What behaviour is acceptable in public?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I cant help it Warpy but "right to offend others" can be based on only one thing: stupidity. Do you need to offend anybody? No. Do you get anything from offending anybody? No. So whats the point?
On the other hand I understand that somebody creates piece of art - lets say erotic art. Not to offend anybody but to creatively express some form of beauty to inspire others or to develop his inner potential or simply for ones satisfaction. Then somebody else with sort of puritan way of thinking comes and feels offended. He completely misses the point. But thats obviously different story...

 

[warpus]

The point is that I can base my actions on stupidity if I want - that is my prerogative. As long as I'm not breaking any laws, you have no right to not be insulted by what I do. You can if you want, but you have no right not to.

I don't think you really get what I'm saying though, because you keep getting stuck on that "well, why would you insult me anyway? That's stupid, you have no reason to do it" aspect of it, which is irrelevant.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I understand that one has freedom to develop and to pursue satisfaction in his own way but it would seem to me that there is universal understanding that your freedom shouldnt limit others freedom to do the same. By purposely trying to offend others you maybe messing up with freedoms of others so I dont see it that one has right to do so.

 

[cardgame]

No one has a right to be unoffended, else nobody would be able to say anything. The WBC, for example, seems to be offended at the entirety of Western Civilization.

 

[Yeekim]

Because porn is an inaccurate representation of human sexuality and not a good introduction to the subject at all; it's bound to confuse our youngins.

While the statement is true, I can't help but think that by following the same logic, we should outlaw fairytales.

 

[cardgame]

Well... I'm headed to bed, so I can't make a full reply to that, but for starters fairy tales are more obviously untrue.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

While the statement is true, I can't help but think that by following the same logic, we should outlaw fairytales.

Well there seem to be one more reason which is not so openly recognized. That porn (purely the physical animal-like act devoid of love and higher human feelings) degrades human consciousness.

Well... I'm headed to bed, so I can't make a full reply to that, but for starters fairy tales are more obviously untrue.

Judging by your avatar I am not sure that was sincere answer.

 

[warpus]

I understand that one has freedom to develop and to pursue satisfaction in his own way but it would seem to me that there is universal understanding that your freedom shouldnt limit others freedom to do the same. By purposely trying to offend others you maybe messing up with freedoms of others so I dont see it that one has right to do so.

What freedom of yours am I infringing by insulting or offending you? Again, you do not have a right to not be offended, legally or morally.

While the statement is true, I can't help but think that by following the same logic, we should outlaw fairytales.

Well, there is more to it than that; I was just giving one reason.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What freedom of yours am I infringing by insulting or offending you? Again, you do not have a right to not be offended, legally or morally.

Its more subtle you see. There is something called physical attack and something called verbal attack. And both can get you judge and jury on your case.

 

[BvBPL]

I cant help it Warpy but "right to offend others" can be based on only one thing: stupidity. Do you need to offend anybody? No. Do you get anything from offending anybody? No. So whats the point?

I disagree. I think that creating offense is, on occasion, a valid course of action. The people that rode in Rosa Parks's bus were likely offended by Parks's unwillingness to move to the back of the bus. Similarly, some people took offense at the civil rights work of Nelson Mandela and Harvey Milk. Just because the work of civil rights activists may cause offense it does not invalidate the work itself. Indeed, purposefully causing offense is often a great way to draw attention to one's cause.

Of course causing offense for offense's sake it a little different. Still, in liberal democracies there's generally an acceptance that people are permitted to be rude and vulgar in public.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I disagree. I think that creating offense is, on occasion, a valid course of action. The people that rode in Rosa Parks's bus were likely offended by Parks's unwillingness to move to the back of the bus. Similarly, some people took offense at the civil rights work of Nelson Mandela and Harvey Milk. Just because the work of civil rights activists may cause offense it does not invalidate the work itself. Indeed, purposefully causing offense is often a great way to draw attention to one's cause.

Of course causing offense for offense's sake it a little different. Still, in liberal democracies there's generally an acceptance that people are permitted to be rude and vulgar in public.

Of course what you are saying is true. Life is a struggle and during its course we are going to offend and be offended countless times but non of this gives anybody rightto offend others. You may take an action which maybe potentially offensive to other party but not for the sake of the offense itself.

 

[LucyDuke]

I cant help it Warpy but "right to offend others" can be based on only one thing: stupidity. Do you need to offend anybody? No. Do you get anything from offending anybody? No. So whats the point?

Taking offense can be based on only one thing: stupidity. Do you need to take offense? No. Do you get anything from taking offense? No. So what's the point?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Taking offense can be based on only one thing: stupidity. Do you need to take offense? No. Do you get anything from taking offense? No. So what's the point?

Sure. Nobody is arguing that...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nobody has right to offend others.

I'm offended by that statement.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Taking offense can be based on only one thing: stupidity. Do you need to take offense? No. Do you get anything from taking offense? No. So what's the point?

I'm offended by that statement.

Too bad...

 

[cardgame]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Too bad...

Q.E.D.

So glad we could come to an agreement no one has the right not to be offended.

 

[BvBPL]

Of course what you are saying is true. Life is a struggle and during its course we are going to offend and be offended countless times but non of this gives anybody rightto offend others. You may take an action which maybe potentially offensive to other party but not for the sake of the offense itself.

What about when a person must be forced to either endure an inconvenience or risking giving offense to others? Let's say you and I are in subway care I feel as I though I must pass a flatus or be quite uncomfortable. Do you have the right to unknowingly cause me discomfort instead of permitting me to relieve myself? What if you are writing a paper on revolutionary French literature and are behind schedule; should you be permitted to read de Sade on the bus?

 

[GoodGame]

Ask a lawyer.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What about when a person must be forced to either endure an inconvenience or risking giving offense to others? Let's say you and I are in subway care I feel as I though I must pass a flatus or be quite uncomfortable. Do you have the right to unknowingly cause me discomfort instead of permitting me to relieve myself? What if you are writing a paper on revolutionary French literature and are behind schedule; should you be permitted to read de Sade on the bus?

Coming back to my original point....just use common sense...