Is offending a group of people always bad?

Wescli Wardest wrote: 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.

The point is directly on the topic of the thread, and has been repeated several times. Identifying a whole ethnicity by generalisation, rather than an isolated village for means to survive during the famines of the world wars; is erasing individuality, and therefore a means of dehumanisation.

You mentioned that you read this several times, said that you knew the meaning of dehumanisation, yet still couldn't understand what is being said; and asked me to explain. So I re-explained the context again. Others aren't accountable for the associations we make ourselves. So I don't know what relevancy dehumanisation has with you, just as long as we don't negatively generalise to erase the value of humanness of a populace, by wanting to prejudice with an identity of an unrepresented minority.

Wescli Wardest wrote: 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.

Clearly you've misunderstood the context to assume personal attack. I said justice is simple, and you tried to disagree and beg the question if I or anyone can say what is fair. So the explanation about justice was given, knowing justice is a primary character virtue. The question you begged is answered by some people can because the virtue of justice is developed, and some people cannot because the virtue of justice is underdeveloped. Very plain and simple response that directly focuses on the question, which answers the point of offenders engaging in an offensive practice that wrongs others, and is therefore an injustice. As a result, offending a person or a group of people - the title of the thread - by definition is wrong. Plain and simple.

Entropist:

you dont make sense when you talk

you arent comprehending the ideas that others express to you

and you talk down to people constantly

generally speaking, your internet persona is obnoxious

that might not be your actual personality, and its possible that you arent doing it deliberately

but its the image that you are projecting in every single discussion in which youre participating (really, look at the feedback that youre getting in all of your conversations)

it would be great if you can participate with us in a way that is positive for all of us (which includes you)

but for that to happen, youre going to have to make some adjustments - big ones

that process takes time and work, and i know this because i am an obnoxious know-it-all myself, and its taking me a lot of time and work to grow (notice i said "takING" and not "takEN")

if you can accept a dose of humility and recognize the need for that effort, and are willing to commit to doing it, you will find support here
you might even build some great relationships, and that would be great for all of us

but if youre not willing to concede these points, your experience here - and everywhere else on the internet for that matter, and likely in your personal life as well, at least to some degree - is going to be characterized by misunderstanding, frustration, argument, and insult

because thats what youre bringing to the table

Entropist wrote:

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

That's begging the question.

As an English major, I'm telling you: you really need to stop using that phrase. You're murdering it in cold blood. Along with a lot of the rest of the language.

Please stop, the screaming is unbearable. (Even if it IS mine.)

To Entropist...

Clearly there is some kind of miscommunication happening.

Whether or not people eat dogs is not my concern. They could eat unicorns if they were starving for all I care. That is just part of how the food chain works. My issue is with causing another living entity to suffer because it is thought to make it taste better. If you're starving, eat it. Use spices and a tenderizing mallet if you need it to taste better. Mankind has found lots of ways to make the unpalatable palatable and in some cases actually good!

But there is no dehumanization being done. And the only reason I wrote the people I did is because they are the ones that could implement change in their areas.

As to justice… I agreed that the idea of justice is simple. It is in the execution that degrees of difficulty are found. And I explained why that is so. And I explained why because the concept of “fair” may be universally translated but again, its execution is not universally agreed on. And that is why we are having the debate we are having now. In China, there is a group of people that believe their treatment of a life form is fair and I do not. :dry:

I have not negatively generalized, dehumanized, demonized, accused or anything of the sort at any point. What I have done is clearly and simply stated my views and given reason and explanation for them. Which is how a debate is supposed to work. I’m not even sure why we are debating this anyways when at first this was merely an exchange of ideas and viewpoints based on the original post. :blink:

Entropist wrote: Very plain and simple response that directly focuses on the question, which answers the point of offenders engaging in an offensive practice that wrongs others, and is therefore an injustice. As a result, offending a person or a group of people - the title of the thread - by definition is wrong. Plain and simple.

So if, say, I were to disagree with you on some matter of justice, like for instance that there is something wrong with offending people, it'd be because my character lacks the fundamental virtue we call "justice" and - by definition - the way we measure that character virtue is by how easily and how often someone agrees with you.

Alright, I can see how this is indeed very simple. But I won't cut you any slack here still. This to me sounds nothing like the result of a language barrier. It sounds like both a tightly circular argument and arrogant to extents I couldn't quantify if I tried. You know, perhaps after all I do not have your noble sense of morality, not your smoothness of character or eloquence of speech or skill at logic, but at least for me there are still more things out there to learn, more places to go, more people to meet, more knowledge to gain, and more humanity to grow.

[Censored] you, good night!

Wescli Wardest wrote:

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.

Well, if you feel offended by liars, you are prejudiced against liars.
Meanwhile people who are offended by your parenting style are prejudiced against you (or your parenting style).
I assume you find pedophilia very offensive. This makes you prejudiced against pedophiles, maybe even against entire cultures and religions which practice it.
There's this idea that prejudice has to be 'unfair' in order to be prejudice. But unfair according to whom? If you don't deem it unfair it's not prejudice? Isn't that evidence of prejuice?

Point is, finding something offensive is no different from being prejudiced against it, meaning the more offended you are, the more prejudiced you are.

Basic line 5 'jedi believe' stuff, which is what this thread should be about.

In responce to Ren...

What if you are offended by actions and not the one doing the action? Honestly, I can’t think of anyone or group that offends me. And just because I do not approve of their actions does not mean that I am offended by it. But, if someone said “you’re a stinky doo-doo-head.” I might be offended by that.

Not because I am prejudice against stinky doo-doo-heads but because I was called one and I do not think that I am one.

Could that be because I think that I am better than a stinky doo-doo-head? Probably… at least I hope I am. Hahahhahha

But stinky doo-doo-heads do not offend me. They may annoy but that is not offence.

For fun...

i am really bothered by this idea of skinning animals or boiling them alive, and i keep looking for sources that i feel are credible, reporting the practice

wikipedia is NOT credible, especially about anything that is controversial, and of course i dont trust any kind of tabloid style of media, or facebook, or anything that looks like it just ripped the story from facebook or tabloids

so its been several goes without anything that felt substantive

just now i found this article from 2007

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/08/01/cats-boiled-alive-popular-chinese-cuisine/

what i found that was REALLY interesting, was one of the comments at the end of the article

"I live in China and most Chinese are disgusted by this. For some reason these Guongdong people just eat anything! There is a phrase popular in China:

In Guongdong they eat anything with legs, except a table, anything that flies, except a plane and anything that swims, except a submarine."

which of course is kind of funny after me giving this explanation of how i dont trust sources that arent credible lol here i am quoting some anonymous person in a comment box

still, i want to hope that this comment reflects some kind of truth

also, from this site: http://koreananimals.org/about/history/ an animal rights group, that as i understand it, originated in korea (i dont know if south or north, i would guess south but it would be a guess) where i read the following

"Only a tiny fraction of the Korean population eats dog and cat. Most Koreans don’t indulge in this practice, and millions of Koreans are caring guardians of companion animals. It has even been stated that Koreans spoil their pets more than any other people in the world."

there was also this site http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/08/dog-its-whats-for-dinner.html which basically said the same thing

"Dog-eating is one of the things for which is Korea is notorious, and much of it is distorted or misunderstood. For example, Wikipedia’s page on dog meat consumption in Korea is filled with utter falsehood, likely generated by anti-dog meat crowd in Korea. Hilariously, the Wikipedia post cites to some incredibly dubious sources such as Helsinki Times – clearly an authority in Korean culture.

Q: Why do Koreans eat dogs?
A: People eat what’s around them. Protein, especially obtained from a large animal, was traditionally scarce in Korea. Eating a cow was nearly out of the question – each household, if it were lucky, would have a single head of cattle to pull the plow. Pigs competed for the same food that humans ate. Dogs did not. Traditionally, dogs are eaten during the three high heat days of summer, called bok or sam-bok ("three bok").

Q: How prevalent is it?
A: Dog meat is not very prevalent in modern Korea – it is not what people eat every day. You have to visit a restaurant that specializes in dog meat-based dish to get it. There are apparently around 530 such restaurants in Seoul, which is not many for a 12 million people city. Roughly 1 million dogs are slaughtered for food each year. By weight, it is the fifth-most consumed meat in Korea, following chicken, pork, beef and duck.

Q: Is it true that the dogs are tortured before they are killed?
A: Again, because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, there is no restriction about how to kill a dog for meat. At the meat market, the need to slaughter the dogs quickly usually means dogs are electrocuted, similar to cattle. However, especially in rural areas where people slaughter dogs to cook and eat on their own, the common method is to hang the dog and beat it to death, in an attempt to tenderize the meat. (This, however, may be counterproductive; while beating the meat does tenderize it, an animal that dies in a stressed state generally produces tougher and less tasty meat.) A figurative expression in Korean for a severe beating is “like beating a dog on bok day.”

there were more questions but these were the ones most relevant to this thread

they conclude the article with:

"The Korean’s Thoughts on Dog-Eating in Korea

The Korean has no problem with people who refuse to eat dog meat. Far be it from the Korean to quibble with other people’s preference in food. The Korean also has no problem with people who are repulsed by dog meat, or the process of turning dogs into dog meat. You are who you are, and if you are repulsed by a certain food for any reason, that’s completely fine. By all means, please go on eating what you like, and be happy.

But to everyone who is trying to stop anyone from eating dog meat, the Korean has only this to say: please, go fu*k yourself. Seriously, please remove yourself from the Korean’s vicinity and give yourself a handjob. The Korean cannot disagree more with your position. Go eat what you want, be happy, and leave Koreans alone. Koreans will go on eating what they want, and be happy too."

which i thought was pretty funny, because im childish lol

why am i posting about korea when the article is about china?

because i cant find anything from china

i understand that the picture painted from these sources is still sad

but its a different picture than what the sun painted

I lived in Korea.

I can confirm that eating dogs is a dying practice - mostly only indulged by the older generations. It difficult to find somewhere that serves it.

And yes, for the most part dogs are spoiled rotten lol. It's nearly creepy. More than once, I'd pass a poodle or bichon dyed bright pink/blue, because dogs gotta look awesome too!