It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Offending People's Beliefs

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
just one thing more it belongs to follow the rest

jsut to understand as i do better the subject rights,

only truth is the one result absolutely between subject and object life free moves realities means

because subject is of objective concept as self in objective void truth certainty right there same

so regulation between subject means and object reality is humdred percent same that say objective certainty of positive truth absolutely

now the more we are far from certainty space source void, the more the result is broken as one, the objective is related to too many others subjects life that we cannot avoid and never see

this is why it is important to have compassion between livings in the concept of truth love and respect as the reference rights

but it explain why and how god as the first realisator outside truth cannot be absolute positive result one

his means are of truth means subject that are never objective so he must create means he didnt wake up to void certaitny like truth he saw existing truth and that made him realize things life




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
People who are offended by what other people think of their beliefs, are not true believers.

If you know something to be right, for yourself, what other people think of you should not matter.

Only a person who has intention to try and offend somebody else, has no belief system of their own, and are testing the waters.

Walk away from an argument to what you believe in, if it comes to that. It's only a waste of time.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


exactly, and that is the problem with religious beliefs

the concept of one god is not objective so it cant be the source of true subject existing himself
the believers would always mean to create their sense of pretending existing beleivers and who is creating that has no reference at all of creating anything, so he will deny existing and claim that only what he created from concept of beliefs is him as subject one living
that is why usually they are also happy to die if any powerful objective touch them they want to give it all

it says too how the concept of one is wrong , one is a concept only as absolute positive result, concept of one as subject source is totally false and evil, you dont create yourself existing it is always in reference of what is objectively present clearly and it is evil since it deny objective positive present one,
creating its existence even for gods or anythign else is saying that at each second you dont exist and forcing your existence to be, that concept is evil by itself
you can mean not exist by rejecting what you cant reject as a fact of you existing



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I noticed how some of you are more specifically referring to beliefs that come from religion.
Remember beliefs extend into many subcultures, so it can be amongst many categories including the elderly, race, work ethic, politics.

The easy way to offend someone of their beliefs is to belittle them.
to show that the importance of what they believe is merely a cloud of unimportance.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by juveous]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
reply to post by juveous
 


Great question.

As i have gotten older, I really don't care if I offend someone else. America is the only country in the world that does the silly crap we do. We try to incorporate every culture and language into public policy, while allowing every one to just ignore or trample traditional beliefs, fully established, that founded our land.

Try ignoring borders with any other country and then, have parades of fellow illegal immigrants that a) protesting over conditions or lack of rights within your new country, b) celebrating a holiday that only your illegal group celebrates and has no meaning in our country.

The younger generations of American's have been taught that allowing this is perfectly normal not realizing that there has been a social experiment going on to puss*fy them into acceptance.

Any public person that tells the truth about perceived racial/cultural incidents is asking for boycotts, a visit from any number of groups who's only recourse for an apology involves a checkbook, or public humiliation resulting in a public firing. There is no up side, for speaking anything but lies or covering up the incident, by telling the truth. You see this daily on national and local news. Any caucasian criminal performs a hate crime if it involves any minority. There are very few hate crimes in charges to minorities involving crimes against caucasians. Don't confuse police abuse in these cases which always involves police beating a minority. This is just criminal behavior by police on a suspect of a different crime.

As for religious tolerance, I have no problems with everyone else being a heathen.


I got a kick out of your last sentence.
But I noticed about how you said anyone who tries to tell the truth in public is asking for a boycott in those categories.

In the work place, beliefs generally have to be united or "compromised" in order to get the most productivity out of the widest range of differences.

So 2 people who get offended by some scantily clad women on a poster, might end up creating a rule for everyone to follow so that there isn't a poorer productivity due to social or cultural offenses.

I guess it depends on where the "truth" is being told. because if it was to get a law passed for people who didn't even work there, it would be beyond intrusive. It would take away a free right.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by juveous]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The way I feel about it is I can't have a belief without conflicting with someone else's belief so you can't make everyone happy and that's just the way I believe our current reality exist and operates. Maybe that will change in the future to contain less negativity.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
The way I feel about it is I can't have a belief without conflicting with someone else's belief so you can't make everyone happy and that's just the way I believe our current reality exist and operates. Maybe that will change in the future to contain less negativity.


You're right, there will always be conflict. And it may not be about satisfying those who disagree, but clarifying the dispute. One problem is stubbornness and someone who was once defensive can attempt to offend you out of spite.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by juveous]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


that what proove how subject must be in objective free, it cant be an another objective he creates, objective is the same one for all and subjective is the way for anyone to find its free sense as being its space borders definitions as a living one

that is why in western country it is less negative atmosphere, because a lot of people deal with each others without meaning subjective fields



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Hi there.

I should say. An offender is a person who offends on purpose. So in this case one should learn to behave.

When someone gets offended by someone who did not meant to offend, the one to blame is the offended. The offended in this case should ask for the reason why someone says or believes what he just say and explain that it offends him. Tolerance is the key.

My personal opinion is live life with an abundance of tolerance and respect to each others faith, religion, believe and opinions.
There is only one rule. It doesn't matter how much tolerance you are able to apply. Whenever ones beliefs or opinions are harmful to another, both physically and mentally one must be corrected. One way or another.

When there is a need for someone to be corrected let tolerance rule.
As skandinsky said before. Start your conversation with "I see" instead of "you're wrong" .

Just my two cents.

Edit.
Spelling & S&F ! Great question !

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I think being "offended" is rather silly. As I grew up I started to see that most of the time people get offended over some really STUPID stuff. Personally, I do not get "offended". I may not like what you have to say, but if that is the case I doubt we ever even spoke in the first place. Well, maybe you spoke at me but I am certain I did not initiate or respond lol.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


i dont agree here with you klass are you offended ? certainly, am i wrong to say it like this ? certainly not

offense is a true agression so you have to be in powers over someone else head, it becomes offense to the whole living sense
offense to freedom base offense to free means ways offense to objective realisations moves, and offense to truth as meaning above as force to belittle a small, the opposite of what truth do consider more the small for absolute identifications as the positive true existing present reality

so to be offended offense must objectively exist, and for that it must offend the roots of truth principles and meaning itself as source of objective reality effect, and the offended can be anyone there around living aware of present objective reality



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by imans
 


Hi Imans.

My klass ? I don't follow you.

However. No, I'm not offended at all. I tend to be glad if anyone points out my mistakes. But it's the way they use to do so that can be...mmm... unpleasant.

If I understand you correct ?

I don't fully agree with you here. I hope you're not offended by it.


I think what you say is that to be offended you must first be aware of the the truth.
What I usually see is that offended people usually are offended by anything and that they don't even take the time to actualy listen to what is said to them. It's like they choose to be offended instead.

So for those who feel offended I think it's wise to open a conversation in the most positive way possible. Like "I see" will make someone lower his shield and actualy makes one listen what you've got to say. You are wrong or I don't agree are more like a statement. People hear it and they will go in deffense mode to hold their ground.

Well... that's what I see happening around me.

People will even get more sure of their truth when they are on deffense mode. There's nothing you can say to change their mind anyway.

Me ? I don't get offended verry much. Probably because I choose not to be.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


i meant your name you klass without sinter i dont know what that mean so i called you only klaas sorry if it offended you that i didnt pick sinter instead

yes that is true i think offense have a relation with truth, and that is why it must be then absolutely
so i think we could proove how what you mean by willing offense is not true, it is actually calculating in their heads some profitable ways to realize their lives by meaning your weakness to mean positive reality
so no sorry i am not with you in playing it nice with them lol

just be oneself as they are themselves so it is the right of the positive one too even more then them since positive living cannot do negative mean

i think everyone has a sense to give to truth, if they see that you saw them lying and went nice with them you would then kill their sense of truth when they would look at you
noone loose himself when it is about truth objective source of all from inside and out to recognize and consider before

to me it is all a lie that they get angry and become more evil, it is all meant from up as an excuses to their devils and evil forces from opposites as sources of life

you have to picture how god do for production purposes, it is all about profits motivations
just to move out of a concept reality meaning to deal and do it, god would invent the sense of hating it to justify moving from and then confuse it with the sense of loving it to justify a reality with, and all those choices are for maximum productions of living realities and also for god motivations maximum wills, puting the fire on
it is more stimulating to hate in order to move away as it is more stimulating to be attracted to something to stay there doing it for a while

the problem is what those gods dont love what is superior which is truth absolute moves right ways they take the easiest way evil one



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
My own view is that language is inherently tricky because words are "multivalient" -- they contain multiple possible interpretations. Language is not math; it is often illogical.

However, we do possess some sort of sub-verbal, intuituve capacity for understanding the general thrust of communication, in most cases. We probably take our cues from body language, emotion, or even subtler mechanisms that are not understood well.

Thus, in communication, we can usually suss out people's basic underlying intentions. It is THIS we should judge people on, rather than whether or not they happen to use a certain word or phase that happens to be in vogue or taboo at the moment. Jumping all over people based on buzzwords is not a good way to fly. Trying to understand the underlying intentions is much more constructive.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
but i know how you are right in your means i know that way but i cant do it myself,
i mean always my right to not accept giving credit to evil existence it should not logically exist there is something wrong from up that made it there

but i saw how they mean to deal with negative beings by facing them with positive realisations justifications that they cannot deny existing and force them without offending them to accept positive subject presence as living ones from their superior sense that must keep it humble and naive look hidden smart

i understand that but i dont agree fully with it and it is my right to refuse it for myself



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Hi there.

I should say. An offender is a person who offends on purpose. So in this case one should learn to behave.

When someone gets offended by someone who did not meant to offend, the one to blame is the offended. The offended in this case should ask for the reason why someone says or believes what he just say and explain that it offends him. Tolerance is the key.

My personal opinion is live life with an abundance of tolerance and respect to each others faith, religion, believe and opinions.
There is only one rule. It doesn't matter how much tolerance you are able to apply. Whenever ones beliefs or opinions are harmful to another, both physically and mentally one must be corrected. One way or another.

When there is a need for someone to be corrected let tolerance rule.
As skandinsky said before. Start your conversation with "I see" instead of "you're wrong" .

Just my two cents.

Edit.
Spelling & S&F ! Great question !

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]


Offense is always a question of intent. You know your boundaries, but you do not know everyone else's. I would say most people can tell the difference from deliberate offense and a simple mistake.
but that is on the receiving end.

should there be times when you disagree with someone else's beliefs that they should be offended even to themselves? and by simply showing your cruel interpretation of what they believe, does it have a more altering affect than simply being nice?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Well I have had discussions with people that I fundamentally disagree withand know that I will disagree with and I explin in great detail words to the effect that:

1. We will start to argue as friends.

2. Things may get a bit heated in the middle but it is ok.

3. We will finish as friends.

If they still want to continue that is fine. The last big debate that i had ended with the guy inviting me to join his political party


I am really amazed that an in-joke in US liberal circles has been taken at its face value when it was a JOKE. I am refering to political correctness. As a lefty I am truly amazed.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tiger5
 


A lot of people can be offended by satire humor in politics. Do you think poking fun and joking of other's beliefs is ok? Considering it is just a joke,(mostly exaggerated) does that nullify the power of belittling others beliefs?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


exactly, words can be used to invent pretenses of livings expressions, so enjoying images you can catch of living reality spirit to do with words

but words could be a plain self objective expression justifications, it is the conscious of objective self reality that mean to justify itself positive means for usually free living positive sense out, i agree with you about intentions being positive is the only base to real communication possibility

positive means held truth life within so it doesnt matter their conscious of moving towards positive reality objectively it would be done by itself reality one and that is the nice part about it



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by Tiger5
 


A lot of people can be offended by satire humor in politics. Do you think poking fun and joking of other's beliefs is ok? Considering it is just a joke,(mostly exaggerated) does that nullify the power of belittling others beliefs?



We can be offended by anything and everything. Wearing a baseball cap if you are over 5 years old is offensive but not as bad as LEAVING THE TOP OF THE F**KING TOOTHPASTE.

But anyway I just try to be grown up. I can be offensive back. Ad hominem insults are pretty low forms of debate but they happen.

My friend if everyone is shooting live rounds them I for one will shoot back in the same manner. That is real maturity as appropriate responses are made to received actions I tgry not to shoot first and will apologise is I made a mistake but I will meet force with force.

I am not a delicate soul (I am on ATS for godsake) and some satire can be very funny evenif it is directed at what you hold dear.... One of the funniest satires I ever heard was overhearing my children imitating me being angry


Ultimately a lot has to do with context.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Tiger5]




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join