Offending People's Beliefs

We live in a world of political correctness, benign greetings and multiculturalism. How do you find yourself in explaining disagreements and differences in beliefs without offending people - Or- are other people’s inability to agree with your stance a form of ignorance that needs no leeway from the taste of your reality?

Some may see that when someone does take offense it allows them to discuss why they so choose such a belief, which provokes them to defend their belief and engage in argument (healthy argument hopefully).

Then again, there are ways to engage in beliefs without offending them (this may take longer).

But again, what if your belief is what offends them? Should it be your concern, or theirs?

Originally posted by juveous
We live in a world of political correctness, benign greetings and multiculturalism. How do you find yourself in explaining disagreements and differences in beliefs without offending people - Or- are other people’s inability to agree with your stance a form of ignorance that needs no leeway from the taste of your reality?

Some may see that when someone does take offense it allows them to discuss why they so choose such a belief, which provokes them to defend their belief and engage in argument (healthy argument hopefully).

Then again, there are ways to engage in beliefs without offending them (this may take longer).

But again, what if your belief is what offends them? Should it be your concern, or theirs?

First off, excellent points/questions..

I cannot be offended if I really believe something to be true. Personal knowledge of fact should be centered in beliefs, so there should be no reason to get offended. If anything though.. the person being offended should be the one to check him/her self.. not the person they are offended by.

Again.. good conversation starter. I think I will enjoy seeing others responses here.

I don't recall the last time I was personally offend, but this video makes my point

Here is everyones favourite atheist on being offened.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


one may argue...
atheistic atrocities have not had their time to come because of religious dominations. but thats an argument of unknown speculation and eventually a slippery slope fallacy.

reply to post by juveous


This is a very tricky problem. it is possible to have genuine good-will reasons for wanting to question someone's beliefs. You may think their beliefs may be putting them in danger ("this ice will carry my weight"). You might think that the spread of their beliefs might put other people in danger (" Come on, everybody, this ice will carry all of us- let's have a dance"). The problem is, of course, that Christians and atheists, for example, both believe this about each other.

The task includes;
being very sure that your motives are not mixed with your own psychology
being very sure that you've got good grounds for thinking the other view to be mistaken.
taking care that the way you present your viewpoint does not have the effect of driving people in the other direction.

As you say, the way we do it makes a difference.

reply to post by juveous
I don't how true this is, I heard once that a Western disagreement starts with one person saying "No, you're wrong". In Japan, they apparently begin with, "Yes, I see..." Takes the hostility away straight away.

We all know people that are 'passionate (unbalanced),' they hold strong beliefs (opinionated) and enjoy sharing them (argumentative) with others (victims). They defend their beliefs (fall out with people) and enjoy a wide variety of friends (can't maintain relationships). They are lively and entertaining when mixed with alcohol (thrown out of bars).

On the other hand, it's possible to disagree with people without offending or being offended. I guess it's the emotional 'loudness' of the exchange. I've seen Richard Dawkins having a civilised conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury. They are in profound disagreement and remain friendly...in fact, I think they are friends. In ATS terms I see Armap as the most consistently polite member. He's disagreeing all over the place and does it without any offence at all.

reply to post by broahes


at the very heart of it i (dis)agree. It is always the one offending (sender) who should check themselves - but -
what if the person who is interpreting the offense (receiver) is aware of the foul and acts undisturbed out of humility. how is the sender supposed to know if it offended them?
And if they are not aware, should they be?

double edit: what I meant by the sender checking themselves is in the case when they "intend" to offend. unlike unknowingly crossing boundaries with another's belief.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by juveous]

reply to post by juveous


The whole concept of Cultural Relativism grinds my gears a little bit more with every year i grow older.

Genital mutilations / child brides etc and from my own part of the world, the sexualization of children / greed and wastefulness .etc.
Value judgements ..... indeed.
Perhaps we`ve held our tongues too long .

Or else i now represent that which i once sought to usurp . Do i now represent the status quo , assailed and under siege from the "youf of today" ...... the Zeitgeist shifts unbeknownst to me !

===============================================

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by broahes

 

at the very heart of it i agree. It is always the one offending (sender) who should check themselves - but -
what if the person who is interpreting the offense (receiver) is aware of the foul and acts undisturbed out of humility. how is the sender supposed to know if it offended them?
And if they are not aware, should they be?

I actually said that it is the one that gets offended that should check themselves, not the person offending.

The reason being, I should not be offended over my beliefs.. that is if I truly believe. If I am offended by someone saying "there is no God", for example.. then I need to check myself and see why I am offended. Being offended over beliefs is nothing more than doubt, IMHO.

That being said, I don't ever try to offend others, so I should have no reason to feel sorry if they are offended. Life is too short to be offended by others.

EDITED TO SAY.. nevermind, lol.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by broahes]

reply to post by Kandinsky


No, I understand what you are saying, i kind of added a similar question in another reply.

Communication is a two-way exchange and if both parties are aware of social and cultural ignorance, they lower their expectations of deliberate attacks on their beliefs.

But there are many cases where the deliberate attacks are prominent and to some people even necessary.

reply to post by juveous


I see what you are saying.. no doubt, if you set out simply to offend another, then you should check yo' self, but at the same time, I do feel that the offended should still check where they stand for my previous reason given.

Thanks for pointing that out and giving me reason to clarify my position. I'm enjoying..

Originally posted by broahes
The reason being, I should not be offended over my beliefs.. that is if I truly believe. If I am offended by someone saying "there is no God", for example.. then I need to check myself and see why I am offended. Being offended over beliefs is nothing more than doubt, IMHO.

This right here.

From what I've noticed, people getting offended by someone else's beliefs (religious anyway) are typically unsure of their own, the strength of their faith will waiver, it will frighten them and they'll react badly. This isn't a completely fair assessment of someone who is the target of an idealogical attack; but even then, the easiest thing to do is to stay calm, let it all roll off your back and enjoy watching how frustrated the other person gets when they can't rile you up.

More often than not though, I think offense, taking offense stems from being closed-minded; this is not to say there aren't exceptions, just that a fear of being wrong is likely what drives the defense mechanism of getting upset by someone elses words.

Originally posted by broahes
reply to post by juveous

 

I see what you are saying.. no doubt, if you set out simply to offend another, then you should check yo' self, but at the same time, I do feel that the offended should still check where they stand for my previous reason given.

Thanks for pointing that out and giving me reason to clarify my position. I'm enjoying..

Then I go back to my previous question of the humble man. If he is aware that he can't be offended, because he is aware of either the ignorance or motive of the sender, does the sender leave knowing that they were offensive?
If not, should they?

reply to post by juveous


I'm not that sure that I follow, forgive me.. it's 7 am and I haven't been to bed yet.

Why would the offender need to know that he offended someone that cannot be offended?

I think I will pick up on this after some sleep. Have a great day, I will pick up where I left later. I enjoyed so far though. Good thoughts to sleep on.

EDIT TO SAY: Yes, it should be known by the offender IF they offended someone, for the simple reason that they may not have intended it to be that way, and deserve the opportunity to say that they are sorry or to clarify.



[edit on 17-4-2010 by broahes]

reply to post by broahes


alright, but I'm 3 hours behind you and need some sleep too
one reason would be so that the offender "learns a lesson in cultural differences" or the offender may realize the "practice" of offending has no value, and thus should use other means of making a point.
There are of course reasons they shouldn't know as it may be irrelevant.

My right to say how I feel about something so long as what I say does not break any law totally overrides the right of anyone who happens to hear me and be offended.

I am offended on a daily basis by the ignorant statements I hear by lots of people on radio and television, in print and in person. They have a right to say what the want, I have a right to think them fools and be offended, but my pain at being offended does not extend to stopping them from saying what they please.

Those who take offense and then attempt by force to stop that "speech" that offends them are thin skinned, knuckle dragging, idiots who have no respect for freedom. They know exactly who they are and while some may bow to their wishes they will find that the great majority have a line in the sand that once crossed will cause all hell to break loose.

reply to post by juveous


thinking to justify something is meaning its true reality so the way to avoid its happening therefor justifications are always meaning the truth too bases of reference ways of living

now offense what is it to truth, truth is absolute positive constant objective way so never rigid thing inerty while always there positive existing
where the source of its initiations and the results are always same positive one

what is offense to that spiritual present as truth, it would look to offense as negative thing when thing is always negative to truth since rigid objective that cannot exist because objective is principally void certainty and truth realisations of itself absolute positive life means

im trying to come from behind because you didnt say any true justification to the matter even that dawkins didnt justify his examples


things in truth are concepts because then not things rigidity are what exist only the source of concept exist, and associations are easier since of the same nature then the source of it always same one positive existence above and beyond nothing so definitely positive reality abstractly all it has to do is the proof if it must or it comes

so concepts as true things are free nature above the concept of nothing as positive alone, that can then always be the source of selves constant realities as positive whatever the objective reality they are inn they would know how to be above it positive alone through a realisation of self reality with absolutely positive that dont affect any compound of it

this is the particularity of positive truth, meaning being positive is meaning being above so it can not touch what is a dimension down, nature means that but she is evil in meaning profiting from that knowledge and not being its profits truly

so how something is positive above nothing, god as you know reject that possibility and that is why for god all is of nothing as nothing is the superior absolute source, so to god only opposites origin that nothing resolve are the source of things positive existence and life

we are saying no to god, under nothing there is nothing nothing is never an issue to anything or anyone, the only issue that there is is the issue of absolute positive things existence of truth certainty sources realisations

nothing as constant became positive concept of certainty concept too, here where some concepts rised from the certainty of concept certainty life as in freedom space always, that allow to somethings rise saying o it is true until it becomes truth concept

so how a concept become true positive fact existing alone beyond nothing certainty life,

the source and the end must be superior to nothing and also as one positive same result

now how source can be superior to nothing as source too of free certainty concept

here is the hick, by taking nothing as the least base certainty and considering it fully the base ground end so you would observe in nothing the results, there are a lot of point to say there but it is easy because it is of the same logic trend and brand

so that is how the positive must be absolute source of itself and nothing else then any concept that is absolute source of itself and nothing else exist as positive reference to truth life existing one

when the realisation of self concept is within nothing void and not touching any particularity of void compound it is then absolutely positive existing beyond nothing source one

how that logics apply its reality concretly

it is related to the concept of absolute which is positive certainty life floating above nothing meaning its ground superiority life

nothing is positive ground because of its superior ultimate level, it is a concept of freedom certainty source of concepts freedom too

so it has the character of source so positive absolutely at its uppest levels

now when one of those concepts become the source of absolute concept reality base freedom, it becomes the source of positive truth that is not anymore a concept living but a result of source and end as a fact existing absolutely

and this is the issue, when truth became a fact existing absolutely then we had a problem with nothing as a whole existing too especially at its sources of concept existing, the source of nothing concept is surely negative denial so it has negative inn
and even the uppest reality of nothing concept showed not being very excited of sharing its reality with truth reality absolute positive one
it want truth perspective as abstract source to its grounds not becoming true source as nothing too denying its character of nothing from recognizing and considering superior character one

so we have a problem and this is the real problem only

and for truth i guess it is very important that issue because it becomes absolutely real and it must then resolve a lot of sources concepts life through realisations absolutely of it on nothing ground, nothing must die and prepare to die for considering truth objectively

truth mean itself only because she is truth from else as certainty free fact and for else as absolute objective realisations positive free living

and itself realisation as a living is only positive by meaning that

if you love certainty source you cant be loving yourself when you are not certainty source especially when love mean realising from that certainty source something else that certainty source dont realize and it is never yourself either at all, it is just that you are positive to realize that possibility completely objective perfection that you are never bored to do
and the positive else you realize of what you are positive about to realize also else, is a real source of so many subjects concepts livings meaning to profit from that source to invent an objective existence to themselves from that positive direct grasps

all the problems started from what the nothing concept living decided to translate truth life existence objectively, meaning maybe the way to submit to truth life itself, but it is horrible all the mess in source of means and the realities of that individual means
especially when true different ones suffer and shout

so you see how offense mean what is down ruling up

when something cannot be positively true as absolute reality source of himself objective present positive in reference to objective present reality, it is not an offense if it means being true then it could perceive something else true and applause it, so there is no problem when you mean truth you mean anything always there, and the fact that you are not absolutely true cannot be a problem if you are not really that by itself

considering what is above you absolutely is considering truth and taht fact everyone should admit it, the inferiority by comparaison to truth life is the state that any awareness from god should be

god should admit that he cannot be an absolute source of himself reality as positive free absolutely above nothing like truth and did and is the absolute reason source of what he did realize

truth itself became subject when truth did realize that its sources superiority mean a lot to itself, from what it did fully realize alone to judge its care means

you must accept that you are less then what is more, truth itself that is its source that realisations

that is the secret of absolute things, the result is one from waht the less mean the most then it is in a way above the most and the most mean itself under the less to justify less being of truth, so it becomes more of what is objectively so one too out realizing positive means certainty

so it is always concept source objective realisations

and the subject is always itself source free move

and since the subject is itself free move

then it never is objective and since subject is never objective then we cannot see the moves, so all the moves you see as objective are wrong and lies

that is how dimension of truth is positive not death or nothing, it is really a self reality your opinion truly about your situation fully

like we said, objects are concepts realisations now when those concepts positive reality become aware of themselves as positive existing entity they become subject living free
that is the story of truth im sure

so dawkins unconsciently surely dont want to be true that is why he is intelligent but mean to not justify any example he gives

love is only to what is better then you absolutely meaning that what is better is always a source inspiring you to be better free living as a certainty fact from certainty source spaces of life

gods created the notion of love that is all lies and evil source

it is like they wanted that sense of loving what they realize that truth got but independant of truth life as meaning they could get from truth and get from realisation so become an objective subject result absolutely one alone, they marked their spaces alone preparing that outcome
they are so vicious pervert animals
they dont have any class of any move
because they never mean abstraction of concepts positive existence they always mean to possess concepts realisations so they are always realistor as one dimension direct class

maybe because they mean to stay close to nothing their nature that dont want to move like truth to possible superior positive realistions, so they mean the less dimension in truth acts to do as subjects, but i think it is justifications they hold but in truth they are really meaning to not consider truth at all and here the variety of why is their true justifications

why one cannot consider what is superior positive, because he wants to be considered? because he is lazy he doesnt want to think above him? because he is fed up with nothing and very positive by claiming being a source alone from whatever he profit from>? because he is from negative base compound of nothing as subject and enjoy to be above positive and put it down? im sure i can find a lot more subjects that are all alive as concept r ealisations from god which one is the ultimate god the most, one of them for sure from being it all

dont like the truth that is the point concpt

so gods enjoyed saying being the truth and compensating what they dont do for truth by concepts they do that would give them what they could gave to truth

they are really pervert it is like for them they give to truth by lies, as if it is possible to do it that way, because they are doing only the sense they are of being true and dont care about objective truth nor subject truth one

so they are pleasing themselves of being true a bit relatively but also by being opposed to truth so happy to get its attention to themselves realisatiosn

im sure the duality character origin is that

being true and hating truth pleasure, noone can escape being relatively of truth objectively but as a subject what he really likes to do and to consider above positive it is different story

then offending peoples beliefs is right when those people are meaning powers to kill right source, which is positive concept justification as the source of any objective reality or realisations

who mean destructions or prisons loudly is clearly saying taht positive absolute concept is not the only justification of loud expressions creations means

and any true living subject would immediately sense the inferiority meaning his head to profit from and control while dreaming about killing him after all tortures of abuse

reply to post by juveous


Great question.

As i have gotten older, I really don't care if I offend someone else. America is the only country in the world that does the silly crap we do. We try to incorporate every culture and language into public policy, while allowing every one to just ignore or trample traditional beliefs, fully established, that founded our land.

Try ignoring borders with any other country and then, have parades of fellow illegal immigrants that a) protesting over conditions or lack of rights within your new country, b) celebrating a holiday that only your illegal group celebrates and has no meaning in our country.

The younger generations of American's have been taught that allowing this is perfectly normal not realizing that there has been a social experiment going on to puss*fy them into acceptance.

Any public person that tells the truth about perceived racial/cultural incidents is asking for boycotts, a visit from any number of groups who's only recourse for an apology involves a checkbook, or public humiliation resulting in a public firing. There is no up side, for speaking anything but lies or covering up the incident, by telling the truth. You see this daily on national and local news. Any caucasian criminal performs a hate crime if it involves any minority. There are very few hate crimes in charges to minorities involving crimes against caucasians. Don't confuse police abuse in these cases which always involves police beating a minority. This is just criminal behavior by police on a suspect of a different crime.

As for religious tolerance, I have no problems with everyone else being a heathen.

sorry for being off topic here, just a point to add

sao truth is the positive result between subjective and objective reality of subject true living

you see how subject true justify truth being objective as the result when subject true is always the source

but of course all those characters are done absolutely as one same source truth, and each true living means should operate same mode but relatively by realizing objective reality as himself reality in reference with positive objective reality life but from his subjective positive means

and the result of his means about being positive state certainty and positive realisation reality sense of that means in objective reality, is objective true being he is as existing self conscious one right

but to him he is the state positive certainty he wants always and only him knows it and those means doing from