tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post112870378922874892..comments2023-10-30T10:31:52.321+00:00Comments on Infinitives Unsplit: Offensive SpiritTim Worstallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13161727860817121071noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1139501212958065472006-02-09T16:06:00.000+00:002006-02-09T16:06:00.000+00:00Clarice,"Do you not allow for the possibility that...Clarice,<BR/><BR/><I>"Do you not allow for the possibility that offence can be given unintentionally? "</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I do. In fact, the whole of case 1 deals with this exact point. Go and read the post again. In this case, no offense has been "given" - there was none intended. There is therefore nothing to "take". For the taker to assume offensiveness where none is intended projects bad faith onto the giver.<BR/><BR/><I>"I would argue that where there's a misunderstanding, both parties are responsible, except for cases where one or both parties could not reasonably be expected to have access to relevant information."</I><BR/><BR/>Which is why it is important to clarify intention and to share the relevant information in a rational manner. As I explain very very clearly in Case 1 above. Have you actually read it? It rather appears that you haven't.<BR/><BR/><I>"It's also rather dangerous to take the rationality argument too far. That would give you carte blanche to call anyone you disagreed with irrational, and write off their feelings and their point of view without further ado."</I><BR/><BR/>Disagreements need not only arise from irrationality: they can be down to different emphasis placed on different facts. This sort of disagreement is unlikely to give rise to unintended offensiveness.<BR/><BR/>Writing off their feelings is only an issue should I choose to be offensive to someone. Which, assuming we are all basically rational, I have no need to do. If I have no intention to insult, but someone takes offence and is then not willing to listen to my reasoning or that I had no intention to insult them, then yes, I would be justified in ignoring his feelings.<BR/><BR/>I know that I bear him no ill will: if he chooses to go and nurse a grudge, that is his problem, not mine.The Pedant-Generalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738418480281658868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1139500362970202162006-02-09T15:52:00.000+00:002006-02-09T15:52:00.000+00:00Also, it's perfectly possible to try and fail to o...Also, it's perfectly possible to try and fail to offend someone, just as it is possible to not try and still succeed.<BR/><BR/>I have seen people try and fail to offend me. The attempt itself can be offensive, but its content is not. At least, not to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1139499954905765942006-02-09T15:45:00.000+00:002006-02-09T15:45:00.000+00:00"It is actually offensive to take offence gratuito..."It is actually offensive to take offence gratuitously"<BR/><BR/>Um...so is it offensive to take offence at someone taking offence gratuitously then?<BR/><BR/>Presumably you would say no, because the latter is gratuitous and the other is not (in YOUR opinion). If your defnintion of gratuitousness is based on the intentionality of the giver, then you can see the problem with this.<BR/>What you consider gratuitous may not considered so by everyone.<BR/><BR/>You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you accept the existance of things/actions which are inherently offensIVE (and I guess by the fact that you use the word, then you must do), then you have to accept the posibility that offence *can* be taken as well as given. If something which is offensive does not necessarily entail the taking of offense, then it is difficult to see in what sense it is "offensive".<BR/><BR/>If I do or say something which unbeknownst to me falls into your "offensive" category, but not mine, then are you right or wrong to take offence? And if you do take offence, then if I consider that gratuitous, I might legitimately take offence back, by your argument. It's really not very coherent, is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1139499101860790222006-02-09T15:31:00.000+00:002006-02-09T15:31:00.000+00:00OK, so who is going to be the arbiter of rationali...OK, so who is going to be the arbiter of rationality? Presumably you feel qualified to judge. But there may be disagreements as to who is rational and who is not. I personally believe there's a sense in which all people are rational, when you take into account the psychological laws of cause and effect, and rule out any organic cause of mental illness. Then again, there's another argument which suggests that human beings are all fundamentally *irrational*. There's certainly plenty of evidence (empirical and anecdotal) to support this view.<BR/><BR/>It's also rather dangerous to take the rationality argument too far. That would give you carte blanche to call anyone you disagreed with irrational, and write off their feelings and their point of view without further ado.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that where there's a misunderstanding, both parties are responsible, except for cases where one or both parties could not reasonably be expected to have access to relevant information. <BR/><BR/>Do you not allow for the possibility that offence can be given unintentionally? To some extent, intention is really irrelevant to the end result. If you crash your car by accident, you'll still end up with the same injuries as if you had the same car crash deliberately. Our intentions are not always fulfilled by our actions. Perhaps you would disagree. In which case there is no such thing as an accident of any kind.<BR/><BR/>I certainly don't want lunatics running the asylum any more than you do, but I still say your argument is a little one-sided for my liking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1139398505602682732006-02-08T11:35:00.000+00:002006-02-08T11:35:00.000+00:00Clarice,"whatever the extent of their rationality"...Clarice,<BR/><BR/><I>"whatever the extent of their rationality"</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree: the giver should take account of the feelings of the taker ONLY if he is being rational.<BR/><BR/>Why should sensible rational people have to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are irrational? Quite apart from the fact that this would lead very quickly to a "might is right" closing down of debate, it would be impossible for the giver to judge his own behaviour: how can you predict what an irrational person is going to do?<BR/><BR/>PGThe Pedant-Generalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08738418480281658868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1139350821493770932006-02-07T22:20:00.000+00:002006-02-07T22:20:00.000+00:00I can't deny there is some merit in your argument,...I can't deny there is some merit in your argument, but just as the "taker" should consider and respect the intentions of the giver, why should the giver not show the same regard for the feelings of the taker, whatever the extent of their rationality? <BR/><BR/>I think it has to be a two-way street, and your argument looks a little one-sided to me :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1128968941628876812005-10-10T19:29:00.000+01:002005-10-10T19:29:00.000+01:00It boggles the imagination that I missed the e bef...It boggles the imagination that I missed the e before i in piece. I will spend the rest of the day looking over my shoulder for Sister Mary Agnes and waiting for the inevitable crack across the back of my head for missing such a gross grammatical error....WHACK!!! Serves you right, young man, first for missing the misspelling of piece and secondly for posting something without proofreading it first... WHACK!!!Akakyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00187471562516416268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1128967930958011832005-10-10T19:12:00.000+01:002005-10-10T19:12:00.000+01:00It boggles the imagination that I missed the e bef...It boggles the imagination that I missed the e before i in piece. I will spend the rest of the day looking over my shoulder for Sister Mary Agnes and waiting for the inevitable crack across the back of my head for missing such grammatical error.Akakyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00187471562516416268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1128788534335682022005-10-08T17:22:00.000+01:002005-10-08T17:22:00.000+01:00Offence cannot (or should not) be taken - only giv...<I>Offence cannot (or should not) be taken - only given.</I><BR/><BR/>This is at the heart of why the government's incitement to religious hatred bill is so egregious in its iniquity.<BR/><BR/>Good post, P-G, and spot on.<BR/><BR/>DKDevil's Kitchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832949569501846730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1128761772700451072005-10-08T09:56:00.000+01:002005-10-08T09:56:00.000+01:00Good rant ;)Good rant ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562046.post-1128730285582962802005-10-08T01:11:00.000+01:002005-10-08T01:11:00.000+01:00In the wake of this peice of abject lunacyHem hem....<I>In the wake of this peice of abject lunacy</I><BR/><BR/>Hem hem. Dare I point out that generally "i" comes before "e" except <I>after</I> "c"?<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist...<BR/><BR/>DKDevil's Kitchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832949569501846730noreply@blogger.com