Re: OT: [CONLANG] The Need for Debate
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 3:38|
And Rosta scripsit:
> It's not really up to the offendee, either, to decide what is and
> what is not offensive, if offensiveness is characterized by
> reprehensibleness rather than merely the fact of someone having been
> caused to feel offended. We all have a right to be treated kindly and
> with consideration, and an obligation to treat others thus, but we
> don't have a right to not be caused to feel offended. Hence if
> someone causes us to feel offended, we cannot necessarily accuse
> them of having culpably injured us. A failure to share this point
> of view seems to underlie the ire of most flame exchanges.
Both Chris and I excluded culpability due to intentional offending,
the kind Quentin Crisp never apologized for.
> (Although I have often caused offence (always unintentionally
> but not always inadvertently),
What is the distinction in this case?
What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped email@example.com
banging their head against? --Larry http://www.ccil.org/~cowan