Age wrote:
When you say no one is responsible for others feelings do you literally mean NO one ?
Anyone who is capable of controlling their emotional reactions to the words of others
This is every adult of sound mind so it obviously excludes anyone not in this category
Age wrote:
But WHY would you be careful not to intentionally offend others especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible
for the internal feelings in ANY other and you INSIST that ONLY non verbal physical actions can actually cause harm ?
I do not intentionally offend anyone because it is not something I am interested in
And so I do not need to be careful about something I am never actually going to do
There are different types of harm - physical and psychological - and words can cause the latter type
So it is wrong to say that they cannot cause harm as they obviously can - they just cannot cause physical harm
Age wrote:
Also could you name just one human being who says that words only which supposedly
hurt feelings ( as though that is some actual thing ) is equivalent to physical violence ?
The transgender You Tuber essence of thought has said this
Okay, thank you for responding here. But my clarifying question was posed to the one who claimed that in the alleged "current zeitgeist" there was this view.
Now, that we have found one human being with this view, would you consider this view from one person to be a 'zeitgeist', or be the defining spirit or mood, of the current period, when this is being written, as shown by the ideas and beliefs of this time?
Age wrote:
When you say no one is responsible for others feelings do you literally mean NO one ?
Anyone who is capable of controlling their emotional reactions to the words of others
This is every adult of sound mind so it obviously excludes anyone not in this category
But you did NOT write, what I was asking the CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to, so HOW would you actually KNOW what was 'obviously' meant by the "other" person?
Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.
However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.
Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.
Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them. How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.
Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood. There are two fundamental (and fundamentally different) issues at stake. The first sense of term means the right to express oneself, but equally important is the right of others to hear opinions different than their own. You cannot have a well-functioning society without a maximum degree of both.
I couldn't care less about a, "well-functioning society," but individual human beings who are not free to say, write, hear, or read anything they choose, (or conversely, are compelled to say, write, hear, or read anything they do not choose to--e.g., government schools and every government form and report you are required to submit) are not free at all. Most people are so used to their slavery they do not even notice their chains.
Age wrote:
But WHY would you be careful not to intentionally offend others especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible
for the internal feelings in ANY other and you INSIST that ONLY non verbal physical actions can actually cause harm ?
I do not intentionally offend anyone because it is not something I am interested in
Okay. But I was really only interested in discovering and learning WHY the one who insists that words can NOT actually cause harm would intentionally be careful with choosing their words to use with "others".
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:18 am
And so I do not need to be careful about something I am never actually going to do
There are different types of harm - physical and psychological - and words can cause the latter type
But some people insist that this is NOT true at all. So, which one do I listen to for wisdom and guidance?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:18 am
So it is wrong to say that they cannot cause harm as they obviously can - they just cannot cause physical harm
Okay. Do you have actual PROOF of this. Maybe the one who insists otherwise does have some actual PROOF for their claim.
Age wrote:
Now that we have found one human being with this view would you consider this view from one person to be a zeitgeist or be
the defining spirit or mood of the current period when this is being written as shown by the ideas and beliefs of this time ?
This view is not restricted to just that one individual but whether it is actually part of the current zeitgeist I do not know
Age wrote:
But you did NOT write what I was asking the CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to so
HOW would you actually KNOW what was obviously meant by the other person ?
I was not answering the question from someone elses perspective but from mine
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:02 am
Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.
Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them. How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.
Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood. There are two fundamental (and fundamentally different) issues at stake. The first sense of term means the right to express oneself, but equally important is the right of others to hear opinions different than their own. You cannot have a well-functioning society without a maximum degree of both.
I couldn't care less about a, "well-functioning society," but individual human beings who are not free to say, write, hear, or read anything they choose, (or conversely, are compelled to say, write, hear, or read anything they do not choose to--e.g., government schools and every government form and report you are required to submit) are not free at all.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:14 pm
Most people are so used to their slavery they do not even notice their chains.
I would say ALL adult people do not notice ALL of their chains.
Age wrote:
Now that we have found one human being with this view would you consider this view from one person to be a zeitgeist or be
the defining spirit or mood of the current period when this is being written as shown by the ideas and beliefs of this time ?
This view is not restricted to just that one individual but whether it is actually part of the current zeitgeist I do not know
Age wrote:
But you did NOT write what I was asking the CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to so
HOW would you actually KNOW what was obviously meant by the other person ?
I was not answering the question from someone elses perspective but from mine
I KNOW.
My clarifying question CLEARLY states: When you say no one is responsible for others feelings do you literally mean NO one?
You OBVIOUSLY did NOT say this. And, I was CLEARLY wondering what the 'one' who actually said that, actually meant.
Age wrote:
So which one do I listen to for wisdom and guidance ?
I cannot tell you this as you listen to whoever you want to
Okay, but you are saying that you are RIGHT, at the same time the "other" is saying that they are RIGHT. So, HOW can you BOTH be RIGHT when you BOTH are saying completely opposite things?
Words are not classed as physical and so they cannot cause physical harm
That is how I would justify my position although it is not an absolute one
What words actually directly effect are not 'classed' as physical as well. So, words, literally, can NOT directly cause physical harm. This is absolutely JUST, and thus a Truly JUSTIFIED FACT.
Now, we just wait, patiently, to SEE if the "other" has ANY Truly justified PROOF, for their claim/s.
