So the Georgia women’s beach volleyball team beat the Russian women’s beach volleyball team. And all i could think was, wouldn’t it have been interesting if the leaders of the respective countries (whose names I’m too lazy to spell) had staked the resolution of their disputes on the outcome.
In fact, even better: rather than rolling in tanks and blowing up terrified citizens, have the Russian and Georgia presidents square off in the wrestling ring. Settle this BS like men.
PAD
• 
El hombre Malo,
Do you know what’s the origin of the Spanish phrase you mentioned earlier? How old is it?
What phrase? “Me Cago en Dios”? I dont know the origin but I just asked an expert (that happens to be dining at home) and mentions it beign used by Quevedo in the XVI century and that it was common among soldiers.
One possible origing beign them were frequently told to combat here or there for the glory of God… so they said “me cago en Dios”. A milder common expression nowadays is “me cago en diez” (I šhìŧ on ten), a way to almost say the stronger thing. Sort of people saying “What the F” in english.
Luigi, reading your post I can only conclude that you either didn’t read my posts, or that I haven’t been clear enough, since your reply has nothing to do with what I said.
You claim I said: “that no other possible intentions exist?” [other than giving offence].
While I was specifically talking about situations in which other possible intentions [artistic, political] motivate people to disregard the fact that they might offend someone. Not only that, I never attempted to attribute malicious motives. I specifically chose an example — the gay pride parade — which most of us would agree is worth doing despite the fact that it does offend people, because its other intentions outweigh the undeniable fact that it offends some people.
The Kevin Smith case proves my point. Smith chose to make a movie that some saw as offensive because he thought it was worth it: for the sake of audiences who were likely to enjoy it, for his own artistic reasons, because he wanted to say something about religion. I have no problem with his choice, but let’s not deny that he made a choice here. The fact that he had, in your words “other, completely separate motives apart from” offending, does not change the fact that he knowingly made a choice. He made a moral choice — which is what makes all this discussion worth while. Because morality is choosing.
Thanks El Hombre Malo. I was hoping it was something like that. That the expression reflects blasphemy in religious medieval and early modern society.
It’s more romantic than the other possibility I considered; that it originated in later anti-religious sentiments in Spain in the 19th or 20th centuries.
now the Argentinian women’s soccer team is catching some flack for the same thing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2581173/Beijing-Olympics-Now-Argentinas-footballers-photographed-making-slit-eyed-gesture.html
The Chinese team beat them though so I guess we know who had the last laugh.
The eyelid-pulling was referring to ethnicity, not nationality. There is clothing they could have worn if they wanted to refer to the Chinese nation.
[Me]
[EhM]
Nothing I’ve said depends on the English-speaking media representing anyone other than the English-speaking media.
Well Mike, then explain to me what your problem is, but know that in three hours I am leaving for London (to see Avenue Q , I couldnt see it when I was in NY) so I might ease your anxiety about why spaniards laugh.
Luigi: Regarding K.Smith’s Dogma….
You are right in that a fine dinstinction is needed here. When I say that anything done with the knowledge it will offend some people is offensive, Most of the offense comes not from the act itself but by the conscious disregard for those people’s values/feelings. Smith’s do aknowledge the possible offended to state the humorous nature of his work. There is a legal figure in Spanish law called “Animus jocandi” (I dont know if its present in american law) that makes anything said or written in a humorous context non relevant for legal considerations. This has permeated society… comedy is assumed to be fair ground for satire and criticism of stablished notions and figures. Its part of civic discourse as long as one doesnt take it too far, and its is considered rude or un-sofisticated to be overzealous in the pursue of perceived offenses when an animus jocandi is present. Of course, where is the line? thats a matter to write entire books about.
So Smith walks a fine line, but there is another factor included. Smith has been raised catholic himself. So the Dogma and religious figures he do comedy about are part of his context too. It’s part of his upbringing and vital experience, and so, as an artist, he is entitled to explore them as much as Salman Rushdie is to explore Islam. If a Japanese budist would do a satyrical work on Catholic dogma and myth, there would be a greater room to suspect offensive intentions (of course, those suspicions could be wrong).
So the ones who felt offended by Smith’s film were actualoly denying him the right to talk about something that is as his as is theirs. They were the ones actually disrespecting Smith and also uncivic in their overzealous offended complains.
[EhM]
[Me]
[EhM]
[Me]
[EhM]
[Me]
[EhM]
[Me]
[EhM]
I am responding to the shortcomings of your thinking. By the standards of debate as its known to western civilization, you demonstrating you’re reading my posts and not invalidating what I say confirms the integrity of my responses.
Your responses, where not beign mere sofism, where mostly based in an apriorism I dont accept: that the gesture is racist per se. I have given a reasoning behind my aseveration that in the spanish context it is not. For many of your responses to actually awnser my thesis, you need to validate in some manner the notion that there is an universal and quintaessential racist undertone in the gesture.
You say “Why do you allow an audience a say in what’s beautiful, but deny them a say in what’s offensive?”
Well, Gombrich would dissent, but many say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. If we allow, in a civic structure, for offense to be the same, wecant control the meaning in our communication, since we give preeminence to interpretation over intent. And interpretation has a great deal of importance, but civilized behavior requires that we take into consideration meaning. If interpretation and meaning are too apart from each other, we call that a misunderstanding. And to be offended by a missunderstanding once explained is stupid.
“So patriotism is demonstrated in Spain by the pulling of eyelids? The pulling of eyelids has a general meaning in Spain that doesn’t refer to Asians?”
No, that notion was not even suggested. I just compared two incidents because the difference in media coverage was incunvent to the matter discussed….
…and I have to cut it here because the taxi is downstairs. Have a good three days without me around here.
You’re a hypocrite. You give yourself the slack to constantly change the standards you’re holding the protesters to, then turn around and accuse others of sophistry. If you didn’t sign-off as an hombre, no one would otherwise refer to you as one, because of the irresponsibility you demonstrate in your behavior.
Micha: While I was specifically talking about situations in which other possible intentions [artistic, political] motivate people to disregard the fact that they might offend someone. Not only that, I never attempted to attribute malicious motives.
Luigi Novi: You’re splitting hairs now. You made a point about people deliberately intending to offend, is what I was referring to when I spoke of “malice”. If you don’t think those terms are close enough in terms of connotation, we can agree to use other ones, but that’s beside the point.
Micha: I specifically chose an example — the gay pride parade — which most of us would agree is worth doing despite the fact that it does offend people, because its other intentions outweigh the undeniable fact that it offends some people.
Luigi Novi: You’re evading the point. I am not talking about whether it is “worth” doing. I am talking about your earlier contention that the mere knowledge that it will offend constitutes an intent to do so. So one more time I ask you: Do the marchers in such parades, knowing that some are offended by homosexuality and gay parades, intending to offend those who are offended? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then I disagree because of the reasoning I offered above. If the answer is “no”, then you agree with my position that the assertion you and El Hombre made is false.
Micha: The Kevin Smith case proves my point. Smith chose to make a movie that some saw as offensive because he thought it was worth it: for the sake of audiences who were likely to enjoy it, for his own artistic reasons, because he wanted to say something about religion. I have no problem with his choice, but let’s not deny that he made a choice here. The fact that he had, in your words “other, completely separate motives apart from” offending, does not change the fact that he knowingly made a choice. He made a moral choice — which is what makes all this discussion worth while. Because morality is choosing.
Luigi Novi: Again, you are evading the point, and are now attempting to blur the edges of the idea we were talking about (whether anyone who does something they know will offend intends to offend), and implying that we are instead talking about something else entirely (whether Kevin Smith “made a choice”), when that something else is not something that the three of us ever disputed.
I wonder if this may be because on some level, you began to realize, once I used the Dogma example, that your theory is wrong. Why else would keep retreating from the point over and over when you ask you point blank about it?
I’ll ask you one more time:
Is it or is not possible that Kevin Smith made a film that he knew would offend some people without that being his intention when making it? If you agree that yes, he could’ve had other motives, does this not disprove your and El Hombre’s theory that anyone who does something that they know will offend, is doing so with the deliberate intention to offend?
It’s a simple question. I’m just asking for an answer.
El Hombre Malo: You are right in that a fine dinstinction is needed here. When I say that anything done with the knowledge it will offend some people is offensive, Most of the offense comes not from the act itself but by the conscious disregard for those people’s values/feelings. Smith’s do aknowledge the possible offended to state the humorous nature of his work.
Luigi Novi: When you say a distinction is needed, I’m not sure what you mean. You say that the humorous nature of Smith’s work should be taken into account. To that I would point out two things:
First, does this mean that you acknowledge that your earlier assertion that anyone who does something they know will offend is intentionally doing so?
Second, whether the act in question is intended as humor bears no relevance to the basis of my counter your assertion. Either you acknowledge that it is possible for a person to engage in an act they know will offend without that being their intention in doing so, or you do not. Whether the act is humorous does not have anything to do with the nature of intent. The work used as the example can just as easily be the 1994 movie Priest, the “Sensation” art exhibit, or any of the other examples I mentioned in my August 15, 1:26am post. You yourself mentioned Salman Rushdie’s ”The Satanic Verses” It seems to me that if you name these or other examples in order to exempt them for your principle, without presenting a valid criterion for which they should be, then you are just exempting works that you happen to like personally, and therefore, your earlier statement about people’s intents was more a personal judgment on the acts you do not like, rather than a consistent observation about human behavior.
The point remains the same: A person can do something for reasons other than intentionally offending others, even if he/she knows that offense taken by some people is one of the unfortunate by-products of that act that he simply cannot help. Do you agree? If so, would this serve to disprove the notion that anyone who does something that they know will offend had that in mind as a deliberate motive?
Luigi, you’re sucking all the air out of the room. To quote Shakespeare, “Brevity is the soul of wit.”
Micha: “If you decided to do something that you knew would offend the Taliban then you were intending to offend the Taliban.”
Not necessarily. I might consider the offense an unintended but unavoidable consequence.
Micha: “In this case we would say that their primary intention was not to offend, but that they chose to do it despite being aware that others might be offended.”
Precisely. I suspect many homosexuals “come out” not for the sake of offending anyone, but because the cost of hiding their sexual identity is too high.
Micha: “But I do think a person who offend in this way should own up to the conscious choice to offend.”
In some cases that places an undue burden on the offender. If I call someone an “áššhølë,” I’m deliberately doing something offensive and should be prepared for the consequences. But a homosexual who “comes out” shouldn’t have to bear responsibility for the bigotry of others.
Luigi, I’m not evading the point, you’re missing it. Maybe it’s my fault for not explaning myself well enough, but I won’t belabor it any further.
Micha: “If you decided to do something that you knew would offend the Taliban then you were intending to offend the Taliban.”
Bill: “Not necessarily. I might consider the offense an unintended but unavoidable consequence.”
This is exactly the point I’ve been failing to make clear to Luigi and I guess to you too. Obviously the offence is avoidable, simply by not violating Taliban law; not holding the gay pride parade in Jerusalem where it annoys the hëll out of three religions; not coming out because it might offend some conservative relative. But we still choose to do it (or support those who do), because that choise seems to us right despite these people being offended.
Bill: “In some cases that places an undue burden on the offender. If I call someone an “áššhølë,” I’m deliberately doing something offensive and should be prepared for the consequences. But a homosexual who “comes out” shouldn’t have to bear responsibility for the bigotry of others.”
Maybe he shouldn’t, but the bigotry exists, and taking it into consideration is a responsibility, fair or not. That’s what makes coming out such a difficult choice — one worthy of respect.
Look, this is the point. As humans we do acts that people will say offend them. We have to make the choice whether to do it or not based on different considerations. Navigating between these choices is the moral work we have to face.
Micha: “Maybe he shouldn’t, but the bigotry exists, and taking it into consideration is a responsibility, fair or not.”
I think “responsibility” is the wrong word. In the case of confronting bigotry, to say that taking it into consideration is an “unavoidable burden” would be more accurate.
Taking offense is as much a choice as is giving it. Emotions like anger are spontaneous, but as humans we can choose whether to act on them. Bigots are “responsible” for their bigotry, and no one else.
You have, however, indicated you are weary of this discussion so I’ll let my case rest at that.
>Muslims who insist that their prophet must never be visually depicted
As Douglas Adams might have put it, if it is forbidden to depict him visually, then how does anyone know what he looks like to be able to depict him visually?
Georgia vs Russia is step one.
Anyone here read the bit about Russia then going on to state it would consider the use of nuclear weapons on Poland if that country installed the American’s missile defense system? Are they crazy enough to do that? Here’s hoping we never have to find out.
Micha: “Maybe he shouldn’t, but the bigotry exists, and taking it into consideration is a responsibility, fair or not.”
Bill: “I think “responsibility” is the wrong word. In the case of confronting bigotry, to say that taking it into consideration is an “unavoidable burden” would be more accurate.”
I don’t think we should fear the word responsibility in this case. We are too quick to think of responsibility as meaning guilt — if you are responsible than you must be condemned. Responsible also means facing a difficult burden in an admireable way.
Bill: “Taking offense is as much a choice as is giving it. Emotions like anger are spontaneous, but as humans we can choose whether to act on them. Bigots are “responsible” for their bigotry, and no one else.”
I have no argument with that. But we live in a world in which each person must make his own choices without having control of how others behave or think. That’s a difficult responsibility we are burdened with. In the case of homosexuality the bigots are condemned for not taking the responsiblity over their bigotry, while the homosexuals are admired for shouldering the responsibility of facing a world in which bigotry exists.
It would have been easier if there was a giant kindergarden tacher who would tell the bigots: “knock it off, you are being unfair,’ and would give permission to homosexuals (or other groups) to do what they want because this is what’s fair. But in this world the responsibility falls on us. The world is not about fair or not fair, or about guilt and condemnation, its about the responsibility of making choices.
Bill: “You have, however, indicated you are weary of this discussion so I’ll let my case rest at that.”
Because I felt I was failing to convey my point successfully. Am I doing any better?
Micha: Luigi, I’m not evading the point, you’re missing it. Maybe it’s my fault for not explaning myself well enough, but I won’t belabor it any further.
Luigi Novi: It’s your fault for not answering a simple, direct question directly, and for doing this repeatedly, after I repeatedly put the question to you, because it’s clear that you know your earlier statement was wrong, and for some bizarre reason, you don’t want to admit it. This is disappointing, because I never got the sense from you in the time I’ve known you here that you were the type of person who couldn’t do this, even on minor points.
I’m not “missing” anything, as the point of our exchange has been rather clear: You and El Hombre asserted that anyone who does something that they know will offend someone is deliberately intending to offend. I disagreed, explained why I disagreed, gave examples of scenarios that I felt illustrated this point clearly, and asked you point-blank as to your opinion on this. Rather than answer, you instead tried to backtrack, insisting on talking about things that were not part of the point I disputed, and even attributed ideas to me that I never claimed, because, I think, you realized that you were inclined to agree that the hypothetical scenarios I brought up disproved the idea in question. If this is not true, then why not simply answer the question? Why have you repeatedly refused to do so? Why are you now resorting to accusing me of failing to comprehend? You don’t think this just a tad dishonest? How can you fail to answer a simple yes-no question, and then lament that you’re “at fault” for not explaining yourself?
Once more:
Is it still your contention that anyone who does something that they know will offend someone is intending to offend? Yes or no?
What’s the difference?
If Jackie Robinson knew he would pìšš øff half of white America by playing in MLB, what difference would make it to his standing in History whether his account was that he was trying to hit baseballs to further the progress of his ethnicity, or that he saw white faces on the baseballs he swung at?
Joseph Campbell is credited with saying every act of creation is an act of destruction. Every new paradigm establishes itself by rendering an existing paradigm obsolete. All progress is inherently adversarial. Life is nourished by the destruction of life.
The view most detached from reality is that you never offend anyone. In the current direction of the thread, is anyone even arguing it’s possible to attain this unreal purity?
Mike – “The view most detached from reality is that you never offend anyone. In the current direction of the thread, is anyone even arguing it’s possible to attain this unreal purity?”
Even Lucy van Pelt knew better. In an early PEANUTS she commented that she’d striven to avoid ever offending anyone … until she realized it had gotten to the point where it was keeping her from getting anything done.
Micha, yes, your thoughts are more clear now and you make an interesting point. There are times when we decide to do that which is offensive to others because we believe there is a moral imperative to do so. Our purpose may not be to give offense, but we do so consciously nevertheless.
Unfortunately there’s no precise formula for where to draw the line. We try to take intent into consideration, but it is difficult at times to discern intent; not everyone is honest, and inferring intent from actions is an imprecise art. We also try to take into account how justified someone is in feeling offended, but there is no objective yardstick.
It is so difficult to discuss that I find I can only articulate my own views through example. Don Imus was wrong to slur the Rutgers women’s basketball team last year because the remark was unquestionably cruel, and part of a pattern of racist remarks. Spain’s Olympic basketball team does not, to the best of my knowledge, have a similar history and therefore I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. When homosexuals have a “gay pride” parade I laud them because those who take offense are bigots.
One could take these broad examples, however, and come up with all sorts of scenarios that would change the equation in such a way as to warrant further thought. But I’ve run out of time and so I’ll simply say — thanks for the food for thought, Micha.
Although this conversation has throughly offended me. 😛
Luigi Novi asked: “Is it still your contention that anyone who does something that they know will offend someone is intending to offend? Yes or no?”
I’ll answer this.
In most cases, yes.
The only time I see someone not trying to be offensive is when they are trying to impress people that they think are like-minded, i.e. bigot to bigot.
Micha: “It would have been easier if there was a giant kindergarden teacher…”
I could see a movie in that.
“The eyelid-pulling was referring to ethnicity, not nationality. There is clothing they could have worn if they wanted to refer to the Chinese nation.”
Was that included in the text of the ad? I don’t read Spanish, so I wouldn’t know. But far as the stories I can read go into, there’s not been a statement made whether the add was intended to refer to Chinese nationality or Chinese ethnicity.
Nor do I think it matters. If any individual, whether of Chinese descent or not, wants to take offense at the add, that’s up to them. But so far as the actual Chinese government has acted, and they do speak for the Chinese nation, the add was not offensive. It’s only an issue because other people are sensitive insults.
But I guess the adage of Stick and Stones and Names is lost on people. When there’s all three, there’s a problem. When there’s just stick or stones, or both, there’s a problem.
But when it’s just names? Get a thicker skin.
Has anyone contradicted this that you feel the need to reiterate it? You quoted me. Have I said something that this somehow corrects?
Luigi Novi,
It is regretable. Less because you don’t understand my point; more because you don’t seem to be interested in understanding what I am trying to say as much as winning an argument constrained by a very tight straightjacket; mostly because you view this interaction in such belligerent terms.
I didn’t expect that from you. I answered the questions, and I’ve specifically addressed the distinction that matters to you already two days ago. You’re just not interested in what I’ve said so long as it doesn’t fit your myopic view of the issue. In any case, our discussion is over.
————–
Bill, you got the point I was trying to make.
“Micha: “It would have been easier if there was a giant kindergarden teacher…”
Bill: “I could see a movie in that.”
Micha; We’re considering Mat Damon for the lead 😉
—————–
Posted by: Mike at August 19, 2008 08:45 AM
“What’s the difference?
If Jackie Robinson knew he would pìšš øff half of white America by playing in MLB, what difference would make it to his standing in History whether his account was that he was trying to hit baseballs to further the progress of his ethnicity, or that he saw white faces on the baseballs he swung at?”
If Jackie Robinson’s actions were motivated by hatred toward whites, it would probably diminish his historical image. What makes his acheivement noteworthy is that he was willing to face offended whites in the ball field in order to challenge the idea that blacks playing Baseball with whites is offensive. If he found whites in general offensive that would diminish his stance.
“The view most detached from reality is that you never offend anyone.”
True.
Alan Coil: In most cases, yes. The only time I see someone not trying to be offensive is when they are trying to impress people that they think are like-minded, i.e. bigot to bigot.
Luigi Novi: Yes, that’s another good example that proves my point. But how have you determined that “most” of the time the opposite is true?
Micha: Luigi Novi, It is regretable. Less because you don’t understand my point; more because you don’t seem to be interested in understanding what I am trying to say…
Luigi Novi: That is not an accurate description of our exchanges, and you have not answered my question, and you know it. All you’ve done is attempt to change the subject by speaking about things that I was not talking about.
The substance our exchanges has been clear:
You said that anyone who does something that they know will offend is deliberately intending to offend.
I argued that this was not true, and provided reasoning and examples to illustrate this.
I then asked if you the reasoning/examples I offered proved this point.
You refused to answer, repeatedly.
You never answered, and are now trying to portray me as exhibiting some type of cognitive failure, in order to cover up your continued refusal to answer.
If this is not true, then why not just answer the question I asked you? If I’m wrong, and you did answer this, then why not point me in the direction of the post and passage where you did this?
One more time:
Do you continue to assert that anyone who does something they know will offend is deliberately intending to offend? Yes or no? Don’t give me euphemistic answers or assertions that you’ve “already” answered the question. Just answer it.
Micha did crap like that to me. He’d claim he’d answered a question without specifying where I could find it. Couldn’t quote it or anything; he’d take credit for its existence while insisting you look for it. Apparently he’s developed a taste for establishing a record with others for this behavior.
I was considering that Jackie Robinson may have seen white faces in the baseballs he was swinging at. I wouldn’t characterize that in terms as broad as “hating whites.”
I don’t think he was privileged enough to think he could convince the whites offended by his playing MLB they weren’t really offended by it. Convincing others they weren’t offended by what they claimed offended them seems to be an agenda only someone insulated in privilege would consider doable.
Micha—
Don’t bother responding any more on this thread. Luigi has gone all Mike.
Luigi, why is it difficult foryou to understand something it took Bill two posts to understand?
You’ve reached a Mike-ish level of obtuseness. Even he thinks so.
Again.
1) I recognized the distinction between a person whose purpose is to offend, and one who knowingly offends but with a differen purpose in mind, back on Sunday, in my second post in reply to your initial statement. At the end this is the only thing that matters to you, so you can take that recognision and go away.
2) The point I was trying to make in the first and 2nd and every other post since is that in both cases a person who offends, knowing that he will offend, is making a moral choice to offend. He’s not accidently offending, or unavoidably, or out of ignorance. He makes a choice that it is more important to do what he wants to do than not to offend.
3) The rest is semantics. Is ‘intending’ to offend only when you act for the deliberate purpose of offending? Or is ‘intending’ to offend whenever you make the choice to offend even if you have another purpose in mind?
This semantics is not that important to the point I was trying to make. But since it is very important to your need to win this argument, you can pick the first option and say that ‘intending’ only refers to an act whose actual purpose is offence. Then you can have a little celebration, because according to this meaning of ‘intending’ the answer to your extremely myopic question is NO. If you pick the other option, then the answer to the same question is YES. I’m fine with either, since it doesn’t affect the point I was trying to make. So knock yourself out.
4) One last thing you can do for me then, is — if you can get your head out of the cavity its been stuck in for a little while — is understand that I am not interested in ascribing guilt or condemning Kevin Smith, or gays, or anybody else. The issue is not who is guilty of offending. The issue is: what does it mean to choose to offend as opposed to accidently offending.
Strawman. Again.
The reason the thread of Micha’s comments are confusing is because he said the following:
Then on Sunday 7:49, he took Luigi’s point without admitting Luigi was right:
Micha is annoying because he couldn’t just answer Luigi’s question no. To deny Luigi was right. That’s how Micha demonstrates his faithfulness to the truth.
Micha, thank you for the clarification. I apologize if I did not understand your post on Sunday, but I think the reason your meaning was not clear to me is because of the distinction between a primary intent and an unfortunate by-product of an act. You chose a wording that I would not, and this is where our wires got crossed. Specifically, this passage:
2) If you do something that you know will offend someone, than you choose to offend, and then how can you claim that you did not intend to offend?
Again, just because a person commits an act from which they know offense will be an unfortunate by-product does not mean that they had an “intent” to offend. Saying that they did really comes down to a personal choice of semantics insofar as how to frame a description of the act. My feeling is, someone, like Kevin Smith, can have the attitude of “Well, I’m making this film for my fans, and if someone is offended by it, there’s nothing I can do about that.” That’s not a “moral choice to offend”. That’s indifference, one stemming from one’s resignation that there are some things in life that simply cannot be helped. You chose to refer to this a deliberate choice or intention to offend. I disagree, because this represents that sinister slope whereby The Judgmental try to argue that they know what’s going on inside someone’s mind, which tends to be part and parcel of censors. Maybe this represents an aesthetic dimension to our disagreement, but for what it’s worth, I think that’s where we diverge. I’m sorry if it took this long for you and/or I to find out where the miscommunication was.
Alan Coil: Micha—Don’t bother responding any more on this thread. Luigi has gone all Mike.
Luigi Novi: There’s that relativism again. I misunderstood something Micha was saying, and this someone earns me a comparison to someone who shows never shows any scintilla of friendship, kindness, humility, provisionalism, who never admits he’s wrong, and who even insulted Peter’s daughter on one occasion for no good reason?
Seriously, do you have no sense of proportion or scale?
Or does anyone who annoys you automatically earn such a derogatory comparison, simply because Mike is the Hitleresque enfant terrible of peterdavid.net, and making important distinctions between whatever I’ve done and his history on this site is seen as unimportant?
Enjoy the rest of your summer, Alan. I apologize that I’ve angered you so.
How do you know any of this is true? I’m not embarrassed by the generosity I’ve demonstrated, and I’m ready to take an inventory of it when you’re ready to take an inventory of yours. You show me you’re good enough to give me lessons on generosity.
For someone giving instruction on the difference between “primary intent and an unfortunate by-product of an act” you’re a hypocritical bášŧárd.
“Just because a person commits an act from which they know offense will be an unfortunate by-product does not mean that they had an “intent” to offend.”
If you do something with the foreknowledge that is will be offensive to some, how can that not imply intent?
OK Luigi, let us bury the hatchet. I sensed a hostility in your posts and reacted with my own hostility.
Neither yours or my instict are incorrect in this case. That’s why its not a simply yes no question. On the one hand we can’t say that a person who knowingly offends, acts without volition, or in other words, ‘intent’ (this is the semantic part). On the other hand we all recognize the distinction between a person who wants to offend and one who causes offence while trying to accomplish something else. That’s not a contradicion. It means that their are grades here.
But you still don’t understand the point I’m trying to make. You still think I’m trying to judge or censor or attribute guilt to Kevin Smith or anybody else. Look at what I replied to Bill Myers. The same answer applies to what you’re saying.
And for the record. For a minute there I was afraid I was becoming like Mike.
Wow! You toss one rock into a pond and…
And who’s more of the supremacist, the person who insists you take his word, or the person who doesn’t ask you to take his word on anything? What am I even asking anyone to take my word for, person-calling-other-people-Hitler- without-referring-to-anything?
Micha, I did not think you were trying to judge or censor or attribute guilt to Smith; I merely took issue with the notion that you could gauge his intent. But in any event, consider hatchets buried. 🙂
Micha: And for the record. For a minute there I was afraid I was becoming like Mike.
Luigi Novi: Nah. 🙂
Glad I settled that misunderstanding.
Too bad, Luigi. Because your apology settled no misunderstanding. Alan did. Which means you’re still all Mike.
Megan,
“If you do something with the foreknowledge that it will be offensive to some, how can that not imply intent”
Because, Megan. Some people will be – and some are determined to be – upset by everything. If we sometimes cater to this – which I sometimes fear we are in danger of doing – then we cannot have a provocative discussion, have any kind of serious art, cannot discuss politics, etc.
For example, I am against affirmative action. many women and minorities who hear this may be offended, but I am merely speaking the truth and many members of those same groups actually agree with me when they allow me to state my reasons why. Others are simply offended. This was not my INTENT. I did not wake up and say I was going to offend x and y today, but it happened.
Now, if I were to say with malice and forethought that my female coworker should stay home and take care of her kids, that is being INTENTIONALLY offensive.
heck, when I recently tried to argue that, especially in a time of war, having the legal drinking age be 21 is ridiculous, a mother got offended and said that I didn’t care about young people, drunk driving, etc. I know from experience that some people are bound to react in a negative manner to what I say. Due to whatever factor you want to attribute it to, they might even be offended. But if I wanted to make sure I never offended anyone, I would never choose to write or speak. Some people look for excises to be offended or take things differently than others. Causing something and causing something INTENTIONALLY is a huge difference, and an important one.
I had a whole long reply, but you know what? I’ve decided that I’m too old to be lectured to by some bloke I’ve never met.
Maida – “we cannot have a provocative discussion, have any kind of serious art, cannot discuss politics, etc.”
Too right. I recall part of an interview with Germaine Greer where she clearly stated she would like to outlaw any and all medical/psych research into possible differences between men and women, arguing that these can set the cause of Feminism back decades. Somehow, offending someone such as this, who thinks burying possible truths is the way to go, just doesn’t worry me too much.
“Has anyone contradicted this that you feel the need to reiterate it? You quoted me. Have I said something that this somehow corrects?”
Oh, whatever. Our posts are right next to each other. You do the math.
It seems no matter much time passes, you’re still trying to play the same game you always do.
[Not directed at Bobb]
[Bobb]
[Me]
[Bobb:]
[Me]
[Bobb]
The math goes something like this:
Therefore:
Which you seem to need to hear.
What is your expiration date on accuracy?
I am back, safe and sound …and an hypocrite, it seems. I dont know if its my maturity or my manhood what Mike challenged, but I sense…intent in those words. Oh well, you cant make everybody happy.
London was great and AvenueQ as fun as I hoped it would be.
Luigi said:”does this mean that you acknowledge that your earlier assertion that anyone who does something they know will offend is intentionally doing so?”
Yes, I realized my statement was simplistic and needed more angles. But I still defnd the thesis there is intention. What it doesnt have is motivation.
An artist motive to depict Ganesha eating cow might not be to offend the hindu community but completely different, yet he knows it will offend so he is beign intentionally offensive. And motivation can go a long way in my book, yet not in everyone’s.
The opposite of intentional is accidental. In a murder case thats also a key.
Ooops, almost forgot this one
Luigi:”The point remains the same: A person can do something for reasons other than intentionally offending others, even if he/she knows that offense taken by some people is one of the unfortunate by-products of that act that he simply cannot help. Do you agree? If so, would this serve to disprove the notion that anyone who does something that they know will offend had that in mind as a deliberate motive?”
Intention#motivation. A consecuence of an act can be intentional yet not the motive behind the act. IE: an Artillery barrage directed at a house where civilians hide (assuming knowledge of this fact), because there are enemies behind it. Both parts did something (using the house as cover/firing at it) knowing it might cause the death of civilians. Are those death accidental? The motivations were clear: hiding from fire/firing at the enemy, yet there was a collateral to those decisions.
Alan Coil: Glad I settled that misunderstanding.
Luigi Novi: Um, yeah, Micha and I mended things by ourselves, and not as any result of your gratuitous insult, but yeah, you “settled” it. You should work for the U.N.
El hombre Malo: Yes, I realized my statement was simplistic and needed more angles. But I still defnd the thesis there is intention. What it doesnt have is motivation.
Luigi Novi: You’re splitting hairs, Malo. Intent and motive are the same thing. You either commit an act for a given reason, or you do not. If you know that it will have an effect, but that’s not the effect you want it to have, then there is no intent/motive to offend. Again, in the Kevin Smith example, he knew some would be offended, but that’s not the reason he made the movie. He made it for people who wouldn’t be offended by it. That others would be offended by it is something that simply could not be helped, and had he had his way, we can presume that he would’ve preferred that those offended not be offended. But he couldn’t control that. Their offense was a by-product of his act, and not the reason why he committed it. This is the crucial distinction: Because that was not the reason he made the movie (but had other reasons), and because he didn’t want them to be offended, then it cannot be said that he had motive or intent to offend. That he had foreknowledge that this would happen is irrelevant to this.
El hombre Malo: An artist motive to depict Ganesha eating cow might not be to offend the hindu community but completely different, yet he knows it will offend so he is beign intentionally offensive.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. If it was not his motive to offend, then it was not intentional. To say otherwise is a contradiction. For all your euphemistic talk of “angles”, it’s clear that you’ve changed nothing in your position, and are still advancing the same non sequitur: That knowledge of a future event is the same thing as a desire to bring it about. It’s not. Knowledge and desire are two different things.
El hombre Malo: A consecuence of an act can be intentional yet not the motive behind the act.
Luigi Novi: Given that this is a clear contradiction, how do you figure this? If it’s intentional, then it is a motive. An act may be intentional without one of its consequences being intentional, especially if that particular consequence is not inevitable.
Again, let’s try it this way:
Kevin Smith makes a movie. For our purposes, let’s observe two possible motives for this:
1. He wants to entertain those who will be entertained by it.
2. Some will be offended by it.
Smith knows that Effect #2 will occur, but he doesn’t want it to. He only wants Effect #1 to occur, and would prefer if only Effect #1 occurred. He can’t help it if Effect #2 occurs among some people, and wishes that they would simply not watch the movie and leave him and the movie’s fans alone. But he can’t bring that about. Yet you’re arguing that he intended Effect #2 as one of his motives, simply because he knew it would be one of the two consequences.
And that’s bûllšhìŧ.
El hombre Malo: IE: an Artillery barrage directed at a house where civilians hide (assuming knowledge of this fact), because there are enemies behind it. Both parts did something (using the house as cover/firing at it) knowing it might cause the death of civilians. Are those death accidental? The motivations were clear: hiding from fire/firing at the enemy, yet there was a collateral to those decisions.
Luigi Novi: This is not a good analogy, because the issue the likelihood of killing someone inside a house you spray with bullets is objectively measurable, obvious and unavoidable. That a movie, piece of artwork or some other cultural act will be seen as offensive is not.