This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Symbolism and double meanings
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Offensiveness is equally as objective (or subjective) as unwarranted - either a person is offended or they're not offended, irrespective of context. The issue isn't whether X object is objectively offensive, it's whether Y person is objectively offended by X object. Likewise, the issue isn't whether you're hitting me, the issue is whether said hit is warranted or not.
You have to make the analogy correctly.
Me --------> hit --------> assault ---> you
Me ---> swastika ---> offense ----> you
Now notice where the objectivity is in the the assault case. Between hit and assault. This hit I'm doing now and under these circumstances is is objectively assault. Not "you" don't come in yet. This applies to anyone and everyone in these circumstances.
If you were to apply the same to the offense, you'd have to say the swastika is objectively offensive, drawn this way under these circumstances (in Germany, say), etc. Note we don't bring you in for this either. This needs to apply to everyone in the circumstances. But that's just the problem, it doesn't. I'm not offended by it, I'm sure the myriad of neo-Nazis in Germany aren't, so it's not objectively offensive.
Warranted is one of the circumstances, that's all.
Post by
Squishalot
Your breakdown is somewhat wrong. If you're arguing that I have to say the swastika is objectively offensive, you would have to say that a hit is objectively assault, which is incorrect - it's dependent on the circumstance. For example:
1) Only a certain type of hit (eg. unwarranted one) will be considered assault. Objective statement.
2) An (un)warranted situation where a hit has occured is a circumstance. Objective circumstance.
3) Only a certain type of person (eg. sensitive one, with Jewish parents who were killed by the Nazis) will be offended by a swastika. Objective statement.
4) A sensitive person exposed to the swastika is a circumstance. Objective circumstance.
Therefore:
5) In the same way that hitting a person will be considered 'assault' in certain circumstances, the swastika will be considered 'offensive' in certain circumstances, presumably when the hit is unwarranted, or when the swastika is exposed to a person sensitive to the symbol.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
All you're doing in begging the question. You take subjectivism, apply it as a circumstance, and then conclude that the act is subjective.
It's completely meaningless to posit as a circumstance "that he will be offended a swastika." It's like saying "the guy will be assaulted" is a circumstance. It's not a circumstance...it's the end of the action (whether intended or not). This his hit leads to assault no matter who is receiving. This expression of a sybol does not lead to offense no matter who is receiving.
What your little argument above is concluding is that "this swastika offends this person" which is all well and good and objective, but that's not what we're after. You need "this swastika is offensive" to make an objective statement that has any bearing.
If you're arguing that I have to say the swastika is objectively offensive, you would have to say that a hit is objectively assault, which is incorrect
No no no no.
This hit.
I think you're confusing objective an universal. A universal would be
all hits are assault
, which as you pointed out is false.
We're talking about a specific hit, done under specific circumstances, existing in a certain way. That hit is assault. Objective truth.
It's the difference between saying "all apples are red" (an objective universal, and also false), and "this apple is red" (an objective particular, which is true).
"
This swastika
is offensive" is a subjective particular.
Post by
Squishalot
This
hit. I think you're confusing objective an universal. A universal would be all hits are assault, which as you pointed out is false.
We're talking about a specific hit, done under specific circumstances, existing in a certain way. That hit is assault. Objective truth.
It's the difference between saying "all apples are red" (an objective universal, and also false), and "this apple is red" (an objective particular, which is true).
"This swastika is offensive" is a subjective particular.
That's not really a correct comparison. '
A
punch' is comparable to '
a
swastika'.
This
hit is comparable to
this
swastika.
Just as the hit, being done under specific circumstances, existing in a certain way is assault, I'm proposing that a swastika, existing in a certain way, presented under certain circumstances is offensive.
The specific circumstances surrounding the hit involves another person too - by saying that the hit on a person is warranted is part of the circumstance, you're committing the same logical flaws that I'm committing by suggesting that a person's likelihood to be offended is an objective circumstance.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's not really a correct comparison. '
A
punch' is comparable to '
a
swastika'.
This
hit is comparable to
this
swastika.
Uh...what? I just spent 15 minutes typing out several paragraphs that clearly stating that the comparison is indeed "
This
hit is comparable to
this
swastika." Is it really that hard to read...
This hit
...
This swastika
Just as the hit, being done under specific circumstances, existing in a certain way is assault, I'm proposing that a swastika, existing in a certain way, presented under certain circumstances is offensive.
Subjectivity isn't a circumstance!
For it to be objective, it needs to be applied to everyone. By hand picking people out from the equation (i.e. people non-sensitive to the swastika), you're making it subjective.
Assault is not dependent on who is hit. Given a specific hit, it's objectively assault.
The specific circumstances surrounding the hit involves another person too - by saying that the hit on a person is warranted is part of the circumstance, you're committing the same logical flaws that I'm committing by suggesting that a person's likelihood to be offended is an objective circumstance.
That something is warranted (justifiable) is in no way connected to a subjective person. It's dependent on circumstances, yes. But given those same circumstances, anyone who is hit, is assaulted.
I'm not sensitive. Saying I would be offended given the circumstance of being sensitive makes no sense, because that's not me. You're taking something subjective (sensitivity to things) and applying it as an objective circumstance. It doesn't work.
Post by
Squishalot
Uh...what? I just spent 15 minutes typing out several paragraphs that clearly stating that the comparison is indeed "This hit is comparable to this swastika." Is it really that hard to read...
Yeah, I started typing something, then paused... then didn't go back to it. What I was trying to say was that you're talking about 'this hit' in conjunction with a set of 'warranted circumstances', but you're talking about 'this swastika' in isolation (i.e. when you said 'this swastika', you're actually thinking about 'a swastika'), which isn't a correct comparison.
Assault is not dependent on who is hit. Given a specific hit, it's objectively assault.
This isn't true. It's culturally based too. Patting a boy's head in the US or Australia wouldn't be assault, it's not unwarranted force. Patting a boy's head in certain Asian countries would be considered assault, because it's a taboo thing to do. (Or if not assault, <insert other appropriate legal charge relating to inappropriate unwanted physical touching here instead>.)
Subjectivity isn't a circumstance!
For it to be objective, it needs to be applied to everyone. By hand picking people out from the equation (i.e. people non-sensitive to the swastika), you're making it subjective.
Your 'circumstances' relating to whether a hit is warranted is also subjective, and this is my point! Smacking your own child isn't assault. Smacking someone else's child is. You might argue that the 'circumstances' are different, but it's no different to saying "these people are Jews, so that's hand-picking" and saying "these people are my children, so that's hand-picking". Or in fact, using equal amounts of force on children and adults - are you hand-picking people like that? Or are they circumstantial?
I'm not sensitive. Saying I would be offended given the circumstance of being sensitive makes no sense, because that's not me. You're taking something subjective (sensitivity to things) and applying it as an objective circumstance. It doesn't work.
Same argument applies here. Just because you're not a child doesn't mean that a child in the same position is in the same circumstance as you. I wouldn't necessarily classify 'sensitivity to things' as that subjective, any more or less so than I would classify 'bruises easily' or 'poor sense of balance' or 'physically aggressive'.
Anyway, shouldn't you be sleeping soon? I'm leaving work, so I'll be out for a while. Catch you soon.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This isn't true. It's culturally based too. Patting a boy's head in the US or Australia wouldn't be assault, it's not unwarranted force. Patting a boy's head in certain Asian countries would be considered assault, because it's a taboo thing to do. (Or if not assault, <insert other appropriate legal charge relating to inappropriate unwanted physical touching here instead>.)
Cultural norms are circumstances. That still has nothing to do with subjective judgment.
Your 'circumstances' relating to whether a hit is warranted is also subjective, and this is my point! Smacking your own child isn't assault. Smacking someone else's child is. You might argue that the 'circumstances' are different, but it's no different to saying "these people are Jews, so that's hand-picking" and saying "these people are my children, so that's hand-picking". Or in fact, using equal amounts of force on children and adults - are you hand-picking people like that? Or are they circumstantial?
You need to make a distinction between the receiver of the action and the one judging. Subjectivity comes from the one judging. In the case of offense, you're only allowing one person to judge....the one being offended. That's subjective. In the case of the assault, I can judge, he can judge, you can judge, and because of the objective nature of the action, we can come to the same conclusion.
As I've said several times, you're applying subjective standards to the equation, so obviously you're going to conclude it's subjective. It's begging the question.
That the person being hit is a child is a circumstance...that the person judging is easily offended is not.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
He knew from the start that the Swastika is the symbol of the Nazi's saying its becouse of the double meaning would be like going in with a KKK Gown on and saying he's wearing it becouse it symbolised the holy gowns wore by the Nazareno he knew exactly what the swastica means to people and can not argue with that.
It's a little unfair to make thius assumption. You may be right, but you can't
know
what you're accusing to be true (like the whole pentacle v. pentagram thing -- even if he knows it may be interpreted wrongly, why should that mean he shouldn't wear it).
Post by
Squishalot
As I've said several times, you're applying subjective standards to the equation, so obviously you're going to conclude it's subjective. It's begging the question.
And as I've said, you're committing the same mistake. See:
Cultural norms are circumstances. That still has nothing to do with subjective judgment.
Jews have a thing against Nazis and symbols similar to those the Nazis used (including but not limited to the swastika, the communist arm-extended salute, etc). It's a cultural norm and therefore a circumstance. So either cultural norms are subjective, or a Jew being offended is objective.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As I've said several times, you're applying subjective standards to the equation, so obviously you're going to conclude it's subjective. It's begging the question.
And as I've said, you're committing the same mistake. See:
Cultural norms are circumstances. That still has nothing to do with subjective judgment.
Jews have a thing against Nazis and symbols similar to those the Nazis used (including but not limited to the swastika, the communist arm-extended salute, etc). It's a cultural norm and therefore a circumstance. So either cultural norms are subjective, or a Jew being offended is objective.
That's not a cultural norm. I in fact know several libertarian minded Jews would would say the exact same thing as me. Norms have nothing to do with what is done. A norm is something that says "x should (or shouldn't) happen." There is no cultural norm that says you should be offended by a swastika. There is a norm that you shouldn't hit other people's kids.
Post by
Orranis
It's stupid really. I was in Washington D.C. and there were Swastika like patterns on the floor in the hallway toward the balcony of congress. Say it's beliefs that you have no right to infringe upon and tell them their asses.
Edit: Also, I laugh at the "you might offend Jews." I am 75% Jewish by ancestry, and the 25% that's different is from my grandpa, who converted... so essentially unless you go way into great grandparents I'm 100% Jewish ancestor wise, and trust me, seeing a symbol of peace is not the same to us as the hate filled symbol of the Nazi's. It's about intent. At most I'd crack a bad joke about it in school.
Post by
Squishalot
That's not a cultural norm. I in fact know several libertarian minded Jews would would say the exact same thing as me. Norms have nothing to do with what is done. A norm is something that says "x should (or shouldn't) happen." There is no cultural norm that says you should be offended by a swastika. There is a norm that you shouldn't hit other people's kids.
There's a norm in many Asian societies (Thais, Malaysians, Indonesians too, I believe) that you shouldn't pat people / kids on the head either, but I'm sure there are several westernised people of said Asian descent who wouldn't care. In some societies, they don't have qualms with beating the crap out of your kids if they've screwed up. What objective rule are you using to classify 'norms'?
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.