• irmoz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Offense and damage are not separate. People can just be wrong about how damaging something is. But they are still offended by something, because you can’t be offended by nothing. And harm cannot affect you, imagined or otherwise, if you have not perceived the harming action - as I have said before, all harm is perceived harm. And foe you to be offended, there must exist something for you to be offended by, whether or not you’re wrong about how much damage it has dealt.

    Take the elbows example. Really, it has a damage of 0. But to someone who is a complete snob, they see it differently, with some other damage value. So they are offended not by something that doesn’t exist, but instead by their misperception of something that does exist.

    That is it. There is no reason for us to continue. I am sick of this.

    • Lightor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Offense and damage are not separate.

      Yes they are, if there is no damage there is nothing for it to be tied to. How do you have damage tied to an offense when there is no damage. Again, you’re trying to pay someone $0, that is not a thing.

      as I have said before, all harm is perceived harm

      This is %100 wrong. Perceived harm is something like I thought you stole from me but you didn’t. Real harm is you stole money from someone and you now have that money. One is real harm that did actual damage, the other is a perception. They are very different, that’s why you can’t go to jail just because someone perceives you stole something.

      And foe you to be offended, there must exist something for you to be offended by, whether or not you’re wrong about how much damage it has dealt.

      If someone is offended by me flying a sports team flag they don’t like, there is no actual harm. No one is hurt, and there is no measurable damage. You can be upset without there being damage. There isn’t damage every time you get upset about something. If I left my phone in the other room and I have to go get it, is there damage? No. I could be slightly upset I forgot it, but I’m not damaged in any way.

      Take the elbows example. Really, it has a damage of 0.

      So, you agree with me. That’s the end of the debate. There was an offense with no damage. Case closed.

      But to someone who is a complete snob, they see it differently, with some other damage value.

      Damage is not a value like that though. You dot just experience 5 damage like a video game. Damage needs to be measurable. If I’m at home with my mom say, and she gets upset I put my elbows on the table, where is the damage. What harm was caused that there is actual, legit damage. Not someone might feel bad, what is the actual damage?

      So they are offended not by something that doesn’t exist, but instead by their misperception of something that does exist.

      Jesus you are bending over backwards to avoid admitting you were wrong. So you went from every offense causes damage to now the perception of an offense may lead to the perception of damage that doesn’t exist. Jesus dude, just say it doesn’t always cause damage, it’s a much easier way to say what you’re saying without dancing around admitting you’re wrong.

      That is it. There is no reason for us to continue. I am sick of this.

      As soon as you started changing the narrative and saying BS like “all harm is perceived harm” and “damage can be perceived damage that doesn’t exist”. You said offenses always cause damage because you can’t have cause and effect without the effect. They don’t. Full stop. I’ve explained in detail how you’re wrong and even entertained all your narrative shifts.

      That is it.

      • irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Perceived harm is something like I thought you stole from me but you didn’t. Real harm is you stole money from someone and you now have that money.

        These are both perceived harm, because you saw (perceived) money missing. You were just wrong in the first instance. All harm that offends us has to first be perceived by us in order to offend us. And since our perceptions can deceive us, we can mistakenly think an action is harmful.

        I’ve said this a million times.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          These are both perceived harm, because you saw (perceived) money missing.

          No they are not lol. One actually happened and is real damage, the other is a misconception. One cased actual damage (lost money), the other case they did nothing wrong. You perceived the money was gone, then it actually was. That’s the actual damage. With that last part there is no damage for the offense to be linked to, you would be referencing something that doesn’t exist. You have trouble understanding that, which is the same reason you have a problem understand the difference between a value of 0 and null. One exists with no value the other doesn’t exist at all. I mean would you say I lost money because someone stole it, or would you say someone stole my money? You would say the latter because that’s the actual case, you perceived something and confirmed it was reality. A perception can’t take things from you, a person can. If your whole stance is every offense can cause a perceived harm that doesn’t even exist, well then like I said, there’s easier ways to say that. Such as, not every offense causes actual harm or damage. You called me out for trying to hard to not use 0 when I was talking about null, even though those things are extremely different. And yet here you are trying to act like all damage, perceived and actual, are all the same.

          All harm that offends us has to first be perceived by us in order to offend us.

          Jesus, yes, if you want to be so pedantic to the point of everything we ever experience is perceived. But there are things that cause actual damage and things that don’t. You thinking I stole money doesn’t mean there is any damage, me actually stealing money causes damage.

          we can mistakenly think an action is harmful

          Yes, so there might not be actual harm. So not every offense causes harm I don’t know how to explain it any simpler. You can be offended in a situation where there is no actual damage done. How hard is that to understand? And in that situation, there is no damage driven by the offense because there is no actual damage done. There is a cause with no effect. There is nothing for it to be inextricably linked to, there is nothing to link it to at all, it doesn’t exist. It’s not that it exists with a value of 0, it doesn’t exist at all. It is null, void, non-existent.

          I’ve said this a million times.

          And I’ve explained the flaws in it a million times.

          Listen dude you said you were done, just be done with it and move on then. Don’t keep engaging with me and then bitching about engaging with me lol. You can keep saying the same thing and I’ll keep explaining why it’s not accurate. How many times you wanna go around that circle is up to you. You keep setting em up, I’ll keep knocking em down.

          • irmoz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            No they are not lol. One actually happened and is real damage, the other is a misconception.

            That’s what i fucking said. Why did you cut off the part where I said that, and pretend I wasn’t aware of this?

            you were just wrong in the first instance.

            This is outright lying by omission. We agree on this fact, yet you’re pretending otherwise in order to troll me.

            People feel emotions based on misperceptions all the time. Happy because we thought we heard our significant other’s car driving home, but it was someone else. Sad because we thought we heard them crying, but they were laughing.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That’s what i fucking said. Why did you cut off the part where I said that, and pretend I wasn’t aware of this?

              Because you constantly contradict yourself. You do say “And since our perceptions can deceive us, we can mistakenly think an action is harmful.” So, there is no harm. So, an offense didn’t cause harm. So, you agree with me?

              We agree on this fact, yet you’re pretending otherwise in order to troll me.

              I’m not trolling I’m trying to keep up with your distinctions between real damage, perceived damage, no damage, and 0 damage. You seem to be creating new metrics and measurements constantly to fill gaps in your logic.

              People feel emotions based on misperceptions all the time. Happy because we thought we heard our significant other’s car driving home, but it was someone else. Sad because we thought we heard them crying, but they were laughing.

              Yes but FFS look at what you said. You said offense is inextricably tied to damage. Not perception of damage, not feelings, damage. Damage means there was actual damage done. You feeling like there was damage done doesn’t mean there was damage done. You feeling like I stole money doesn’t cause damage. So you being offended doesn’t mean there is damage at all, in any sense. Me and another adult can be alone in a room and they can get offended I say “fuck” in front of them, that causes no damage at all to anyone. There is no harm at all. It is a single word that has no impact or real meaning. They are not damaged or harmed by me saying a single word. By your logic they would be damaged in some way, what way would they be damaged in?

              Edit: I’ma go ahead and enjoy the rest of my day since I just wrapped up work. If you wanna keep going back and forth feel free to have at me and I’ll respond tomorrow.

              • irmoz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You have to perceive damage to be offended by it. And you can be mistaken in perceiving it. And that doesn’t actually deal damage. I’ve said this before. You keep arguing for no reason.

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You have to perceive damage to be offended by it.

                  Perceiving means nothing, stop trying to change your stance lol. You said “They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.” The fact of it BEING damaging, not perceived as damaging. There can be no damage at all, meaning there was an offense with no damage.

                  And that doesn’t actually deal damage. I’ve said this before. You keep arguing for no reason.

                  Because you contradict yourself constantly because you’ve realized that what you said makes no sense so you’ve taken this new “perceived damage” angle in order to save face.

                  You said an offense is linked to the FACT OF IT BEING DAMAGING. The fact. Of it being damaging. If something is damaging it causes damage. That’s how that works. It something doesn’t cause damage it’s not damaging. So if an offense happens and it’s damaging, like you said, there would be damage. Full stop.

                  Stop trying to weasel out of what you said lol.