I agree but you could also say conservatives "live to be offended and they want to be unhappy". Don't try to bring politics into this, it isn't a political question.
to a degree you do have the choice to take it offensivley or not. there is a fine line between offensive and being a rude lil prick. its most definetly up to you if you takke offense to something and if you wanted to not take offence to stuff you could. im not saying you its up to you if someone is rude to you but its up to you if you take into acount what their saying and actually let what is happening actually affect you.
So, if someone calls you a scum sucking pig and throws a bucket of shit over you you have a choice of either being offended or not? If physical violence is a danger arm yourself with your ball pen which you should carry on your person at all times. A ball pen properly held and used in accordance with professional training will disable anyone. A stab into the eyeball or a thrust into the temple will either blind the aggressor or, in the case of a 'temple thrust'', probably kill them. Strike fast and strike hard.
Throwing a bucket of shit over someone is not offensive, it is assault. As such, you are allowed to defend yourself. I'm not sure if stabbing them in the head with a pen qualifies as self defense though.
If that's the case elder abuse and other categories of unlawful acts are not offensive. Denying an emotional tie to a legal definition of a human action, is justifiable how? "The wrongful killing of a human isn't offensive or unbecoming, because that's murder." Obviously, this would be incorrect.
Now back to your original claim. Being offended is a response of emotion to an event, how you respond to this offense is what is in control. Just because you are offended does not necessarily mean you will continually be unhappy. This is were you make an active decision on your response to being offended. Happy, mad, sad, passive, etc.
You cannot control your emotional response (being offended) therefore it is not a choice. However, you can choose how you react to your emotional response. I was offended and it ruined my day or I was offended and didn't jet it bother me.
If that's the case elder abuse and other categories of unlawful acts are not offensive.
Yes. They aren't offensive, they are directly causing pain. Huge difference. Offensive is referring to causing someone to get upset or angry, not causing them physical pain.
Denying an emotional tie to a legal definition of a human action, is justifiable how?
Underplaying how bad a human action was is justifiable how?
"The wrongful killing of a human isn't offensive or unbecoming, because that's murder." Obviously, this would be incorrect.
In what way is the dead person angry or upset? In what way does being dead equal offended?
Just because you are offended does not necessarily mean you will continually be unhappy.
And, how do you stop being unhappy? You stop letting the thing offend you.
This is were you make an active decision on your response to being offended. Happy, mad, sad, passive, etc.
You can not be happy with something that offends you by definition. Plus, how is this a dispute to his claim. You are saying to choose being happy over mad, sad, passive, etc. That was the original claim.
Let me structure this differently, to see if I can get you to understand what I'm saying. Staying offended is by choice. Initial emotional responses are not by choice.
One emotion does not necessarily automatically render another specific emotion. IE offended = unhappy.
So, saying being offended is a choice is incorrect. Staying offended would be correct. If being offended was a choice, you could literally never be offended. I'm pretty sure someone somewhere knows how to offend you. If you could control emotions by choice (initially) you and everyone else could live their entire daily lives, happy. Forever, regardless of circumstances.
Your whole argument is that the first word of the debate title doesn't quite match what you want it to. That's it. That's your whole argument. You agree with the entire premise that you can choose not to stay offended, which is all the debate is asking of you. How long does your initial reaction to something last? 5 seconds? 1 minute?
So, saying being offended is a choice is incorrect.
No one describes staying offended as anything other than being offended.
Staying offended would be correct.
Have you ever heard people say "staying offended"?
My whole argument is based on the fact that the claim is incorrect.
To claim that if I was ever offended was by choice would be incorrect. Now if i were to allow the emotional state (being offended) to affect my decisions by engaging in an argument etc would be by choice.
A loved one dies, initially you experience a certain emotion. (It would Not be by choice) from there you have the choice to continue to be in said emotional state or bounce between several different emotional states, or choose a specific emotional mindset/state. However, this is all by choice and can be corrected, fixed and even manipulated. Refer hear of CBT?
Again, to claim that every time I have ever been offended was by choice would be incorrect. To further state that I was unhappy because I was offended would be incorrect as well. Emotional reaction versus mindset is extremely different and missing just one weird in the claim allows for such subjectivism.
Have you ever heard of staying offended, you ask? Of course I have, as I'm sure you have as well. I hear people talk about past offenses they have experienceD all the time; which could build into discrimination etc. Right?
My whole argument is based on the fact that the claim is incorrect.
Based solely on the first word not being what you like.
Now if i were to allow the emotional state (being offended) to affect my decisions by engaging in an argument etc would be by choice.
This is the only thing the debate is discussing. You are incorrectly separating out the 2.
Again, to claim that every time I have ever been offended was by choice would be incorrect.
Every time you become unhappy from being offended was your choice, right?
To further state that I was unhappy because I was offended would be incorrect as well.
You became unhappy after being offended. What caused it if it wasn't being offended?
Emotional reaction versus mindset is extremely different and missing just one weird in the claim allows for such subjectivism.
You have already admitted that not all times you are offended is emotional responses. You are the only one discussing the immediate emotional response.
Of course I have, as I'm sure you have as well.
No, I have honestly never heard anyone say that. I meant the exact phrase. I have heard people say "I am offended", but never "I am staying offended".
I hear people talk about past offenses they have experienceD all the time;
Alright boss man, I’m going to go back the beginning because I feel we’re starting to focus on things (technicalities) other than the claim.
Original claim: Being offended is a choice (incorrect) that you make and it makes you unhappy (incorrect)- why make that choice? (You don’t)
You cannot choose how you “feel {insert emotion}” (internally) during certain events because it involves a multitude of factors (culture, individual experiences, perception, etc). So when you “feel” offended, that is not by choice. Everyone has their own things that “grind their gears”, and everyone at times will be offended. This is where you need to control your emotions and “not act out of anger” would could have resulted from being “offended”.
So, if you disagree how can you justify that one has the capability to selectively choose a certain emotion during a certain event?
[b][side bar] No, I have honestly never heard anyone say that. I meant the exact phrase. I have heard people say "I am offended", but never "I am staying offended".[/b]
Come one now…. If one never recovers from an “offense”, they can allow that offense to guide their decisions. Would that not be in a sense, “staying offended”? Just like people saying, “let it go bobby, it was 3 years ago not all waitresses are like that.” Wouldn’t that individual in a sense be “staying offended”.
Would be staying offended be any less possible than “staying angry” or “staying negative?”
Original claim: Being offended is a choice (incorrect) that you make and it makes you unhappy (incorrect)- why make that choice? (You don’t)
I have established that being offended in this context is referring to staying offended, which you agree is a choice.
You cannot choose how you “feel {insert emotion}” (internally) during certain events because it involves a multitude of factors (culture, individual experiences, perception, etc).
Again, we are talking about what happens after those events.
This is where you need to control your emotions and “not act out of anger” would could have resulted from being “offended”.
This is the entire premise of the debate.
So, if you disagree how can you justify that one has the capability to selectively choose a certain emotion during a certain event?
No one is talking about what you are talking about.
Would that not be in a sense, “staying offended”?
You have invented a phrase that does not exist in order for you to be right. They are being offended if they let something offensive continue to bother them. That's how everyone else talks.
Just like people saying, “let it go bobby, it was 3 years ago not all waitresses are like that.” Wouldn’t that individual in a sense be “staying offended”.
No, they are continuing to be offended.
Would be staying offended be any less possible than “staying angry” or “staying negative?”
Yes, because people actually say the last 2.
You are agreeing that there is some choice involved. You are talking about the same exact choice.
No, you are wrong. I will agree to that. No one talks about the initial emotional reaction as being offended. You admit there is choice, and that is the original claim. There is nothing for you to disagree about.
Negativ ghost rider. Being offended is not a choice that leaves you unhappy.
By claiming no one doesn't do something is automatically incorrect. I only admit that you have a choice on how you react to how you feel.
When you don't understand what someone is saying, you should just ask not assume or add opinions. When someone says, no I didn't say that - you're misunderstanding. It's exactly that.
The way you feel during random events you have no control over, only the way you react to feelings is what is in control.
If you can, I would like to see what you have of not don't bother trying to dissect the latter portion of the claim.
Bring offended is not a choice (emotional response - intrapsychic). - if it is, explain how you can control a intrapsychic reaction to "offensive " events. ( you can't by the way).
Bring offended does not automatically mean someone is going to be unhappy. - this we agree.
Negativ ghost rider. Being offended is not a choice that leaves you unhappy.
Take it up with GoneFishing. He said it was.
By claiming no one doesn't do something is automatically incorrect. I only admit that you have a choice on how you react to how you feel.
So does the debate. You are in agreement with the debate.
When you don't understand what someone is saying, you should just ask not assume or add opinions.
You are guilty of this, not me.
The way you feel during random events you have no control over, only the way you react to feelings is what is in control.
The debate is only talking about how you react. Why would you react in a way that makes you unhappy?
Bring offended is not a choice (emotional response - intrapsychic). - if it is, explain how you can control a intrapsychic reaction to "offensive " events. ( you can't by the way).
You also said it was a choice. The debate is only claiming that what you think is a choice is also a choice. Can you choose to act differently after your initial emotional response?
I understand what you're saying but the claim isn't structured in a way to support that. That's the only problem we have here .(we're reading the claim differently).
the claim: why would one choose to be offended and eventually unhappy?
One doesn't choose to be offended but they can allow the offense to make them unhappy, happy etc
Your response makes no sense. I explained to you how you are misunderstanding. You say that if someone says you are misunderstanding then it's exactly that. Apparently you lied. Your response also makes no sense since I translated the claim to a sentence that you can understand. Why are you using the original wording that you don't understand instead of using the translated version that you can understand?
The claim is incorrect. Thanks for all of your insightful opinions.
And by you saying i'm a liar because I don't agree with your interpretation of someone else's debatable claim. If foolish. If the person making the claim said, the claim means "", then obviously there wouldn't need to be further discussion (but a better written claim would be needed). But you did not make the claim. You're opinion is noted and also dismissed.
And by you saying i'm a liar because I don't agree with your interpretation of someone else's debatable claim. If foolish.
I am calling you a liar because you claimed that if it was a misunderstanding you would accept that it was a misunderstanding. You refuse to accept that it is a misunderstanding, which makes you a liar. It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me.
then obviously there wouldn't need to be further discussion
Probably another lie.
but a better written claim would be needed
Yep, a complete lie, as I thought. You now believe that a misunderstanding needs to be rewritten and you also believe that you are not allowed to rewrite misunderstandings.
But you did not make the claim. You're opinion is noted and also dismissed.
Your incorrect stance is noted, and destroyed. It is so much better to actual destroy the other persons argument instead of running from it.
No, i already acknowledged the fact that we're reading it differently and stated that Im okay with that. You have your opinion and I have mine. SO that's dismissed.
You love to twist words and take things out of context and then attack personally. What fun is that? When you learn how to debate properly, send me a message my friend. I can see why you get banned in many debates. The only thing destroyed was this debate by your poor chosen tactics "I said GOOD DAY". :)
Oh yes, before using your ''innocent'' ball pen in such a manner always check for security/street cameras,as under such circumstances you would be allowed to use ''all reasonable force'' to defend yourself. Most courts of law would deem the deliberate blinding or killing of your assailant as excessive use of force causing grievous bodily harm or death. Guilty sentence;- 15 to 20 breaking rocks in the hot sun. No cameras or witnesses, then you were doing a crossword when you were subjected to an unprovoked surprise attack. You struck out with your pen which embedded itself in your assailants eyeball/temple. You were horrified that a little old pen could have caused such a severe injury/death.
Being offended is a response of emotion to an event, how you respond to this offense is what is in control. Just because you are offended doesn't necessarily mean you will continually be unhappy. This is were you make an active decision on your response to being offended. Happy, mad, sad, passive, etc.
You cannot control your emotional response (being offended) therefore it is not a choice. However, you can choose how you react to your emotional response. I was offended and it ruined my day or I was offended and didn't jet it bother me.
You may or may not be offended by this, but you have some terrible manners. I don't know if your mother acted and talked the way you do, but she should be embarrassed by your vulgarities and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I wasn't talking to you. The posts are lined up under the post they are replying to. When two posts are square in line, one under the other, they are both replies to a post above which will be slightly spaced to the left. You're welcome.
You do not have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell as a sinner. You need to get saved while you can....if you can. Maybe your mind is too far gone and you no longer are capable of agreeing with God. God knows if you will never be saved. Do you know? I don't know...but by the way you act, I'm guessing you will not be saved and will find yourself in Hell with no way out.
If your words, when viewed in comparison to God's word, show that you are not saved, observing the truth of your progress toward the fire of Hell is not judging you on my part. I'm simply pointing out that you are judged, the same as me, according to God's word. God cannot deny Himself, He cannot lie, and if His word says you are lost, dying, and in imminent danger of Hell then I'm going to agree with Him and disagree with you. If you feel judged by the truth, it's because you are guilty and need God's forgiveness. Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near.
My role is to obey God. You are not God to be telling me what my role is, and you are not representing God when you are going on your own feelings rather than in accord with His word. You are judging me for whatever reason...probably because you don't have the backbone to stand on the word of God, or the guts to pick up your cross and follow Jesus even no matter how much suffering comes with obeying God.
I don't know what your stupid lol was about, but it sounds like an evil little laugh to me. If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? Are you really sure? If yes, please tell me how you are so sure. If no, then you are missing something.
I'm pretty sure you missed my point. Why waste time and energy arguing if people are going to hell or not. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I see you ranting in a lot of posts about people dying in hell and they are full of sin etc. Chill. Out. When a claim is made about feelings and you somehow start talking about people burning in hell (making it personnel again), I think you should just reel it back in and keep it relevant. The lol was served as, " ooh look according to saint now, another person is going to burn in hell."
Why waste time and energy arguing with me? Why don't you just go fishing and smoke some weed and be as happy as you possibly can and leave me alone? What is your problem? Ok, so you don't care if people are dying on in danger of burning in Hell. Just go have a beer and go fishing.
I think you need to get saved. I think you are lost, dying, and on your way to Hell. You sure don't seem to care what the Bible says, trying to sell your stinky self-serving junk as if you are speaking on behalf of God. Go fishing and chill yourself out and leave me alone if you don't want to discuss the condition of your own soul.
