Have we any right to be offended all the time?

First topic message reminder :

We hear it all the time:

"I find that offensive"

What right do we have to be offended? What gives us the right to find so many things offensive? Who are we, some superior being who has to bang on all the time about what other people are allowed to say?
What is an offensive word or phrase anyway? What offends me may not offend you so who is right?
Sticks and stones may break your bones and words seem to absolutely floor you!

They are but words: lumps of shaped air that fall from your open mouth and drop into the atmosphere for someone to pick up. What we do with them is up to us.

We can choose to hold them inside of us and allow the shapes to mess around with our nerves or we can toss them back into the world to fall and fade into invisible shapes.

Why would you think you may be offended by someone else's choice of shaped air? Why would you deem yourself judge and jury to condemn someone's words when you can choose to drop them and allow them to free fall into oblivion?

Stop being offended. Stop the offender from invading your ear-shaped orifice and say:

"I find your mouth-shapes to be lacking in any solid and pretty formation, so I will hand them back to you for now, yet I won't take offence as the offence is not mine to take, only yours to give and I don't want it"


Just a thought.

Tommy Monk wrote:Huff and puff.....



It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.


That is our biological design.


No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

Wow, some people really are that dense I guess

You obviously....

That's right Tommy, just ignore evidence found by science since it doesn't fit into that skull of yours.

This is what made me start the thread:

Evidence found by science?????


Not seen any of that yet, just a huff and puff waffle citing a theory......



And dodge, you try to justify homosexuality by saying that you can't help who you are attracted to..... so by that logic peadophillia and beastiality are also natural because some find themselves attracted to children or animals....???




It is natural to be attracted to The opposite sex.


That is our biological design.


No amount of waffle will get around this simple fact.

So now people are attracted physically to animals, really, when do they date them then Matti.

That is sexual attraction, fuck me what a dummy, do you understand the difference?

PMSL

I agree with Fry.
You're offended?
So what?
Couldn't give a shit!!!
In fact I don't even think that is even worth mentioning at all!!!

Didge wrote:So now people are attracted physically to animals, really, when do they date them then Matti.
That is sexual attraction, fuck me what a dummy, do you understand the difference?
PMSL

Some people are sexually attracted to animals and some are sexually attracted to children.


You said homosexuality was natural because people can't help who they are attracted to, so by the same logic beastiality and peadophillia are also natural because some people are attracted to animals or children...???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:So now people are attracted physically to animals, really, when do they date them then Matti.
That is sexual attraction, fuck me what a dummy, do you understand the difference?
PMSL

Some people are sexually attracted to animals and some are sexually attracted to children.


You said homosexuality was natural because people can't help who they are attracted to, so by the same logic beastiality and peadophillia are also natural because some people are attracted to animals or children...???

I stated physically attracted, which does not mean you have to be sexually attracted dummy, fuck me you are thick.

No you first just said attracted.


Are you Now claiming that homosexuals are not sexually attracted to members of The same sex now and only physically attracted to them?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:There is nothing natural about homosexuality.



It is natural for us to be attracted to The opposite sex.

Then you thus claim who you can control who you are physically attracted to then?

Can you?

My first post to Matti on this thread 


 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 


Clearly from the start I said physically attracted..

PMSL

Eds, Fry opposes people being offended for no good reason that simply feeling you ought to be offended. He has said a lot about religious people claiming 'offence' at their beliefs being questioned for instance.

Taking a single quote as though it wrotes off the right to be offended however is a stretch. For reasons given by myself, Ben, Veya and didge the matter is not so clean cut.

Someone might be offended by FGM, homophobia or a man bullying his wife, do they not have a right to be so?

Dodge, stop splitting hairs, we are talking about attraction here in a sexual context, so saying physically attracted is just another way of saying sexually attracted.


So I'm not sure exactly what point you think you are trying to make.



Can you explain???



And les, I think you Are stretching things a little there...

Dear me someone is very daft after all

I thought we were talking about attraction, you claim there is a difference between physical and sexual attraction in this context, so is up to You to explain....

Eilzel wrote:Eds, Fry opposes people being offended for no good reason that simply feeling you ought to be offended. He has said a lot about religious people claiming 'offence' at their beliefs being questioned for instance.

Taking a single quote as though it wrotes off the right to be offended however is a stretch. For reasons given by myself, Ben, Veya and didge the matter is not so clean cut.

Someone might be offended by FGM, homophobia or a man bullying his wife, do they not have a right to be so?

What is a good reason to one is not a good reason to another.
I get offended les, by different things.

I'm just interested in the way offence is taken and wondering why, we, any of us, have to take offence?
It's our choice to take it leave it.

Homosexuals are attracted to members of the same gender and as long as they can find someone who is able to consent and does, that's fine.

Preventing pedophilia and bestiality isn't about the pedophile or the ... whatever you call someone who's bestial ... it's about the people/animals they want to have sex with not being able to give informed consent. If someone does something to you without your informed consent, it's a violation of your person.

This is so obvious!

Didge said you can't help who you Are attracted to so same sex attraction and homosexuality is natural.



Therefore using the same logic, this legitimizes any and all deviant sexual preferences/practices as natural.


Somebody could be attracted to sheep for example, they can't help this attraction, so it is natural.


Somebody could be attracted to children, they can't help this attraction, so it is natural.


Somebody could be attracted to a bucket of shit, they can't help this attraction, so it is natural.



Furthermore, this same argument will legitimize practically anything that anybody feels they want to do, no matter how wrong or deranged....



Somebody could feel like running down the high street naked and shouting gibberish, they can't help this feeling so it is natural.


Somebody could feel like nailing all there furniture to The ceiling, they can't help this feeling so it is natural.

Eds I don't think it is entirely down to choice whether something offends us, it is a natural reaction. And sometimes that reaction is understandable; if someone makes s claim for instance that gay people are disgusting 'abominations' then I am offended, I don't need to be, but then I know the kind of laws and actions that can result from that kind of opinion, so it is an entirely reasonable reaction isn't it?

My point is that if the reason for being offended is justified then we do have thr right to be so. If we just 'feel we should be offended' without being able to explain why (like being offended by nudity for instance?) then yes perhaps that is silly.

You say yourself you are offended sometimes, and you certainly seem offended when people use paedophile as an insult, and you have every right to be.

^exactly Ben. There is no victim of homosexuality, it is entirely mutual love and science is even getting closer to an explanation. But tommy just wants to justify his prejudice attitude with dumb rationale...

What if somebody is offended by homosexuals/homosexuality???


Surely if you have the right to be offended by somebody criticising/condemning homosexuality, then others have the right to be offended by homosexuals/homosexuality...???




You say there is no victim, but others could argue that homosexuals are entirely the victims....



We don't need science to tell us that male/female coupling is the natural and normal way of things... but maybe science can tell us why for some people this has gone wrong......

Because there is rationale reason for people to be offended by homosexuals- certainly not one ever given by you.

On the othrr hand people condemning homosexuals are entirely offensive since they condemn that person for doing nothing wrong. And as history shows us such views have led to the persecution of gay people in the past.

And don't try and talk about science tommy, it is abundantly clear you know precisely nothing on the subject. Ignorance is all consuming.

Tommy Monk wrote:What if somebody is offended by homosexuals/homosexuality???


Surely if you have the right to be offended by somebody criticising/condemning homosexuality, then others have the right to be offended by homosexuals/homosexuality...???




You say there is no victim, but others could argue that homosexuals are entirely the victims....



We don't need science to tell us that male/female coupling is the natural and normal way of things... but maybe science can tell us why for some people this has gone wrong......

You can't rationally claim that someone is being victimized when they are experienced enough to know and do not claim to be victimized. Who are you to speak for a grown man or woman and say, maybe you don't think you're the victim but let me assure you that you are?

As far as being offended by homosexuality itself, if it offends you then don't take part in it. Otherwise it's not your business.

eddie wrote:This is what made me start the thread:

He is right

eddie wrote:This is what made me start the thread:

I see.  Offensive is just a word that describes a feeling or attitude.  Words are value neutral.  What Mr. Fry is speaking to is the content...is there a right to that feeling or attitude?  That depends on the thing or content to which he refers.  

He erroneously, or perhaps ignorantly criticizes the term.  Most often, when you see this kind of criticism, the speaker is using the expression as a surrogate for a class of people: teen-agers; yuppies; elders...those by whom the expression is most commonly employed.  It's all right to criticize an expression or idiom, but usually it is useful to offer the context script.

I have an example in mind.  I dislike the term going forward.  That is because it was first used by the Obama administration to describe what they were going to do about prosecuting former VP Cheney and former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld for war crimes.  I said, 'Hold on, I don't want to go forward...I want to see those two behind bars.  Obviously, I lost that one.  Lol.  Ever since, I have hated the term going forward, as it connotes in my mind a cowardly retreat from responsibility.  Going forward means running away from some kind of accountability.

Don't hide the context.

At least now I have a go-to image to post when someone complains about someone else being offensive here  ::D:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:At least now I have a go-to image to post when someone complains about someone else being offensive here  ::D:: 

Whatever the image may be, I just don't think that "offensive" is sufficient. It's like, 'I don't like...' Without more. True, it tries to objectify by making it universal, but that's hardly surprising.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:At least now I have a go-to image to post when someone complains about someone else being offensive here  ::D:: 

Whatever the image may be, I just don't think that "offensive" is sufficient.  It's like, 'I don't like...'  Without more.  True, it tries to objectify by making it universal, but that's hardly surprising.

Yeah ! right OK  Quil !l "Whatever"  

I thought it was a fairly neutral observation, steph. What's got into your vagina?

Original Quill wrote:I thought it was a fairly neutral observation, steph.  What's got into your vagina?

Way to go with the Steph, Quim I expect nowt else from you.  

Eilzel wrote:Eds I don't think it is entirely down to choice whether something offends us, it is a natural reaction. And sometimes that reaction is understandable; if someone makes s claim for instance that gay people are disgusting 'abominations' then I am offended, I don't need to be, but then I know the kind of laws and actions that can result from that kind of opinion, so it is an entirely reasonable reaction isn't it?

My point is that if the reason for being offended is justified then we do have thr right to be so. If we just 'feel we should be offended' without being able to explain why (like being offended by nudity for instance?) then yes perhaps that is silly.

You say yourself you are offended sometimes, and you certainly seem offended when people use paedophile as an insult, and you have every right to be.

I know, that's what I'm saying les. But can we choose NOT to be?
Surely, you get to a point where all the gay insults in the world won't bother you because you just won't let them?

...Would some be offended if some said 'You are a shit mum, and your child can't wait to leave home' ??????

....Probably not, because you can be a shit mum, but no one was ever really persecuted just because they were just a shit mum?

Philagain wrote:...Would some be offended if some said 'You are a shit mum, and your child can't wait to leave home' ??????

....Probably not, because you can be a shit mum, but no one was ever really persecuted just because they were just a shit mum?

Women are persecuted all the time for their parenting skills?
Where have you been?  :\\:[: 

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
The Nazis were the National Socialist Party!  Franco was a dictator not a party!  Fascists are a political concept not a party!  Look around the world TODAY.  Which countries want to have total control over it's people?    Look locally - only today Eric Pickles has announces he's stopping leftie councils using spy cars and cameras for the purpose of raising money by targetting thousands of motorists, as they do.  These cameras were supposed to be for people's safety...

Wrong, both the Nazi's and the Fascists in Italy were democratically elected and were all political parties, so that is a load of balderdash, I suggest you read up first on history and politics before you next answer Tess.
Thus we see examples of this no matter the government, left or right, how about under the Republicans Tess, do you think they have not censored anything?

Iknow the Nazis were elected - as the National SOCIALIST Party, as I said!  But ignore the rest of my post as usual.  Which countries and parties ruling them in the world today with rampant censorship are right-wing?  Go on - answer.  Double dare you...

UMM Socialism is Right of Communism, the party they were against, NAZI were the RIGHT WING party.