Averia Light
said
:
Not trying to be a butthead, but I feel like that is an argument that supports the use of an individual's feelings to determine if something is offensive as opposed to a general standard of what should and shouldn't be considered offensive.
I think it's more about more people need to try and be on the same page rather than some people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill for the slightest reasons just to rock the boat
[qfc id=]whatever[/qfc]
There shouldn't be consequences for using inoffensive words in their proper context, publicly or privately. Why would there be consequences if no wrongdoing has occurred?
Being insensitive to others has consequences, whether it be physical or emotional. Emotional intelligence is definitely gaining popularity and is noted as being one of the more important factors in how to be successful.
We don't based rules in language around those lacking in literary control.
We don't based rules in society around those lacking in emotional control.
It is up to each individual person to personally educate themselves and gain their own knowledge and intelligence so that they understand and can properly comprehend and engage in society as a whole.
Censoring doesn't encourage any kind of intellectual growth.
Your argument centers on social rules you find unacceptable though. Given they may not be formally known as rules, calling something retarded is definitely taboo, at least in the US. The cancer one is borderline, at least from what I have personally witnessed.
And I swear I'm not going to let her know all the pain I have known
I guess I don't like the idea of anyone telling others what they can or can't do over such matters - whether it be what they can or can't be offended about or to censor what they can or can't say. Both seem to want to control others in an inappropriate manner, imo.
And I swear I'm not going to let her know all the pain I have known
08-Dec-2018 03:13:21
- Last edited on
08-Dec-2018 03:13:47
by
Averia Light
Averia Light
said
:
Your argument centers on social rules you find unacceptable though. Given they may not be formally known as rules, calling something retarded is definitely taboo, at least in the US.
No, my argument centers on social rules that have already been agreed upon and accepted by society.
In regards to rules on the language, these rules are written in the dictionary.
The rules regarding what words are and are not taboo are written in the dictionary. Words that are taboo, by definition, are listed as "Offensive" in the dictionary.
Using a word in it's correct context in a non offensive manner is by definition, not taboo.
Calling someone retarded is taboo. This is listed as offensive.
Describing an action as retarded is not taboo. This is not listed as offensive.
We have rules already. Problems only arise when people don't adhere to the rules.
If you have take things out of context in order to be offended, you're not adhering to the rules that society has already agreed upon. You are in the wrong, not the person expressing themselves.
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_
McDelivery Now Available In Canada
McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.
08-Dec-2018 03:18:35
- Last edited on
08-Dec-2018 03:19:09
by
Nexus Origin
I guess I don't like the idea of anyone telling others what they can or can't do over such matters - whether it be what they can or can't be offended about or to censor what they can or can't say. Both seem to want to control others in an inappropriate manner, imo.
I dunno... maybe it's just me, but I prefer education over censorship any day.
Giving people freedom sounds a lot better than taking away their freedom.
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_
McDelivery Now Available In Canada
McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.
08-Dec-2018 03:21:56
- Last edited on
08-Dec-2018 03:22:11
by
Nexus Origin
Nexus Origin
said
:
Averia Light
said
:
Your argument centers on social rules you find unacceptable though. Given they may not be formally known as rules, calling something retarded is definitely taboo, at least in the US.
No, my argument centers on social rules that have already been agreed upon and accepted by society.
In regards to rules on the language, these rules are written in the dictionary.
The rules regarding what words are and are not taboo are written in the dictionary. Words that are taboo, by definition, are listed as "Offensive" in the dictionary.
Using a word in it's correct context in a non offensive manner is by definition, not taboo.
Calling someone retarded is taboo. This is listed as offensive.
Describing an action as retarded is not taboo. This is not listed as offensive.
We have rules already. Problems only arise when people don't adhere to the rules.
If you have take things out of context in order to be offended, you're not adhering to the rules that society has already agreed upon. You are in the wrong, not the person expressing themselves.
How are they clearly accepted by society when a large group of society also deems them as unacceptable?
And I swear I'm not going to let her know all the pain I have known
I guess I don't like the idea of anyone telling others what they can or can't do over such matters - whether it be what they can or can't be offended about or to censor what they can or can't say. Both seem to want to control others in an inappropriate manner, imo.
I dunno... maybe it's just me, but I prefer education over censorship any day.
Giving people freedom sounds a lot better than taking away their freedom.
But you are also taking freedom away when you impose rules about what they should and shouldn't be offended about. You would be taking away the freedom to express themselves in both situations.
And I swear I'm not going to let her know all the pain I have known
08-Dec-2018 03:23:53
- Last edited on
08-Dec-2018 03:24:52
by
Averia Light
Averia Light
said
:
But you are also taking freedom away when you impose rules about what they should and shouldn't be offended about. You would be taking away the freedom to express themselves in both situations.
#libertariannoob4lyfe
The freedom to be offended? I'll support that.
If someone is offended, I have no issues with them expressing themselves and attempting to communicate why they are offended.
No one is taking that right away from them. They have the right to be offended.
However, that doesn't mean that they are correct in the matter, nor does it give them the authority to limit someone else in response to them being offended, especially if the reason that they're offended is based solely on the fact that they are taking things out of context.