Little b45t4rd5 on e-scooters...

[Fergie 307]

Too many crazy goings on in our modern world, but there are still some absolute truths.

One being that you can't offend someone who doesn't want to be offended.

Unfortunately there's a lot of people actively seeking something, anything to be offended about.

Well said. I was always brought up to treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself, with courtesy and respect. You can't go far wrong if you stick to that principle. If you inadvertently address someone in a way they would rather you didn't, then they can politely ask you to address them differently in future. No harm done. I think you are right that there do seem to be some people who actively seek to be offended, often in behalf of other people.

 

[Fergie 307]

People in glass houses and all that…

I experience a lot more anti social behaviour from dog owners in my area than I do from kids on electric scooters. They aren’t doing anything that we didn’t do as kids on our bikes and are just learning to be in the world.
Dogs on the other hand don’t contribute anything to society as far as I can see’ other than the few working dogs. They consume resources, they should be eating meat which has a large impact environmentally and if they aren’t you are doing them a disservice. They contribute to waste production, what’s with the little bags of poop tied to hedgerows along all the foot paths.
Maybe to release the burden of increasing fuel prices we should stick a large tax on dog ownership. Just a thought.

As a dog owner myself I share your distaste for people who pick it up but then the it to a tree or whatever, disgusting. As to scooters I can see your point, the difference is that I can certainly recall being taken to task by a lady for riding my bike on the pavement as a kid. I stood there and took it, head down and probably very red in the face. Nowadays I suspect the response from many kids would be to simply laugh at her, or subject her to a torrent of abuse.

 

[Fergie 307]

Absolute truths? Or evidence-free assertions?


Of course you can. If you use, for example, vile, personal abuse to someone's face, or make disgusting assertions about the morals of his wife and daughters, do you seriously think that anybody would accept your assertion that that person would need to want to be offended in order to be so?


Can you define "a lot"? Either in absolute numbers, or relative ones? Are there any respected survey(s) which you are relying on?

In the second example you can of course simply pity them for their bad manners, and treat their comments with the contempt they deserve.

 

[morqthana]

Well said.

Really?

You actually think that there can't be any scenarios where someone is offended unless they want to be?

I was always brought up to treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself, with courtesy and respect. You can't go far wrong if you stick to that principle. If you inadvertently address someone in a way they would rather you didn't, then they can politely ask you to address them differently in future. No harm done.

That seems a perfectly reasonable, and cost-free, way to organise things. With the disclaimer that I am finding it hard to make sense of all his seemingly random disconnected thories, it looks as though Spectric thinks that a principle like that leads to mental health problems and idiots running riot on scooters.

As I say, I might be mistaken about that, but we do need him to come up with a coherent explanation for his views and how they are connected.

I think you are right that there do seem to be some people who actively seek to be offended, often in behalf of other people.

I can only ask you you the same question, then - how many is "some"? Are there any surveys you have seen?

 

[morqthana]

In the second example you can of course simply pity them for their bad manners, and treat their comments with the contempt they deserve.

So you genuinely believe that if someone doesn't do that then it's because of a deliberate choice to be offended, and that no natural reactions are involved?

 

[Fergie 307]

No, I just find it a useful approach in relation to many of your posts.

 

[Spectric]

You were the one who started this - it isn't right for you, or anybody else, to start accusing me of trolling

Hands up who has accused morgana of trolling, maybe she just wants some love !

Have just found the culprit, but Mr pascoe does have a point and if the hat fits !!!

 

[Spectric]

You actually think that there can't be any scenarios where someone is offended unless they want to be?

What may offend one person may just be like water off a ducks back to someone else, it all depends how receptive to being offended they are or maybe it is something they switch on / off to suit their needs. I would say that you are probably young, too young to have lived the seventies or eighties so do not really know what offence really is. They were when anything went and people said what they thought, maybe someone got offended but once the spat was over it was shake hands and back to normal, all forgotten with unlike today where it is almost like a badge of honor to be offended and complain to anyone who will listen.

 

[Echo-Star]

Personaly, I am sick to the back teeth about the elder folk in this contry knocking the young. It'll be the young that keep you lot in the triple lock pension that you people get. You old folk do not keep the young, there fathers do. If you coffin dodgers could turn back the clock 50 years, then I'm sure that you would be doing the same thing that these children do these days.

 

[John Brown]

Sadly, the current government reneged on the triple lock pension.
On the other hand, it's impossible to spend the £750 a month I get, so I just draw it all out in cash and roll about in it.

You are correct, of course. It is the young who fund my pension, but that's not really my fault. I don't think that was the original plan - some sort of government run Ponzi scheme - but a succession of Maxwellian administrations have made that the reality. I agree with most of your post, but don't tar all of us coffin dodgers with the same brush, please.

 

[Daniel2]

 

[artie]

Absolute truths? Or evidence-free assertions?

Pass

Of course you can. If you use, for example, vile, personal abuse to someone's face, or make disgusting assertions about the morals of his wife and daughters, do you seriously think that anybody would accept your assertion that that person would need to want to be offended in order to be so?

You've obviously never worked on a building site.

Can you define "a lot"? Either in absolute numbers, or relative ones? Are there any respected survey(s) which you are relying on?

Yes a lot is a number greater than one.
You can have small lots or lots of any number you choose.

 

[John Brown]

Pass

You've obviously never worked on a building site.


Yes a lot is a number greater than one.
You can have small lots or lots of any number you choose.

No way! Greater than one, up to and including five is a few. Then it's several, up to twelve. Over twelve it's many, and over twenty four it's a lot.
After that it's countless, or innumerable, if you're posh.

 

[John Brown]

You are correct. Sorry. (Whoever it was, they were right, though.)

You might think they were right, but then you thought it was Truman.

 

[Spectric]

You've obviously never worked on a building site.

There is a big difference between banter in the workplace and offending someone, if all the participants are on the same wavelength then it is just TTP or having a laugh, no one gets offended because they know it is just what it is.

 

[artie]

if all the participants are on the same wavelength

Exactly

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You are correct, of course. It is the young who fund my pension, but that's not really my fault. I don't think that was the original plan - some sort of government run Ponzi scheme ...

It has been since 1908. We spent out working lives taxed to pay other people's pensions.

 

[morqthana]

No, I just find it a useful approach in relation to many of your posts.

"No".

So you don't genuinely believe that if someone doesn't brush off an insult it's because they've made a deliberate choice to be offended?

Why did you agree with artie then? Surely you didn't write something you didn't sincerely believe in order to cause an argument?

 

[morqthana]

Have just found the culprit, but Mr pascoe does have a point and if the hat fits !!!

His point seems to be that nobody could possibly really be in disagreement with him, and that therefore anyone who expresses disagreement must be insincere and doing it simply to cause conflict.

 

[John Brown]

It has been since 1908. We spent out working lives taxed to pay other people's pensions.

Ok, I stand corrected.
I should have given it a moment's thought, and I would have realised that those first recipients wouldn't have been able to fund their own pensions without a time machine. Lucky beggars.