Is offending a group of people always bad?

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

That's begging the question. Justice is about fairness, so if you wronged someone, you must compensate them fairly. It's a very simple concept.

Entropist wrote:

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

That's begging the question. Justice is about fairness, so if you wronged someone, you must compensate them fairly. It's a very simple concept.

Well, no, that's exactly the thing I was disputing earlier. Why do you say that Justice is about fairness and why do you say that compensation is any part of either? Alternatively, if you define those words in this way, what obliges any person or authority to enforce them, let alone to care? Insisting on how obvious you think something is doesn't actually constitute an argument for it.

Entropist wrote:

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

I am well aware of what the word means. So, I am guessing that for some reason you are suggesting that has something to do with what I wrote? :blink:

I'm starting to wonder what it is you think I said... :huh:

I believe that torcher is bad....
I would want to stop animals from being tortured...
My emotions would want me to do something about it right then and there, so I could get in trouble if I acted on emotion alone...
And I have a hard time thinking of an argument that would persuade people that a very old custom goes against what I believe...

Maybe you are suggesting that you are dehumanizing me? But, I wouldn't think that to be true. You might have demonized what I wrote and saw something there that wasn't... But I really don't know. And from your lack of clarification I can only assume that you aren't sure either or for some reason don't feel me important enough to clarify your argument to.

Entropist wrote:

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

That's begging the question. Justice is about fairness, so if you wronged someone, you must compensate them fairly. It's a very simple concept.

It is a simple concept. But like most things, it is only simple at face value. Tell me... can you decide what is fair so that all will agree? And furthermore, what if there is no one to compensate? IE, they are dead and leave behind no family, friends or loved ones? And what if compensation is not the answer but reconciliation is desired? They are close but not the same. And what is to detour one from wronging another a second time? Or more times.

From a previous post, it appeared as though you were acusing me of dehuminization. This simple concept of justice, by what appears to be your standard, I could claim you have wronged me. Where is my fair compensation?

The more offended you are, the more prejudiced you are.

ren wrote: The more offended you are, the more prejudiced you are.

So... if someone put a lot of effort in to being a good parent and Joe Blow comes by and says, "hey, you're a bad parent because a good one wouldn't have to try" and you felt offended by that then you must be prejudice against bad parents?

You don't think it's possible that one might be offended because someone belittled the effort they were puting in? Or maybe that all the effort seemed to mean nothing?

Interesting. :huh:

Well, I'm glad I do not prescribe to that line of thought.

ren wrote: The more offended you are, the more prejudiced you are.

Sounds absolute.
so this tread is about...
animal cruelty?

Wescli Wardest wrote: I am well aware of what the word means. So, I am guessing that for some reason you are suggesting that has something to do with what I wrote? :blink:

Wrong guess. Identifying a culture by generalisation with an undesired practice is dehumanisation because of the erasure of individuality.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I believe that torcher is bad....
I would want to stop animals from being tortured...
My emotions would want me to do something about it right then and there, so I could get in trouble if I acted on emotion alone...
And I have a hard time thinking of an argument that would persuade people that a very old custom goes against what I believe...

The above demonstrates what to do to oppose an undesirable practice without committing offensive dehumanisation; by way of generalisation to erase individuality, and persist prejudice on an entire populace, for an isolated place during a specific circumstance of famine during the world war.

To change topic from offensive remarks to torture, which is an old and outdated custom; is different to the misapplied situation to identify a whole ethinicity by generalisation, thereby committing dehumanisation. Meaning the last sentence of the above reply, reverts back to beg the question, and undermines what should have been said in the first place.

Wescli Wardest wrote: It is a simple concept. But like most things, it is only simple at face value. Tell me... can you decide what is fair so that all will agree? And furthermore, what if there is no one to compensate? IE, they are dead and leave behind no family, friends or loved ones? And what if compensation is not the answer but reconciliation is desired? They are close but not the same. And what is to detour one from wronging another a second time? Or more times.

Justice is simple for people that develop the virtue of character, and difficult for people that have the virtue of character underdeveloped.

I think the appropriate thread is good reason to beg these questions elsewhere.

Wescli Wardest wrote: From a previous post, it appeared as though you were acusing me of dehuminization. This simple concept of justice, by what appears to be your standard, I could claim you have wronged me. Where is my fair compensation?

You could if you can support the claim with truth and good reasoning, otherwise begging the question proves the claim was never there to begin with.

You don't actually know what begging the question means, do you? Here, let me show you:

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

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

Entropist wrote: Justice is about fairness, so if you wronged someone, you must compensate them fairly. It's a very simple concept.

Wescli Wardest wrote: It is a simple concept. But like most things, it is only simple at face value. Tell me... can you decide what is fair so that all will agree? And furthermore, what if there is no one to compensate? IE, they are dead and leave behind no family, friends or loved ones? And what if compensation is not the answer but reconciliation is desired? They are close but not the same. And what is to detour one from wronging another a second time? Or more times.

Gisteron wrote: Why do you say that Justice [sic] is about fairness and why do you say that compensation is any part of either? Alternatively, if you define those words in this way, what obliges any person or authority to enforce them, let alone to care?

Entropist wrote: Justice is simple for people that develop the virtue of character, and difficult for people that have the virtue of character underdeveloped.

See? Begging the question is assuming an essential part of the conclusion in the premise. You assert your conclusion, and then when challenged to bring forth an argument in its favour you just paraphrase it, make your argument assume the conclusion from the get-go. Begging the question, dear sir, is the one thing you accused everyone of so far who didn't do it, yet was in the meantime the only thing you did. And then you elegantly finish of by pretty much insulting your challengers with what amounts to either "you are stupid for not grasping the self-evident truthfulness of my assertion" or "your character lacks the necessary virtues to appreciate my moral high ground". And in the midst of all that you have the gall to pretend to be a long overdue educator on matters of reason and logical argument? Give me a break!
Generally speaking, we are a fairly patient bunch in this place - some more generous than others - but I wouldn't advise pushing it still, for in the end we don't take kindly to conduct like that...

Entropist wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: I am well aware of what the word means. So, I am guessing that for some reason you are suggesting that has something to do with what I wrote? :blink:

Wrong guess. Identifying a culture by generalisation with an undesired practice is dehumanisation because of the erasure of individuality. .

Wrong… Wrong what?
Again, I know what the word means and how to properly use it.
And at no point have I, or did I dehumanize anyone or any culture. And unless you can prove otherwise I would suggest you drop it.

Entropist wrote: [

Wescli Wardest wrote: I believe that torcher is bad....
I would want to stop animals from being tortured...
My emotions would want me to do something about it right then and there, so I could get in trouble if I acted on emotion alone...
And I have a hard time thinking of an argument that would persuade people that a very old custom goes against what I believe...

The above demonstrates what to do to oppose an undesirable practice without committing offensive dehumanisation; by way of generalisation to erase individuality, and persist prejudice on an entire populace, for an isolated place during a specific circumstance of famine during the world war.

To change topic from offensive remarks to torture, which is an old and outdated custom; is different to the misapplied situation to identify a whole ethinicity by generalisation, thereby committing dehumanisation. Meaning the last sentence of the above reply, reverts back to beg the question, and undermines what should have been said in the first place. .

The above demonstrates nothing other than my beliefs.
And your continual use of the word dehumanization and referring it to either me or what I wrote is demonization. You might want to look that word up.

Entropist wrote: [

Wescli Wardest wrote: It is a simple concept. But like most things, it is only simple at face value. Tell me... can you decide what is fair so that all will agree? And furthermore, what if there is no one to compensate? IE, they are dead and leave behind no family, friends or loved ones? And what if compensation is not the answer but reconciliation is desired? They are close but not the same. And what is to detour one from wronging another a second time? Or more times.

Justice is simple for people that develop the virtue of character, and difficult for people that have the virtue of character underdeveloped.

I think the appropriate thread is good reason to beg these questions elsewhere. .

I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the way you worded that could be taken as an attack on personal character. If that is your goal, I don’t think you know me well enough to come to any of those conclusions.

Entropist wrote: [

Wescli Wardest wrote: From a previous post, it appeared as though you were acusing me of dehuminization. This simple concept of justice, by what appears to be your standard, I could claim you have wronged me. Where is my fair compensation?

You could if you can support the claim with truth and good reasoning, otherwise begging the question proves the claim was never there to begin with.

What?
Look, I’m sure you’re a nice enough person. And I’m sure you believe whatever it is you’re trying to say. But you are not communicating it in a way that is clear. Sometimes saying it as simply as possible is the best way to go.
I am going to assume that you are not purposefully trying to “rub people the wrong way” But it is frustrating trying to understand the ideas you’re trying to communicate.
I am not accusing you of anything just trying to give some helpful advice. and this would go for anyone.