D2 - Kenji Eno gives you pain.

[rezo]

thats right. impetus. The offended person has to have some sort of will to be offended. What he is being offended by does not cause his offense directly. I used it properly. dictionary.com is popular.

I'm not going to get into a talk about definitions. If they mean the same thing, then it doesn't matter which word you pick, so I'll use the ones that are common to me. "big words". please, there aren't any "intelligent" words or different sets that we can seperate ourselves with. Any word, can be learned just as quickly and easily as another with a similar definition. really , though I think I used impetus properly, I may use another word wrong in here. who knows, I don't check all of the definitions, and have made my own for several, which I usually have to provide later if I forget to initially. If you're up to checking them for me, thats cool. It means the next time I need to use the word, I'll be more likely to get it right.

I thought it would make sense to break the groups into two general parties. thats bloody simplification. Its easier to understand than if I had kept redefining representatives for a list of examples or what have you.

Anyways. . . lets see. . .

They can be seen as harmful, for a variety of different reasons, by a variety of different people. As I said earlier, unlike things that are actually harmful(for the third time, referencing the example of being pricked), the 2nd party decides to be harmed.

A:Someone calls you a name, you do not have to be offended by what they say.

if you are offended, then that is a choice you make, and you are responsible for it. They did not force you to be offended, angered, whatever, you wanted to be.

B:Someone peels the skin off of your arm, that skin is gone. Regardless of whether you want it to be gone, or not, it actually is. The first party is directly responsible for it, whereas, in the previous example, the second party was responsible.

do you see the difference?

You say they would not be harmed if the first party kept their damn mouth shut? That isn't the question. if the first party was never born, then they would never exist to open their mouth in front of the second party. But do you say their birth is harmful to the second party? you shouldn't. Its not. This is the mistake you're making. Applying a direct link, to an indirect connection. In the end, it is the action of the second party that determines whether or not they decide to be "harmed".


but this is the same thing that I said in my previous post, so I'll continue.



You say the "world around him created the harmful effect". that is not the case. It can be said that "the world" is responsible for everything, as most everything is a part of it, and if we use the most general meanings, everything is a part of it. And the world isn't responsible for what that young offended individual decides to think. He is. There are variables presented to us in the world. Certain things we interact with. These terms, have found there way into this world. The person witnesses them, and decides they are harmful. but it is his decision. we're not talking about where words originate, we're talking about the value of their "harmful effect". as near as I can tell, anyways.



Did the person choose to be insulted you ask? No. not always.

Does a person choose to be complimented? No. not always.

both are presented without the understanding of whether or not the person wants the statements presented to them. IF this is the argument you're taking, then it would be against badgering, or heckling, or whatever term they use, and would be based on the presentation of information that isn't wanted, repeatedly, regardless of whether that information is kind or spiteful, or what have you. The nature of the information presented would be irrelevant. If we are to take this seriously, we could never say anything to anyone, unless we check an "accepted speech" list they've presented, or something.


And I never said anything about punching someone in the face. As for ignoring everything else you said, nope, but its fun predicting I guess.

would you be just as justified in punching someone who called you "Mr. Johnson" as when they called you "blackie."

yup.

that is to say, neither is justified, but if one is , then the other is equally, because, ultimately, the justification is that you can decide someone called you something you didn't want to be called, and that punching them is a fitting punishment. to meet out justice, and all that. However, your chosen term, "blackie", is socially more acceptable as a reason to punch people, but I consider this a mistake on the part of society in general. "nigger" is even more socially acceptable, I would suggest, should you take up this argument with someone else, to use that term, if you're going for effect. The point is that the term you're called doesn't matter. Ultimately, you are deciding it is harming you(and I'm being careful to say that you are deciding it is harming you, instead of harmful, though, with respect to my writing, understand that in most cases, I mean "decide it is harming you", if I've made an error earlier. there is a lot of text here.)

Raymond J. Johnson jr didn't like being called Mr. Johnson. He'd tell people after being asked directions. . .

Now you can call me Ray
Or you can call me Jay
Or you can call me Johnny
Or you can call me Sonny
Or you can call me Junie
Or you can call me Ray Jay
Or you can call me RJ
Or you can call me RJJ
Or you can call me RJJ jr
But you doesn't has to call me Mr. Johnson!

he could have just punched them out. maybe people would have liked the very bad joke a little more. you can ignore the Ray Jay Johnson section, I just like reciting that bit. but the main point

1. person is referred to as something, person decides that the term is harming him


I just saw this in your post while looking through the section again:

most folks would say I'm justified in actually _being upset_ by it -even to the point of slugging the other person.

as I said. the term and such reactions are popularly accepted, that has nothing to do with whether they should be done or not. Someone argues against an intentionally spiteful term, but points out how they would be justified in physically assaulting the person using it. Honestly, If you're going against something that is wrong, and justifying another form of "bad" behavior against it, you're missing the point.

Let's say me punching a guy in the face for calling me Mr. Smith went to court. It would matter if people agree with my reaction. Your reaction to behavior is measured against the standards of other people.

once again this popular opinion is bandied about. If the jury was to decide against the Mr. Smith user beater, and for the blackie user beater, I'd say that jury was missing the point. Something does not become right with accruing acceptors. It becomes. . .acceptable. be aware of the difference.


Now, how can people stop finding slurs or insults harmful? I don't find them harmful, so I usually tell them to do what I do.


1. Is the term and explanation used true.This is for certain terms that have testable definitions, like stupid and such, and if not, then the explanation provided "you are stupid because" can be used to form a definition, relative to the unspoken stipulation of the person insulting you.(If a definition is stipulated, of course, you could simply use that one.)

2a. If it is true, then its not an insult, and continue on with your business, and hopefully correct yourself.

2b. If it is not true, then you know the statement is worthless, and you don't need to react to someone who tells you nothing. Perhaps, if you're inclined, you can explain why they're mistaken, and in that case, you can do so as long as they maintain a dialogue, or cut off at any point. who knows,, its up to you.

worthless piece of shit- purported insult

you don't do your laundry, chores, etc. - definition

take these two things, and pass them through what I described above. If there is no definition, then the kid should ask for one, or not bother worrying about nothing, which would probably be what I would tell him, after trying to figure out what had gone on.


It just occured to me that maybe you meant to say "Someone is just as justified in being upset over being called by the wrong name and having a slur used against them that applies a group they are not a part of." Yes. I can see that. It would've helped to clarify a bit if this is the case. But as stated earlier my problem is not with other people using slurs against a group of people they do not apply to. I wouldn't be upset if someone were to call me a "chink". I would think they are an idiot, though. The lazy use of slurs against other people with no real reason or point in order get a cheap chuckle for yourself (and hopefully incite the "I'M NOT A FAG!!!@#@" reaction) is sad.

That's all. I don't want to have to explain it again, do I? *sigh* Since then it's turned into an argument of "do slurs hurt people or not" and if they're used in the cheap joke manner, no they don't. (Well, except for the idiot who's using them...) But they DO hurt people when used in other ways. CAN WE ALL AGREE ON THIS? I'm thinking we may have agreed on it all along and it just hasn't be clarified.

really, given your stance, this isn't a topic that my views "Agree with all along" in most cases.(other topics, I find that happens, this one, not too often).

2 more points.

1. people can find slurs used in the "cheap joke manner" harmful. they can find them harmful when used in other ways. As it is the decision of the person reacting to the slurs to find them harmful, any slur, used in any situation, with any intention, can be found harmful, just as any compliment, used in any situation, with any intention, can be found harmful. The manner, situation, and intention, do not matter, because they are not the deciding factors. It is the person who witnesses the slur, that decides. and please understand the nature of my argument. There may be other points that I've gone for, that are not related directly to this. But if you're going to show me where I'm wrong, make sure it relates to this main point, as other errors can be corrected independent of this one.

2. change "But they DO hurt people when used in other ways." to "people can decide to find the terms to be harmful when used in other ways, and there are some uses that seem to lead to higher likelihoods of people deciding to find them to be harmful. "

I really need to start using emoticons, don't I...jeez.

I think so. that whole little segment of my post would have been avoided entirely, if you had pre-empted me with an "emoticon."


you dirty whore! =p

but look, theres a smiley there. it means I was kidding.


keep it up.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

Rezo, I would agree with you, but for one problem. Anger, pain, offence, and any other emotion that might be aroused by hearing a slur are just that - emotions. As such, they work a u t o m a t i c a l l y. Maybe you have some sort of cybernetic super-computer implant in your brain, enabling your thought processes to run at blazing speeds, but for us normal folks, the emotion is in play before we can even consider evaluating the meaning behind the slur.

Wow, I just negated the entire premise of everything you've said in this thread, in probably 0.01% of the time. I feel special.

[rummy]

If only this discussion were a look into why people use slurs rather than why people take offense to them. Oh wait. It's obvious. It's because they hate. No need for discussion there, huh? This whole people taking offense thing, though...It's awfully complicated. But thanks to you, Rezo, I have it all figured out. I'm glad to know that it's not the people who hate that are the problem - it' s all the crybabies they hate that are to blame.

Rezo, you need to share your secret. How are you capable of not taking offense to someone who verbally abuses you? Did you undergo surgery to remove the part of the brain that provides the "impetus to be offended"? (Whatever that means.) Has years of intense meditation wiped away all feelings of anger and pain from your soul? Maybe juicing - juicing may be the secret that keeps you from making the "choice" that leads to feeling bad when insulted! Let us know. The rest of the human population unfortnately tends to react to words of hate, and we need your help. You're the key to putting an end to police beatings. To suicide bombings. To Mary Kate and Ashley films.

[rummy]

Originally posted by LordPerrin
Rezo, I would agree with you, but for one problem. Anger, pain, offence, and any other emotion that might be aroused by hearing a slur are just that - emotions. As such, they work a u t o m a t i c a l l y. Maybe you have some sort of cybernetic super-computer implant in your brain, enabling your thought processes to run at blazing speeds, but for us normal folks, the emotion is in play before we can even consider evaluating the meaning behind the slur.

Wow, I just negated the entire premise of everything you've said in this thread, in probably 0.01% of the time. I feel special.

What he said.

If only you'd shown up earlier. Could've saved the world from my useless ranting.

[rezo]

Anger, pain, offence, and any other emotion that might be aroused by hearing a slur are just that - emotions. As such, they work a u t o m a t i c a l l y.

they are not arbitrary. maybe thats the wrong term, but as I concluded several months ago(hey, tracer bullet, thanks), emotions are preferential reactions, similar to laughter. Your mother dies, you think about her death, you mull over the things you two used to do together, and maybe, when someone wants to go with you to do something, you decide that you really don't want to.

people see that set of reactions, and recognize it as depression.

take this example, and apply it to happiness, and anger and any other "emotion".


This is to say that, "emotions" are not things that are triggered, emotions are you, and how you react, and the judgement that is derived from your set of actions is what people call your "emotion". It is not an automatic trigger. no more than anything else is. What controlling emotions amounts to, is telling yourself to not do something you want to do. More likely than not, you'll want to do it still. Furthermore, when you stop yourself from doing it, your true wishes are still present, and it is actually restraining yourself to some degree. This does not change the fact that the "emotional" occurence is still a preferred action, something that you want to do , in the given situation(proven by one's pursual of the set of actions that is recognized as the emotion), whether you realize it or not. You do not lose responsibility for your actions, and the actions are generated from within you.


Its absurd to say that a joke forces someone to laugh, and at the same time, someone would then be presented with something, that causes them to laugh, even when they try not to. This is not to say that the reaction is automatic, it is to say that, we can control ourselves, we are responsible for the laughter, and we genuinely want to laugh, regardless of our attempts to hold it back. This is self control. You want to laugh, and you cause yourself to not laugh. If you want to punch someone in the face for calling you a name, then you should control yourself, and when you have the time, I hope you can start working towards understanding why you wanted to do what you wanted to do, and hopefully, why you shouldn't.

Furthermore, if you wish to genuinely change your emotions, as they are similar to taste, your actions have to be pre-emptive. perhaps, you could realize ,as I have, that we don't need to waste time being offended by being called names.

1Where do these wants, preferential actions, emotions come from?

you.

2.Who has the ability to change or initiate these wants, preferential actions, emotions ?

you.

Where then, does the responsibility lie?

in you.

you initiate, you can change your tastes, you react to your emotions, do not pass blame on someone who presents something for you to react to.

If someone tells you something to get you mad, if he intends to get you mad, he is not directly initiating your coming madness. There has to be a level of consent on your part. If I tell you to "shut the hell up", you need to realize, that no matter how I present it, it is a request. You have to agree to shut up, and the control in that situation , is you. If I tell you to "go eat a cow, you stupid jewboy", I am presenting something to you. If you want to react by
deciding to

be shocked that such people still exist.
wonder why you're being insulted
yell insults right back
not let those punks think light of you!
show em' how you r0xXor with your fists!
curse the punks you just beat down, and laugh

that is your choice. If you want to react like that, and have that reaction determined to be the emotion anger, you need to realize that there is an inordinate amount of ways you could have looked at that situation, and instead of saying you were forced to be anger, remember point 2. Ultimately, you are the only one capable of changing your "emotions". As this is true, we cannot say that others force reactions out of us.

Maybe you have some sort of cybernetic super-computer implant in your brain, enabling your thought processes to run at blazing speeds, but for us normal folks, the emotion is in play before we can even consider evaluating the meaning behind the slur.

nope. using the argument of speed, would only suggest that you could go through the same set of functions that I do, but at a slower rate. It has nothing to do with behavior deviating from whatever I am capable of.

Has years of intense meditation wiped away all feelings of anger and pain from your soul? Maybe juicing - juicing may be the secret that keeps you from making the "choice" that leads to feeling bad when insulted! Let us know. The rest of the human population unfortnately tends to react to words of hate, and we need your help. You're the key to putting an end to police beatings. To suicide bombings. To Mary Kate and Ashley films.

I try to help. some members of the world decide to take defeatist attitudes and make bad jokes instead of actually bothering to do consider things. If my beliefs were universal, there would be no police beatings, suicide bombings, and Mary Kate and Ashley . . . well, I suppose my tastes would follow my beliefs, so they probably wouldn't get any support. "some members" includes you, unless I've made a mistake somewhere.



what else is there? thought there was something. it'll show up later I guess. Its interesting noting the paths these things always take.

anyways, one more time.

I think this was your misunderstanding by the way:

a (1) : a driving force : impulse (2) : incentive, stimulus b : stimulation or encouragement resulting in increased activity

I had taken the driving force to be will, a strong will(need , interest to respond, what have you),as the use was relative to a human making a decision. hope that clears things up. words have multiple definitions. while you're visiting dictionary.com, look up "human" for a laugh.

[EThugg]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... what? Rummy is still posting? Meh.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Seriously, I thought it might be fun to have another asshole on the board to fight with, but rummy, you got real boring, real fast. Not that you care, I'm sure... makes me sorta glad I've been 'absent' all day...

[Dolemite]

Originally posted by EThugg

Seriously, I thought it might be fun to have another asshole on the board to fight with, but rummy, you got real boring, real fast.

Bet you miss that Rebecca Chambers chick, huh?

[EThugg]

Originally posted by Dolemite


Bet you miss that Rebecca Chambers chick, huh?

lol... actually, we were in a AIM chat last night...