Is offending a group of people always bad?

Wescli Wardest wrote: I keep thinking, if I were there how would I stop this? My emotional side would end up in a Chinese prison I think. The rational part of my decision making cannot see a way to induce or even influence change for an entire culture in a way that result in quick response. I would do something to aid the ones in distress but what? And saying that there is nothing I can do because it is on the other side of the world is unacceptable…

The identifying prejudice is wrong itself and conflicts both the intent and act of opposing cruelty just because generalisation is a cruel act itself of erasing individuality. The ability to think divergently would be of most usefulness to you otherwise there's no solution for you. Otherwise, effort to research the area is needed because there's no entitlement for someone else to do things for you. For example well-reason a case action, but avoid the bias of prejudice and understand the topic from all sides. When you want to seek justice for one issue, status quo bias must not be allowed to be proven because of self-interest, only justice itself. Meaning the same effort is expected for all species of life.

Wescli Wardest wrote: As to those offended… They should be offended! And making the disturbing images go away because you are offend is as bad as doing nothing once you have witnessed a crime in action. That is the cowards path, to turn a blind eye and pretend it isn’t there just because it bothers you. :sick:

Just like identity prejudice, the nature and meaning of offense is not justice but injustice.

Gisteron wrote:

Entropist wrote: The circular fallacy...

There is no such thing as a circular fallacy. Circles are circular. Circular arguments are fallacious. Circular fallacies are not a thing.

... demonstrated by "presuming why offending people cannot be answered"...

What is the presumption, who made it, and why should anyone care?

... is clearly begging a complex question.

And that question is...?

The reason...

Reason behind/for...?

... is because false presumption is attempted...

What's the presumption?

... as its own conclusion as means to capitalise unwarrantedly the status quo [sic],...

Who is capitalizing on what again? And how do unspecified false presumptions help with that? Do you even English?

"because that's just how it is" [sic] when the reasons are unfounded and unsupported. Therefore, there's good reason for you to concede the fallacy.

Well, since that citation is a summary of your argument and I was pointing it out, it seems to me that I did concede that there is some sort of fallacy going on. Now, would you kindly address it, please?

Whether you said or implied any right about offending people, asking what right there is in offending people demonstrates to yourself that there's unfounded reason,...

If there is reason, it is by definition not unfounded. And no, only because I did not share your presumption that there is anything wrong in offense does not mean that I hold my own saying that there is anything right about it. As a matter of fact I don't, and you keep quoting myself saying that.

... and to fallaciously assume there's any right in offending people is unsupported.

And I didn't. No amount of bad grammar can change that either.

So the burden for you to attempt to reason how offending people could somehow be right is an exercise of justice and fairness. [sic]

No. Your insisting I claimed something does not place a burden on me. Me actually claiming the thing would.

Also to presume, that the offender is placed in the wrong of the injustice;...

Yes, something I assume (and I can only assume since there seems a severe language barrier here, so this may all just come down to misunderstandings) you actually did, yet failed to establish...

... fails to reason why we should avoid it,...

Subject?

... is actually wishful thinking fallacy to appeal to consequences by status quo bias.

Wishful thinking is intellectually poor thinking but it is not either a formal or informal fallacy. Just like the previous clause, this one has no subject so I don't know what you are referring to, but the thing about fractal wrongness is that it is apparent on every resolution, so I can carry on tearing apart the parts that do make some remote kind of sense, and I shall. Speaking of that, I don't know what status quo bias is nor what it has to do with anything either of us said at any time. None of us appealed to consequences either, as far as I know.

The fallacy is undermined by the psychological desire for something to be true without actually have [sic] reason.

I don't know what to undermine a fallacy means, but I'm pretty sure being one doesn't quite do that. What you describe sounds a bit like wishful thinking, but since nobody actually engaged in it, while I thank you for the eloquent elaboration and recognize its value, I do still feel to see its current relevance.

Again, the circular fallacy, of having reasons to better understand the moral wrong of offending people;...

I actually challenged you to show that there is any wrong in that, because you asserted it; maybe I was being somewhat unclear with that.

... but presuming there's no need to pursue, or no need to concede a corrupted understanding; [sic] begs the complex question.

And what question would that be? Also, unlike you, my clauses are complete. So I see your presumption of intellectual prowess and raise you an out-of-context.

A corrupted understanding of moral wrongness is good reason to concede and fix the problem of your understanding...

Well, you are the one asserting it (and I'm not), so I share not your folly but turn it back onto you. However, no, having bad reasons is not on its own sufficient to try and change them. You are of course elaborating on further premises, but they are false as I shall soon say. Also, since I'm not the one having trouble saying what I mean and you are not the one having an easy time understanding either the matter at hand or understanding matters of reasoned argument or understanding much of what you are reading, maybe, just maybe thou dost protest too much.

... because only injustice is spread by bringing corrupted morals wherever you go...

Having bad reason does not mean having bad conclusions. Having bad conclusions does not mean spreading them everywhere over any duration. Moreover, that there is any such thing as "corrupted morals" is yet to be demonstrated and so far you did nothing to try.

... and allowing everyone else to suffer the prejudice for it.

I don't know what suffering prejudices means nor why bad morals would make anyone do it. Why are you introducing ever more premises that are either meaningless, not evidently true, evidently false or all of the above?

Opinions are unjustified,...

No. Opinions are never their own justification (hence my challenge), but that doesn't make them all unjustified or poorly justified to the same extent, irrespective of whether the justification attempt had been prestented. That's why the open-minded among us consider contrary opinions in the hopes of finding some that are more reasonable than their own.

... which is why freedom is given to the opportunity to reason rather than allow everyone to suffer the prejudice of an unsupported opinion.

An unsupported opinion does not mean prejudice. Maturity and validity are generally distinct qualities. I could go into political philosophy and explain why we allow open discourse (not something we necessarily have to, by the way) but I feel like instead pointing out that you are defending it by appealing to consequences and that's just too deliciously ironic for me to overlook at this point.

Just like the analogy,...

What analogy?

... keep your two cents because your opinion is worth little.

Are you telling me to basically shut my face, good sir? And that's right after your rant about the freedom and opportunity to reason? Do you even self-awareness?

Or more so, false knowledge corrupts.

And finishing off with another bold claim I predict we won't see much of an argument for. Good job.

Well, this was fun. Looking forward to see more. :evil:

You're guilty as charged and off-topic by practice of deflection with questions .

Entropist wrote: You're guilty as charged and off-topic by practice of deflection with questions.

Here is what questions look like:

• What was I charged with?
• Who charged me?
• Where is their evidence that I committed what I was charged with?
• What part of the quoted post was no part of a direct and on-topic response to your respective remark or question?
• What part of anything you said was not a blatant lie about my obligation towards you or about something I said?
• What argument of yours have I not addressed in detail?
• What argument of mine have you addressed at all?

That RationalWiki entry wrote: ... accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well.

Gisteron wrote:

Entropist wrote: You're guilty as charged and off-topic by practice of deflection with questions.

Here is what questions look like:

• What was I charged with?
• Who charged me?
• Where is their evidence that I committed what I was charged with?
• What part of the quoted post was no part of a direct and on-topic response to your respective remark or question?
• What part of anything you said was not a blatant lie about my obligation towards you or about something I said?
• What argument of yours have I not addressed in detail?
• What argument of mine have you addressed at all?

That RationalWiki entry wrote: ... accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well.

I hope the off-topic opportunity to learn about logical discussions is giving you some benefit because the replies are really undermining your position, and supported by the resource.

Entropist wrote: The identifying prejudice is wrong itself and conflicts both the intent and act of opposing cruelty just because generalisation is a cruel act itself of erasing individuality. The ability to think divergently would be of most usefulness to you otherwise there's no solution for you. Otherwise, effort to research the area is needed because there's no entitlement for someone else to do things for you. For example well-reason a case action, but avoid the bias of prejudice and understand the topic from all sides. When you want to seek justice for one issue, status quo bias must not be allowed to be proven because of self-interest, only justice itself. Meaning the same effort is expected for all species of life.

I have read this several times and still I do not understand what you are saying. Could you clarify?

You cannot prevent offending people, because you lack the knowledge of what they find offensive. You can make an informed guess, you may be familiar with cultural norms.

Sometimes when you do something offensive you will have meant to be offensive, sometimes you will have meant to be offensive because you want to hurt, amuse, teach etc. Sometimes one who takes offence will have done so because they misunderstood, lacked a level of understanding about themselves and you, get easily offended etc.

In each instance the offence or offencing action do not take place in a vacuum. There are always other considerations feeding what's happening.

Miss_Leah wrote: But we CAN look at the myths from across the globe to distill values that are common across humanity. If we assume that Joseph Campbell is correct in his research (and seeing as it's part of our IP, lets assume that, shall we?)

Be wary about assuming this.

Entropist wrote: Offending people places the offender in the wrong of injustice who must compensate the victim to restore the balance of justice.

The past must be balanced? Doesn't this tie your actions?

What is my position and what replies to what and by whom exactly undermined any of it and what "the resource" supports what exactly? How does nothing you say make any amount of bloody sense? This is incredible!
You can't just blabber some incoherent gobbledygook and expect anyone to understand. If you don't actually go on making a point I am afraid none of this benefits anybody.
You can of course declare victory regardless, cheap though it may be. The only reason I'm still wasting any time with you is in the hope of actually learning something about anything, but it seems that is a false hope at this point indeed. I thusly rest my case, leaving it to stand as you did.

Gisteron wrote: What is my position and what replies to what and by whom exactly undermined any of it and what "the resource" supports what exactly? How does nothing you say make any amount of bloody sense? This is incredible!
You can't just blabber some incoherent gobbledygook and expect anyone to understand. If you don't actually go on making a point I am afraid none of this benefits anybody.
You can of course declare victory regardless, cheap though it may be. The only reason I'm still wasting any time with you is in the hope of actually learning something about anything, but it seems that is a false hope at this point indeed. I thusly rest my case, leaving it to stand as you did.

lol, dont take it too personal, its likely either a huge language gap, or a joke account

either way, its going to be very difficult to make real progress in a discussion

in summary id like to say

"...does to language what edward scissor-hands does to toilet paper!"

Akkarin wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: But we CAN look at the myths from across the globe to distill values that are common across humanity. If we assume that Joseph Campbell is correct in his research (and seeing as it's part of our IP, lets assume that, shall we?)

Be wary about assuming this.

Don't fret, I'm certainly wary. I'm not assuming blindly. My university degree is in ancient history/mythology, and I found a lot of truth in Campbell's words - some themes are consistent across time and culture. Or, if they are repressed, they tend to break through eventually. Also, the same values can be expressed differently.

I believe that the Force does connect us and can express itself through these common motifs in our myths/beliefs/values. Human beings are not all that different from each other physically, so it's reasonable that we're not all that different mentally, either. Not at our core. Things like culture/history/education/religion/etc are wrappings that lie over our innate humanity. And that humanity is shared by all. And if that's the case, it can be reasonably stated that there are core human values. Do we know *for sure* what those are? Maybe. Do *I* know them for sure? Nope.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I have read this several times and still I do not understand what you are saying. Could you clarify?

Look up dehumanisation