Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (73267)	8/25/2003 5:57:08 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I am aware of situations where a “type” of person is talked about in unfavorable terms. The speaker was not aware that there was one of the “types” or someone empathetic to the “type” in their presence. The speaker did not intend to damage the reputation of one among his audience but none the less an audience member took exception and was insulted. All kinds of things may precipitate a statement that caused harm. For example, the speaker may have been parroting some statement that he hadn’t fully understood. Children do this constantly. Jokes are another example. ”Also, the person must understand the "violence" of the assault to be considered fully responsible. Right. ”They may be blamed for being rude or unthinking or lacking a keen sense of humor, but to be fully blamed for the offense, they have to have meant it. “ I agree. To be given full responsibility the person must fully understand the behavior that caused harm at the time the harm is being committed. Occasionally it is a misunderstanding on the part of the audience. Or, that the audience member who was insulted should take responsibility but does not. Or it is a bad joke etc. I risk insulting someone if I announce my opinion that “terrorists are jerks.” I am happy to take responsibility for that comment, knowing full well it offends some.