most people.

If nothing else works, do what I do, keep your opinion to yourself when in the company of strangers.

Sure. But some get offended at that too - they start a conversation, challenge one for an opinion, and if one doesn't give it, they take offense. Or they take offense at one's clothes, or the way one walks, or whatever.

And this is what God approves of, supposedly. This is the part I don't like.

 

[wynn]

No one can convince you of anything without your permission.

Perhaps. But physical and psychological violence tend to be rather persuasive.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sure. But some get offended at that too - they start a conversation, challenge one for an opinion, and if one doesn't give it, they take offense. Or they take offense at one's clothes, or the way one walks, or whatever.

And this is what God approves of, supposedly. This is the part I don't like.

One must assume that God approves of everything otherwise it would not be possible, its counterproductive to have an out of control God.

Perhaps. But physical and psychological violence tend to be rather persuasive.

Killing someone does not change their mind and torture will get a man to say anything whether he believes it or not.

 

[wynn]

But, they can offend you and continue to offend you without your permission, and you can do absolutely nothing about it.

Not true. Society has two major means of dealing with it. One, social ostracism, which is what we call etiquette or good breeding, where one does not display that one is offended but makes the offender accountable nonetheless. The other is freedom of expression, where one objectively debates the issue which is offensive. The first requires deception, which is a sign of intelligence, the second, a liberal attitude to argumentation, which is a sign of being open to opinions other than your own.

There is also retaliation, which is a more base form of reprisal but sometimes, oh so effective.

But this doesn't apply with theists.
They have God on their side.
They can do whatever they want to. As long as it is in the name of God, the rest of the world is helpless.

A theist can come with a baseball bat at me, hit me - and if I flee or fight back, the theist takes offense, and I get the consequences for offending a theist.
And God likes that.

 

[S.A.M.]

But this doesn't apply with theists.
They have God on their side.
They can do whatever they want to. As long as it is in the name of God, the rest of the world is helpless.

A theist can come with a baseball bat at me, hit me - and if I flee or fight back, the theist takes offense, and I get the consequences for offending a theist.
And God likes that.

Well of course, theists will always have God on their side. That is understood.
How would it be otherwise?

 

[wynn]

One must assume that God approves of everything otherwise it would not be possible, its counterproductive to have an out of control God.

What? Are you saying God approves that I don't heed whatever someone who claims to be a theist tells me to do??

 

[wynn]

Well of course, theists will always have God on their side. That is understood.
How would it be otherwise?

It must be great to be a theist then.

I wish one could simply become a theist by claiming so.

 

[S.A.M.]

What? Are you saying God approves that I don't heed whatever someone who claims to be a theist tells me to do??

Clearly. What is the confusion here?

It must be great to be a theist then.

I wish one could simply become a theist by claiming so.

How else does it happen? If you substitute "God approves..." with "I believe..." what is the difference?

 

[wynn]

Clearly. What is the confusion here?

Then I am confused. You said God was always on the side of theists.
But if He also approves of what I do, and what I do may be contrary to the theist's desires - then He is also on my side. He can't be simultaneously on two opposing sides - or?

How else does it happen?

I imagine one has to get approval from God first before one can consider oneself a theist.

How else does it happen? If you substitute "God approves..." with "I believe..." what is the difference?

I don't understand?

What God approves of, that may be completely different from what I believe. The reference persons are different: in the first example it is God, in the second it is myself.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Don't change yourself to avoid pissing theists off. They've no right to be treated with kid gloves.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then I am confused. You said God was always on the side of theists.
But if He also approves of what I do, and what I do may be contrary to the theist's desires - then He is also on my side. He can't be simultaneously on two opposing sides - or?

Why not? Can one have "good" if there is no "bad"? Morality is a relative value. The right not to be offended exists side by side with the right to free speech, does it not? It only matters which side of the line you walk over to to determine what you think it is. Imagine you don't pick a side, then what is your position?

I imagine one has to get approval from God first before one can consider oneself a theist.

Is that how it happens? The rejected ones become atheists?

 

[(Q)]

And they are right. It was the intention to offend, so by being offended the offended have played into their hands and they are open to any censure.

Should the offenders intention to offend be taken away? Should they not be allowed to intentionally offend others? Or, is this acceptable behavior?

...that one is offended but makes the offender accountable nonetheless.

The offenders are not accountable to anyone. They are free to offend.

The other is freedom of expression, where one objectively debates the issue which is offensive.

There is no debate, the offenders are intentionally offending without debate.

There is also retaliation, which is a more base form of reprisal but sometimes, oh so effective.

There would be no need for retaliation if the offenders simply stopped intentionally offending, don't ya think?

 

[wynn]

Why not? Can one have "good" if there is no "bad"? Morality is a relative value.

But God would be only on the side of the good, no?

The right not to be offended exists side by side with the right to free speech, does it not?

I don't know about that. From what I know people, "the right not to be offended" means to them that if they feel offended by someone, they see it as a transgression of their rights, and as such deem themselves validated to retaliate (along with having God on their side, if they are theist, which makes them infintely powerful).

It only matters which side of the line you walk over to to determine what you think it is. Imagine you don't pick a side, then what is your position?

Confused?

Is that how it happens? The rejected ones become atheists?

I guess so.

 

[S.A.M.]

Should the offenders intention to offend be taken away? Should they not be allowed to intentionally offend others? Or, is this acceptable behavior?

How would you ascertain intent? Who decides what is offensive? What is "acceptable" behaviour - how would you define it?

Do you think society should be politically correct? Do you think anyone should be able to speak their mind? Is there a happy medium? What would you suggest?

The offenders are not accountable to anyone. They are free to offend.

Again, not true. Dissent in any society is controlled and regulated by the people who make it up.

There is no debate, the offenders are intentionally offending without debate

.

Then what would you suggest? Debate or shutting down the offender?

There would be no need for retaliation if the offenders simply stopped intentionally offending, don't ya think?

Or if the offended stopped being offended. Which one would you prefer?

But God would be only on the side of the good, no?

And what is "good"? The right not to be offended? The right to speak your mind? I think good or bad are subjective values and have different meanings in different spectrum.

I don't know about that. From what I know people, "the right not to be offended" means to them that if they feel offended by someone, they see it as a transgression of their rights, and as such deem themselves validated to retaliate (along with having God on their side, if they are theist, which makes them infintely powerful).

Does this mean you abdicate your right not to be offended?

Confused?

You cannot see yourself arguing for either side of the equation?

I guess so.

It would be a very strange atheist, I think, who was rejected by God into his position.

 

[(Q)]

How would you ascertain intent? Who decides what is offensive? What is "acceptable" behaviour - how would you define it?

Do you think society should be politically correct? Do you think anyone should be able to speak their mind? Is there a happy medium? What would you suggest?

You could just answer the question without posing several more that clearly steer the subject off course. Why would ask to define words you just used yourself?

Then what would you suggest? Debate or shutting down the offender?

Or if the offended stopped being offended. Which one would you prefer?

There is no question that the offenders should not intentionally offend. Simple, really.

Of course, that will never happen, will it?

 

[S.A.M.]

You could just answer the question without posing several more that clearly steer the subject off course. Why would ask to define words you just used yourself?

I'm a politically incorrect person. I have strong opinions true, but I do not believe in shutting down any debate, no matter how offensive. I think its foolish to get offended by ideas and words, the only thing which is worth getting offended over is suffering. I do however think that civil debate is more productive than jeering and mocking. Sometimes though, derision too can be valuable as a figure of speech. Basically, I see no problem with expressing an opinion in any way that a person sees fit. Unfortunately not everyone has the maturity or objectivity to look beyond words and expressions at ideas.

There is no question that the offenders should not intentionally offend. Simple, really.

Of course, that will never happen, will it?

I think if there is something we do not like in others, then the best place to start changing it is with oneself. That is the true test of how effective it would be and how well you can expect it to work on others.