Offending People's Beliefs

Originally posted by silent thunder
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.

Pretty interesting there. Although that is the case in face to face communication, as I think the subtleness is much more important in that case. Miscommunication is unfortunate because in part, each side feels they know what they other person meant. Never the case unless you ask them or they tell you what they meant (even though its rarely that complicated).

reply to post by UmbraSumus


The trick is to distinguish moral norms from norms that are merely cultural. For example, there are moral norms in virtually all civilized cultures against murder. It is fair to criticize a culture if it permits a moral norm, like prohibitions against murder, to be violated.

There are cultural norms that many cultures have. The cultural norms of one culture may conflict with the cultural norms of another culture, or at least seem silly to the other culture. They have little or nothing to do with moral norms. For example, going to church on Sunday is a cultural norm in the United States. Refraining from eating pork is a cultural norm in Islamic countries.

Sometimes the difference between the two is hard to distinguish. For example, many cultures have norms that frown upon drinking alcohol. In many respects these are cultural norms. Yet, these can arguably be moral norms. People that drink too much alcohol are more likely to do foolish things like get into fights or cause accidents. Avoiding foolish things like fights and accidents is a moral norm most civilized societies have. Therefore, norms against alcohol consumption can be moral in that they may act as a hedge against violations of clearly moral norms like avoiding fights.

We also have a hard time distinguishing our own cultural norms from moral norms. Many Americans love to eat beef. We are quick to dismiss Indians who think our beef eating is sacriligious. Yet, beef-loving Americans are quick to criticize Koreans for eating dog meat. Most Americans have no valid explanation as to why they should be able to eat pigs and cows, but Koreans cannot eat dogs.

reply to post by imans


Hi Imans.

You can call me whatever you like. Only klass is spelled klaas. So, I didn't get it.

I do agree with you. I'm trying to say that being nice can have a better effect than being straight to the point. But if that doesn't work you can only do two things. Walk away or bash their heads untill they get what you mean and listen what you have to say. They don't have to agree.

I prefer it when people are direct and fair to me but there are a lot people who can't handle that.

reply to post by juveous

Offense is always a question of intent. You know your boundaries, but you do not know everyone elses. 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 elses 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?

You are right. We all know our boundaries and to be offensive is always a choice.

But the offended can be offended with a lot you didn't even think it could offend anyone.
In this case it's the responsibility from the offended to first found out why the offender offense, say that it offends them and educate why to the offender.

After this doesn't work. Bring me the popcorn.

So except if the offender is willingly offensive. I say it's the responsibility of the recieving part to say and explain that the offender is offensive.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.--'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'--Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

I suppose no man can violate his nature. All the sallies of his will are rounded in by the law of his being, as the inequalities of Andes and Himmaleh are insignificant in the curve of the sphere. Nor does it matter how you gauge and try him. A character is like an acrostic or Alexandrian stanza;--read it forward, backward, or across, it still spells the same thing. In this pleasing contrite wood-life which God allows me, let me record day by day my honest thought without prospect or retrospect, and, I cannot doubt, it will be found symmetrical, though I mean it not and see it not. My book should smell of pines and resound with the hum of insects. The swallow over my window should interweave that thread or straw he carries in his bill into my web also. We pass for what we are. Character teaches above our wills. Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.

Essay Self-reliance, Frank W. Emerson

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


exactly, who is not happy must move that is the principle of truth
and here you can say also the application of that principle how it is forcing others to not move and that is how you can understand the whole point

it doesnt matter willing to make offense what matter is the powers of wills

the powers must be cut and freedom of moves admitted this is where gods must first do their part

reply to post by imans


Yes I understand.

My will is strongley trying to get people to live in peace based on tolerance and respect to one and other.

Willingly offending before it's clear reason is not gonna win. Is not part of it.

Not that I'm able to live up to my own will. I fail miserably on occasion.
But I think anyone that harms ones body or soul should be punished or dependeing on the crime removed from society.

This removal could be just for part of society or a limb used in the crime.
There is know way their crimes should be the cause of limiting the freedoms of the innocent.

But my preference truly and stongly goes to being nice, turning the other cheek kind of way to start with.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


turning the other cheek is a trop concept that was never meant that way really, it is one of gods traps that mean production gains to its maximum abuse

what was meant by jesus is to ignore and use what you got left, the point of jesus is dont start the fight until you cant do anything else
stay alone with your mind positive,

so knowing how it is impossible to realize jesus meant that gods would interfer to make it possible and that was the meaning of miracles he did, to give glory to right behaviors in positive means, and that is why he was justifying his blood as sacrifice for that issue, that the cross is meant for god interference since he loves him sooo muchhhh and they would be involved together for humanity rights in positive sense

to me it is bull# from another perspective since positive means are of truth and not of gods

reply to post by imans


Ohh.

My intrepertation is actualy more like not smashing someones head to pieces when they screw up. Be patient by giving them a second chance.

After you tell them you are offended of course.
Then there are also offenders that willingly offend. Yet I don't feel offended. I couldn't care less what they say.

Not to be mistaken for indifference.

reply to post by juveous

If he is aware that he can't be offended, because he is aware of either the ignorance or motive of the sender, does the sender leave knowing that they were offensive?
If not, should they?

I don't think people are always aware they are offending others, sometimes I think they go out of their way to offend others, sometimes people just want to inform, but people don't want to be informed, because they fear the information is true.

It is all about fear and control.

This is a good thought provoking topic, I am thinking.

[edit on 083030p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


i dont want to offend you because you are kind to me and dont mean to belittle my english expressions, but what you are saying mean that you love bad people and this is the point, the right of good people to not love bad people

reply to post by juveous

But again, what if your belief is what offends them? Should it be your concern, or theirs?

It is spiritually draining, that is why I avoid confrontation,

Someones beliefs should not offend anyone, unless it harms them in some way.

We have religions that lay down rules and laws people don't want to follow, this is the big issue IMHO.

reply to post by imans


there come out rights definitions, right is not doing right, right is not doing wrong, and wrong is not doing wrong, wrong is ignoring right to move

now doing right is fantastic is absolute positive living subject out

and doing wrong is the worse subject it is evil living one

reply to post by Kandinsky

In Japan, they apparently begin with, "Yes, I see..."

I try to take that stance.

There are agitators that keep others riled on both sides of any issue.

reply to post by imans


You can say what you want to say. I do't get offended that easily.
However you said I love bad people. But this is not what I meant.
I believe someone deserves a second time when they screw up.
Possibly after a punishment. But offending someone is all about perception and even when it's a willing act. I think it's hardly worthy to call a crime.

When a childmolester molests a child I would not think of a second chance. Of with his balls along with a punishment and lifelong ban from anything with children.

So I do have my boundaries. So it all depents on what you consider to be a bad man.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


you are giving me a chance to justify deeper logics of truth

normal standard as i am and perceive it, is the awareness that move because of objective reality moves, so it is a sort of reaction as the same when it could be aware of that awareness move will and then it would mean positive thing to justify itself that way

now what i mean here is that at the maximum level then normal awareness standard would make a conception out of objective reality in its mind to mean positive realisation of itself positive means state of free awareness

so as you see there are levels in normal awareness behaviors and all keep the subject means away free so it can be a lot of levels too

but the common point of right means, is the reference to objective reality as it is for any extrapolation of means that become ipso facto positive means because away of objective reality as not touching it while taking it fulling an account as present base

now that what introduce the concept of bad people to me,

i am sorry i offend i know because i am true and there are a lot of evil

evil is what is not acceptable in any point of ways, it means totally out of truth reality frames that are full of infinite standards objectively and in freedom absolute realities

so bad people to me, is the awareness of objective reality life that step outside as free awareness and come up with a will to create something, taking that objective reality for granted as his field to proove his objective life
those awareness moves end up inert with the concept of living reality in mind to kill, like god

now what is the true justification of judging them bad absolutely

like i said about normal, it is in truth the postive sense unconscienstly of course, that mean to move positively freely which mean in same positive reference source, positive freedom awareness and positive certainty living absolutely, so that is why you imitate kind of in vulgar image, what is infront of you meaning the same positive is fine
so the means of absolute truth are always through those postive same ways moves, meaning always to end up same free happy as certainty freedom living so you do whatever it takes to justify that truth
and thre where you discover by those ways to realize the end certainty positive freedom a lot of things that make you existing from realizing them and you have to resolve as all new inventions then from principles you knwo of objective truth, here where you become a true creator sense but making you then more truth because more the clarification of postiive source but that is why i think truth is really subject living, from what those existence creations forced it to become personnally aware to realize objectively what is for times in the sense of highest dimension of truth that no god perceive

so when you said how you like to give another chance, for me it is giving to who is only one and not being the least same with something, it is not interesting for me to give it any chance, why would i look to someone who is only himself one
he cannot mean to me anything common with my reality or myself

the normal awareness is nice to see how it means objective reality as positive in sane ways as not meaning itself gains from just that objective is positive and that is fine, so here in the minimum perception of average awareness we can say the objective interst to positive itself from that geniun move to repeat without thinking about it

reply to post by imans


So. If I understand you right. You say you should act on what you feel.

Like if you feel pain, you scream. If you love, you answer or give it to the one causing it.
If you feel offended ( now it's gets tricky.) You'll speak out your feelings while making sure it'won't happen again or you bash a head and make sure it can't happen again ?

Now for my own view.
It's not like I would treat anyone the same.
Someone I don't know. I don't really care about and there is nothing he can say that will offend me. My loved ones. friend and the people I know I'll treat different. I'll treat them as I would like to be treated. Just like strangers will have my respect until they proof me otherwise.
Of course there are also people who I do not trust or feel wrongly about.
So I'll avoid any possible relation build up.

Have you ever considered that your truth and my truth are both truth ?
Because I'll act just like you based on my feelings. However the way I react is different.

Most of the time a contact is not a choice but it just happens and you are forced to get along. We are speeding to 7.000.000,000 people on the planet. There is little ignoring or acting to do when it just is.

Laws and rules are also a good thing. I know that if I had a gun. I would have killed people with it on several occasions.
I would be miserable after. I don't sleep for a week when I kill a bird or whatever. Unless I eat it. Weird huh. I sure hope you're not gonna bring up cannibalism now.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


you made me smile so it is ok despite the fact taht you didnt get what i said at all

awareness about what you feel is not acting according to your feelings

it is the freedom out of it state fact existing,

and when i say how i act or mean or nothing within the perspective of different levels and freedom dimension base that i respect fully, as one objective perspective equally it means how i am not seeking the same, i was just explaining to you truth of our actions and moves

but the absolute same is you alone, that is why if you mean the same you would be you absolutely more your own objective source,

you mean truth to justify your wills, i dont do that, be the whole truth and let say i am not true at all, it is never my point to use truth for what i can use it for
truth is really to me just objective explanation of moves happened really or happening present but not for what to do, this is purely subjective and i told you guessing that truth has a part subjective for sure

but the point we disagree upon, is that you mean to use truth to say what to do, i mean truth to proove only what not to do

truth is first and last, freedom space absolute life, so truth dont say how a living can be free, it says how freedom is alive

that is why truth is only in certainty concept existence which is in total free reality, so who wants to be true must be aware meaning objective free spaces first and not your own subjective interpretation

positive when it is objective is very serious in truth, it is not how you feel about something, that is why you can be subjective too right if yourself respect objective prsent and mean subjective life of itself alone and not lying about objective what it is to gain support for

objective positive is simply the living freedom reality, when people talks to each others for instance are being pleasent without force or wills just free positive flows really happening
truth mean to explain positive free reality from certainty life base, but truth never create positive atmosphere, it seeks the positive atmosphere possibility in freedom reality that is why truth reject a lot and count on itself alone, which because it is of certainty life led to infinite applications realisations levels

eat birds as much as you want it doesnt mean anything to me, but dont eat a human and claim being true yourself, i suspect that your awareness refrain you to eat yourself conception and mean positive to yourself at least reality

reply to post by imans


Ok well then.
let us for now agree to disagree. Because I still don't think I understand.

But I've no doubts about me trying again in the future.

Until then.
Be well and good luck.

Always nice to create a smile.

reply to post by imans


actually what i understand from you is that you believe that truth do right and wrong at the same time, so to you wrong can be right too since it is of the same source that can correct it and you can be a hand contribution to that will

i simply dont agree at all with that belief, truth to me is only to absolute positive reality, that is why there are gods as meaning when it is in between to handle and they are so happy to jump on that occasion