Being offended.

Of course it's possible not to offend people - you just have to not push your beliefs down their throats as soon as you meet them.

Then why do you think they found you offensive?

Yes you did, you said this

quote:

---

Short story, when I first felt the Holy Spirit I felt something so amazing, so wondeful, so full of love that I wanted to share it with everyone. I wanted to be like Jesus. Offending people was the last thing on my mind. Well I got a big wake up call as I proceeded the next few years trying to share that love.

---

You assaulted people with your beliefs. That's why they were offended. Believe it or not, a lot of people think that your beliefs are bonkers and don't want you spraying them with your lunacy.

You don't appear to have listened to your own teaching.

Why don't you get on with trying to make whatever point it is you're trying to make.There IS something to be worried about with the growth in intolerance of opinions contrary to your own, it's as dangerous as burning books and it's almost as bad a sign.

For myself, people telling me of their 'beautiful' religious experiences is not offensive - it's embarrassing. I feel embarassed for them and I worry about their mental health. But we don't get it much in the UK. It seems more of a thing in the US, I remember being at dinner with someone who asked me which church I attended, like that was a normal thing to ask a stranger. Unheard of here. My wife had to kick me to stop me telling him that I was a born again hethen, because apparently that offends believers.When it's the Jehovas Witnesses it's just bloody annoying.And just so you know, it would be the same if a Hindu or Muslim came out with the same rubbish so you can put yout martydom back into your persecuction box.

It was Rat that said that people were offended by him telling them of his 'beautiful experience'.I'm not actually offended by anything people say to me, so maybe I'm not a good example.

That was it? Some people were offended when you told them about your god? Are you sure you mean offended - they may just have thought you're a loony? Did you just walk up to strangers and tell them stuff? What do you want your mind changing about? You personal experience does not seem to have anything to do with personal correctness.

Well that's true but like I say, you couldn't. It's not personal, I'm just not easily offended and certainly not by someone I don't actually know typing on the internet. Damn, must try harder! Yeh, that's true, he winds me up because he's a patronising self-opinionated arsehole that's doing damage in the world and you're sucking up to him. Different is fine, being wrong and dishonest requires a response.He thinks he knows science better than scientists but as far as I can find out - because he refuses to answer these questions - he has no qualifications whatsoever in the subject he's pontificating about. He's a small town carpenter that I bet left school early - if he went at all.It's not like is it's a nice soft science that anyone can understand, he's talking crap about things that can only be understood with very advanced maths and by a very few people' He's a charlatan with primitive beliefs. He says he's writing a book - that will impress no-one except himself and the few supplicants that attend his church so he can mislead them by telling them that science confirms his superstitions.Should I go on?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

What does sharing love mean? What did you do, grab someone by the Trumpian pussy?’ So? What kind of point is that? Mostly I don't offend anyone, occasionally I might offend someone. So what? All of it, starting with 'sharing your love'. What were you doing and how were you doing it? Can you tell the difference between embarrassment, annoyance and irritation and offence?

This could have been an interesting discussion if the extreemist Christians hadn't made a bloody shambles of the argument, one by being illiterately vague the other by ranting yet again about gays and Muslims.Imo there *are* things to concern us about the suppression of speech that might be taken as offensive by a group of people. The two most damaging examples I can think of are the refusal to take action against serious crimes by mostly Pakistani men against young white girls that have been uncovered lately in several of our Northern towns, Rotherham being the worst example.

quote:

---

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gendercontemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.[25][26][8]

---

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - WikipediaThe second was ignoring and silencing of the growing unrest in some parts of our country caused by large numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe. The result of that was the disaterous referendum decision. (There are analogues of this in many European countries and in the US where the rising anger of the working class was also ignored and allowed the disgusting Trump to pretend to be their champion.Across much of the Western world there's an undercurrent of nationalism and kick-back because a lot of people feel that their opinions have not been allowed to be said, let alone heard. In the Rotherham and imigration cases it was fear of being accused a racist if those fears were mentioned. Instead of being dealt with properly in the open, people were literally shut up. Now we have to deal with the consequences.The supression of speech for seemingly good reasons - no matter how abhorrent and offensive to the liberal, literate classes - almost always ends badly.

I suppose another way of seeing it would be that it's giving you thoughtful, rational answers and not falling for false choice fallacies?But I guess you'd think that was "liberal" too.