Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

By the way, your "patriotic" quotes aren't impressive.

Despite making some excellent point, your delivery isn't exactly awe-inspiring, either. 

 

Like I said, I agree with you, but, you could be a little less abrasive about it, in my opinion.

Grindhead_Jim

Message 21 of 119 (146 Views)
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 03/08/2013
Offline
819 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013
@bob: I actually like what semajmarc87 said. I like when people align their thoughts together...in other words what Im saying is that his comments don't contradict each other. It makes sense that if he doesn't believe in God then nobody would have any rights, it would be like he said, whoever has the biggest stick makes the rules.
Message 22 of 119 (145 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

semajmarc87 wrote:

Rights are just entitlements granted by whichever shaved monkey has the biggest stick. Do I personally think that people should have the "right" to be offended? Sure. I think people should also have the right to suck their thumb and cry in the fetal position too. Whatever floats your proverbial boat.


So the idea of rights actually does not exist to you. Sounds like a great idea next time a dictator tries to exterminate an entire race. 

 

"The rights I grant to my people are different than the rights you grant you your people. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Nice. I like the idea of peasants doing hard work, no pay for the dirty peasants, and the right of the leader to execute any peasant at will."

 

Relativism at its finest!


Oh geez, spare me the melodramatics. I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out, but why don't you simmer down for a second. You seem to think that "rights" are some awe-inspiring universal ultimate truths carved in stone that can never be undone. Other animals don't even have concepts like "rights" like humans do because we invented them. Rights are nothing more than privileges that can be taken away or given at any time. Do I think that society should have guidelines (or rights) that will be enforced to make sure that we don't mistreat each other? Of course I do. I just get tired of people crying "I have a right" all the time as though that statement has any weight behind it By the way, your "patriotic" quotes aren't impressive.


Thanks for using age as a way to generalize a person. It really helps your argument (it does not). Especially when you did not go after the logic of the comparison I made and only went after the "melodramatics" found in it. 

 

Ad hominems do not make a good discussion, friend (or for the sake of messing with you, would "comrade" be more appropriate?)

 

Just about everyone believes in objective values (and if they don't, they tend to live like they exist anyway). Many philosophers would say we do have certain rights that cannot be objected to. Life, for example. While someone can go against that right and murder you, it is still seen as an evil and punishment-worthy crime. We all believe murder is wrong. If Hitler had won the war and convinced every human that the Holocaust was not evil, surely it would not make the Holocaust "good"! We would still say that murder is wrong and that the end does not justify the means (the means being the mass murder of over 11 million people for no good reason). 

 

Other animals do not have a feeling of rights? You must be joking with this argument! We are obviously more developed and have more intellgence. The dolphin or ape does not hypothesize about the world around it and ask questions of why it does something or what is should do. It does not have the full frontal lobe as we do. For example, just because we are unable to say that aliens exist, does not mean the do not exist. That truth is limited by what we are capable of knowing. In the same way, moral values and duties cannot be recognized by these creatures who do not have the capability to. This logic can applied elsewhere. Spiders perform cannibalism, therefore we should be able to.

 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 23 of 119 (138 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 9, 2013

lauranichole25 wrote:
@bob: I actually like what semajmarc87 said. I like when people align their thoughts together...in other words what Im saying is that his comments don't contradict each other. It makes sense that if he doesn't believe in God then nobody would have any rights, it would be like he said, whoever has the biggest stick makes the rules.

I fully agree with him that the biggest stick makes the rules, but that does not make those rules correct. We all have a sense of moral values and obligations. Those are generally universal (with a few exceptions). And the rights given in our law codes typically follow that. 

 

For example, the right to life. Whenever this right is taken away from any people, everyone gets upset. Not because it is a right that our culture likes. It is because it is a right that EVERYONE believes exists.

 

EDIT: I reread your post and I agree with you. Without something to ground rights or morality in, the strongest army becomes the only actual source of rights. However, I still say it is becomes really difficult to argue for moral relativism. Because, in a game of "who says", there cannot be a winner unless there is a moral foundation to ground it in. Otherwise, you can only be left with naturalism. And naturalism gives me no reason to care for the environment, care for my fellow man (unless they are useful to me), or to even care for my family beyond evolutionary urges. It really becomes a world centered around myself because everything will end no matter what I do in the eventual heat death of the universe.

 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 24 of 119 (132 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

Thanks for using age as a way to generalize a person. It really helps your argument (it does not). Especially when you did not go after the logic of the comparison I made and only went after the "melodramatics" found in it. 

 

Ad hominems do not make a good discussion, friend (or for the sake of messing with you, would "comrade" be more appropriate?)

 

Just about everyone believes in objective values (and if they don't, they tend to live like they exist anyway). Many philosophers would say we do have certain rights that cannot be objected to. Life, for example. While someone can go against that right and murder you, it is still seen as an evil and punishment-worthy crime. We all believe murder is wrong. If Hitler had won the war and convinced every human that the Holocaust was not evil, surely it would not make the Holocaust "good"! We would still say that murder is wrong and that the end does not justify the means (the means being the mass murder of over 11 million people for no good reason). 

 

Other animals do not have a feeling of rights? You must be joking with this argument! We are obviously more developed and have more intellgence. The dolphin or ape does not hypothesize about the world around it and ask questions of why it does something or what is should do. It does not have the full frontal lobe as we do. For example, just because we are unable to say that aliens exist, does not mean the do not exist. That truth is limited by what we are capable of knowing. In the same way, moral values and duties cannot be recognized by these creatures who do not have the capability to. This logic can applied elsewhere. Spiders perform cannibalism, therefore we should be able to.

 


In the interests of fairness, Bob, you do come off as a little snooty sometimes, if not melodramatic. Smiley Wink

 

Also, if you really think that someone would use spider cannibalism for a moral argument, then you might as well just come out on front street and call them an idiot.  That's not what he's saying, and you know it (even if you don't agree with it). Poking holes in arguments your opponent isn't making is just a waste of anergy. 

Grindhead_Jim

Message 25 of 119 (130 Views)
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

The problem with this moral relativism is that the proponents of it are deluding themselves when they say they do not believe in them. 

 

If I went to a school and murdered three classrooms full of children, nobody would defend me in saying that my morality may just differ than your morality. I can use the classic playground retort "Who says?"

 

When we apply relativism to life, contradictions emerge everywhere. Who says murder is wrong? Biological evolution deemed it poor for reproduction, so now it is taboo? K. Now explain to me what makes it morally wrong to kill children. If it gave me enjoyment, who says I was wrong in doing so? Hopefully everyone will be upset! 

 

There is no standard to follow other than what "The Man" in government tells me to follow. I never signed a contract saying I wanted to live by these moral codes our country made 200 years ago! If I want to kill you, you better learn to defend yourself because there the only thing that should matter to a finite being on a finite planet in a finite universe is doing what pleases himself.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 26 of 119 (124 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

Grindhead_Jim wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

Thanks for using age as a way to generalize a person. It really helps your argument (it does not). Especially when you did not go after the logic of the comparison I made and only went after the "melodramatics" found in it. 

 

Ad hominems do not make a good discussion, friend (or for the sake of messing with you, would "comrade" be more appropriate?)

 

Just about everyone believes in objective values (and if they don't, they tend to live like they exist anyway). Many philosophers would say we do have certain rights that cannot be objected to. Life, for example. While someone can go against that right and murder you, it is still seen as an evil and punishment-worthy crime. We all believe murder is wrong. If Hitler had won the war and convinced every human that the Holocaust was not evil, surely it would not make the Holocaust "good"! We would still say that murder is wrong and that the end does not justify the means (the means being the mass murder of over 11 million people for no good reason). 

 

Other animals do not have a feeling of rights? You must be joking with this argument! We are obviously more developed and have more intellgence. The dolphin or ape does not hypothesize about the world around it and ask questions of why it does something or what is should do. It does not have the full frontal lobe as we do. For example, just because we are unable to say that aliens exist, does not mean the do not exist. That truth is limited by what we are capable of knowing. In the same way, moral values and duties cannot be recognized by these creatures who do not have the capability to. This logic can applied elsewhere. Spiders perform cannibalism, therefore we should be able to.

 


In the interests of fairness, Bob, you do come off as a little snooty sometimes, if not melodramatic. Smiley Wink

 

Also, if you really think that someone would use spider cannibalism for a moral argument, then you might as well just come out on front street and call them an idiot.  That's not what he's saying, and you know it (even if you don't agree with it). Poking holes in arguments your opponent isn't making is just a waste of anergy. 


I never intend to come off snooty. It may come from how I have to argue over my age. I am still looked down upon for being younger and my points are not looked at on equal footing simply because of this. It happens a lot. He just did that a moment ago! Even you have done it before! It is why I rarely tell people my age in other forums. It gives that "just a kid" condescending attitude. I publicly debate in a group that is a decade older than me.  I am out to be rid of that stigma towards my age, so it tends to be a very sensitive issue for me. And that may involve me coming off as aggressive and may even cross into "snooty" at times. 

 

While my comparisons are there to bring forth emotion, I still leave the reasoning and logic with it. And my dictator point has actually occurred, so I hardly call that exaggeration.

 

The spider point was arguing towards a possible discussion more than a current one (I moved the argument to encompass morality along with rights). 

 

My points still stand elsewhere.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 27 of 119 (117 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

Since I realize the discussion will spiral out of control if we continue, I will just leave my statement on the topic.

 

You can get offended, but I do not have to care.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 28 of 119 (102 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 10/08/2009
Offline
4918 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

I would say we have not only a right to be offended, that it's more of an obligations. So long as people are offended, you can be sure that our freedom of speech is still intact.

Message 29 of 119 (99 Views)
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 9, 2013

taker-77 wrote:

I would say we have not only a right to be offended, that it's more of an obligations. So long as people are offended, you can be sure that our freedom of speech is still intact.


I agree with this idea and like how it was phrased. 

 

While people complain here over being offended by a character in a Japanese anime, people in North Korea cannot speak of anything below a 300 average in their leader's bowling record.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 30 of 119 (96 Views)
0 Likes