A Major Issue that Needs to be Addressed by Moderators

[Jay520]

kain_kusanagi said:

1. You jumped into a conversation that had naturally evolved from the OP to the related topic of being nice to each other rather than being a jerk to each other. You're welcome to discuss it too and even evolve it, but please don't redefine it and ask me to defend the argument from your point of view.

2. Human condition =/= biological programming. Biology is part of who we are, but science doesn't dictate the soul. We should be kind to each other for more reasons than our genetic code was handed down from tribal ancestors who needed everyone to get along so they could survive better. Being human is in part about fighting our genetic inheritance. We are better than the animals we came from because we choose to be.

BTW, I'm aware of your opinion on my use of the word soul so you don't need to turn this into a religious debate. That I assure you is a dead end topic.

1. This is your conversation.

kain_kusanagi said:

MDMAlliance said:

kain_kusanagi said:

MDMAlliance said:
I honestly do not understand the OP because the example given is not really a good one. I would need to see other examples in order to be convinced that it is a real problem, otherwise I think that the females that are offended by these kinds of posts are being way too sensitive. 

Talking about PMS in a way of a pun should really not be offensive, and even if it weren't used as a pun it has no implication by itself. 
If used as a verb, it starts to get closer to offensive, but really not much more offensive than what many females would say about males if they were to generalize them. 
So I really need a better example than what was given. Maybe I haven't seen it because most of the places I browse don't actually have these kinds of posts in it.

Why would you not finding offence invalidate somone who is offended?

I think it's good to define what it means to be offensive and to be offended.  In order to be offensive, there really needs to be some sort of intent and initiation, whether direct or indirect.  To be offended would be to have been affected by said remark and its intentions.  I do not see how you can be offended by simply making a statement about something.  It makes little sense.  It makes as much sense as a person who gets offended because someone mentions 9/11 at all.

You may argue that it wasn't just a statement and was a joke about something that can be stressful/painful, but the post given was barely even a joke.  It was a play on words and had no intent besides PM's and PMS consisting of the same letters.  There was no hidden meaning, and no reason for someone to be offended unless they were looking to be offended.  The comment was, inherently, not offensive.

Let's say you do bring up 9/11. No mal intent, it's a legit topic. The person you are talking to starts crying. It turns out they lost their father in the Twin Towers.

The human thing to do is apologies. You explain that you didn't mean to hurt them and apologies for causing them pain. That's what empathy is about it.

I don't go around trying to offend people, but I do sometimes anyway. I always apologies because I don't want to hurt anyone feelings and if I do it hurts me to have hurt someone else.

Just because you didn't mean to offend doesn't mean you can't offend. Explaining that you didn't mean to offended and apologizing for the misunderstanding usually goes a long way to mending the situation. Just because we are on the internet it doesn't mean we should act like inhuman jerks.

 

1. Clearly, he was referring to offensive in the context of the rules. By offensive, he meant posts with an intent to be offensive. Your definition of offensive depends on how people respond to a post. His definition dealt with the inherent offensiveness of a post. And the reason he used that definition is because it's the only one type of post that would warrant moderation. so he was actually addressing the main topic. You started talking about being nice and the "human condition" which doesn't really matter. Hell, he even clarified later that he was referring to moderation so I'm not sure where you get the thinking that your conversation wasn't about the main topic.

2. Semantics. I couldn't care less about how you define "human condition" and "biological programming." These terms aren't formally defined anymore and you get my point anyway, so let's not quibble over wordplay. Much of what you said doesn't seem to make sense anyway.