Open letter to all Gners

No double standards from me jenty61. I would ask you to back up that accusation, but that would be a total waste of time.

Pompa/GrandTea You've got your old wooden spoon out again.

Those who think they are entitled to not be offended and are easily 'hurt' had better not read this. Others may enjoy it.
www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion/
Not sure where I saw it last week, apologies if it was someone on GN who posted it.

ja do you mean I should give my reason why I think the cartoon is cruel? (the article)

No jingl. Feel free to keep your reasons to yourself. I just posted the link as I thought others might be interested in it.

ok jingle; I had no intention of doing this but you've pushed me too far. One night you posted something with regards to me saying how much you'd 'helped' me over the years, how pathetic [that wasn't the word used but, unlike you I don't seem to remember every detail of everything that I and others have said] and how wonderful your life was. I went cold all over reading it. It was late at night and not many people read it, although someone who did pm'd me straight away to say how appalled they were by your comments.In general things said to me don't bother me; I've learned to 'man up', it's when other people are hurt that I get annoyed [and I'm not referring to you in this case but anyone that I feel is being insensitive. Your comment was one of the nastiest things that has ever happened to me on the internet.As for the 'baldness' thread..it's history as far as I'm concerned so why did you have to, not only mention it but give a link to it. As this is a personal attack I know it will be deleted and I'll be asked to leave but, d'youknowwhat, I don't give a damn. I just don't like people being two faced.....

I have seen this article previously janeainsworth and it does not conclude that people are not entitled not to be offended.

In the first paragraph he says " You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.” That was certainly what I was brought up to believe but it is far from what those who complain about "no sense of humour" or "too many links" seem to understand. Many of them seem to believe opinion is all that is needed and decry any form of constructed argument.

He also says if "Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial." I agree - triviality of this type is rife on the internet.

He continues "But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false." "It is my opinion therefore it is true" seems to be the mantra on some on this site but this is, as he implies, fallacious. He adds "there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust," There is oh so much "bulldust" (never heard that before) excreted on this site.

He picks up on the oft heard response when opinion is the only "fact". Again it sums up much of the so called discussion on her. We are told that it is unfair, that a separate thread is needed to protect their views from any in depth discussion and, as Stokes says that others are “openly calling for censorship ...” Disagree by putting forward an evidence backed argument on here and we immediately pilloried.

Yes janeainsworth, I agree this is a very interesting article. I would not have been brave enough to introduce it for fear of yet another rather nasty gang attack, so thank you for doing so.

Having your own opinion and giving it frequently often means being b....y rude and not bothering who you hurt or offend.
This is just my opinion you understand.

Of course everyone is 'entitled' to feel offended by whatever they like. What they are not entitled to do is expect everyone else to do anything about it.

Stating a strong opinion that others don't like is not offensive by definition. I find lots of opinions offensive but not the stating of them unless that is done deliberately rudely. But, even then, the rudeness is what's the problem, not the stating of the opinion. Even 'offensive' opinions can be phrased in polite language.

I think it's possible to believe that someone was being deliberately insensitive when in fact they weren't.

See, that's why it's good to have a bags about.

There would be no humour in the world if we spent our time worrying about offending anyone. No one was hurt by that cartoon, it might have offended them but, if it did, it might also make them think.

Iwould not have been brave enough to introduce it for fear of yet another rather nasty gang attack, so thank you for doing so

Oh come on GG, words like "fear" and "gang attack" are overstating things and have no place on GN.

I've not noticed any Gners mounting a gang attack on JA.

The cartoon was bloody funny, the article was interesting.End of.

I think jbf posts things just to get a reaction.

I'd say the post at 9.27 was meant to be deliberately provocative . Probably better to have been ignored.

Well sunseeker she certainly got one !

Jinglbellsfrocks.. why would it be a total waste of time you asking me to back up my 'accusation' (your words) perhaps you do not want to hear the truth!

I like others on here do not like your argumentative comments you seem to go around posting on threads just to stir up trouble....

Tegan ...well said...

Tegan unless you can remember a bit more about that post, I can hardly be expected to respond to that. I am quite sure I did not say your, or anyone's, life was 'pathetic'. I would never say such a thing. And I certainly wouldn't say how wonderful my life is. I think the postings you refer to need to be put in context. I'm glad your fellow clique-ettes leapt to the rescue with words of comfort.

Yeah, yeah, roses - same old same old.

Sorry! sunseeker. Not roses.

jenty the whole thread is a waste of time. As is GN at the moment.

which should be interpreted as a garden trowel.

so why are you still posting? Would you like me to show you the exit?!

That is how I feel Alea, and you really cannot tell me how I may or may not feel.

Elegran If you read the article JA flagged I am sure you will see that she has misconstrued the argument Stokes put forward. What she said may have been what people wanted to hear but it wasn't what Stokes said. He is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University and a published author and I would really rather take on board his article and its true meaning than what JA wishes it said. JA introduced this - I would not have done. I do not believe many of you have any interest in evidence that does not agree with your preconceived ideas. So much so that JA actually turned the meaning of the article on its head.

jbf as my grandmother would say - your opinion matters, just not to me

gg what on earth are you talking about?
Don't put words into my mouth please.
I didn't 'say' anything and how you can presume to know what I 'wished' the article said is beyond me.
For the record, I thought there was an interesting parallel between the article ( entitlement to an opinion) and the cartoon (entitlement to be offended).
That's all.
And if you're so dismissive of other Gransnetters (few of us being interested in proper evidence) why don't you just take yourself off and lie down in a darkened room somewhere?