Debate Now Why Is Being "Politically Correct" A Bad Thing To Some People?

[Asclepias]

You will if you pretend to know things you cant possibly know.

Wrong---It's always the offended person who shuts down converstation because their feelers got hurt.

Your actions caused the shutdown. They came prior to the person shutting down. Its simple cause and effect.

^ Where is the mutual responsibility by both partners for failing and shutting it down, Asclepias?
PC fails when one side assumes and blames the other person. You answer your own question again.

We were discussing cause not responsibility.

Regardless what causes racism, for example,
if both sides take responsibility for healing racial injury or insult, that is what allows communication to be safe and sustainable.

We can argue day and night what causes racism, cancer, climate changes, or each other to have the beliefs and opinions we have.

We don't have to agree on CAUSE to accept mutual RESPONSIBILITY for how we respond that
either works or doesn't work for ourselves equally as for the other person. Your responsibility counts equal as dilloduck, but I did not see that acknowledged in your post that appeared to say it was only DD response causing the shutdown. I see the mutual conflict as risking or threatening the shutdown if BOTH people don't work on their side. I can try to help both of you open things up and keep them going so that you finish your points. I don't think that is either your fault or dilloduck, but it is a mutual responsibility to see this fixed.
Mine included. If I am a witness, and I allow you to run each other into the ground, I'm responsible as well.

Now were getting into simple understanding. Racism for example is caused by fear and greed. The people that are the victims of racism have no obligation to help the perpetrators understand anything. Thats like asking a rape victim to come to an understanding with the rapist and assigning mutual responsibility to the person that was raped.

 

[Asclepias]

We arent talking about choices. We are talking about causes. You would cause the shut down. We know because prior to your comment we would be talking and afterwards we wouldnt be.

This sentence makes my "unpc" alarm go off.
The conflict between you can cause both of you to go off on each other and cause the shutdown.
It takes two people to express a conflict,
and it is not your fault you do not see or say things the same way.

The conflict between you and dilloduck is not fair to blame on either of you.
If you both keep working to address it, you will overcome this conflict,
and will avert a shutdown. You are both adept people and I support you in
finishing this through and not shutting down. Blaming it on dilloduck gets the buzzer from me.
Out of bounds, foul shot, not a hit.

I'm not blaming the conflict. I'm blaming the person that first broke the protocols of conversation (PC) for the shutdown.

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. It works with people that have opposing views as well. Thats how people work things out and come to agreements.

Asclepias and it fails when the people with opposing views each "blame the other" and deadlock.
You and dilloduck can both succeed if you both keep trying, and/or enlist the help of someone who
can untangle any knots or open up any deadends you run into.

But if you blame dilloduck, who gets defensive and thus blames you, back and forth, then you can both fail if you allow this to shut you down. That is why PC tends to fail, when it deadlocks if both sides are in it to "prove it is the other person's fault" instead of working out their flaws and biases together as a natural given, and nothing to be ashamed about much less to judge one another for having such biases on what we see and say.

Blame is always something you can pinpoint regardless of agreement. If we are talking and you say something I didnt like you actually caused the shutdown. There is no ambiguity in that. Your actions ultimately were responsible for stopping the conversation.

wrong---you have a choice after I say something that you find offensive. OWN IT

We arent talking about choices. We are talking about causes. You would cause the shut down. We know because prior to your comment we would be talking and afterwards we wouldnt be.

I understand that you sense that are a victim of offensive words and believe you have no choices other than to hurt and lash out or simply stop the conversation. I disagree with that. Would you like to try to defend your stance of helplessness ?

Why would I be interested in defending my stance? It requires no defense. If you lack the intellect to engage in conversation why would I care what you think?

 

[emilynghiem]

Where have I blamed someone else for my behavior ?

When you said dump the victim shit.

No one made me say that. Not you --not anyone. I am responsible for what I say and do. No one offends me to the point to where I shut them down or call them on the carpet

I know no one made you say that. You just decided to say it. Your behavior your blame.

Asclepias why this blame attitude, that sounds one way,
Where is the acceptance of mutual responsibility here?

What if PC were promoted as mutual responsibility instead of one sided projection of blame.
Don't you think that would make a difference?

There is no mutual responsibility in the causes of the shutdown. Someone is at fault and we can point to the event pretty easily. The cause is what first broke the protocol of conversation.

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

 

[Asclepias]

When you said dump the victim shit.

No one made me say that. Not you --not anyone. I am responsible for what I say and do. No one offends me to the point to where I shut them down or call them on the carpet

I know no one made you say that. You just decided to say it. Your behavior your blame.

Asclepias why this blame attitude, that sounds one way,
Where is the acceptance of mutual responsibility here?

What if PC were promoted as mutual responsibility instead of one sided projection of blame.
Don't you think that would make a difference?

There is no mutual responsibility in the causes of the shutdown. Someone is at fault and we can point to the event pretty easily. The cause is what first broke the protocol of conversation.

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

 

[dilloduck]

No one made me say that. Not you --not anyone. I am responsible for what I say and do. No one offends me to the point to where I shut them down or call them on the carpet

I know no one made you say that. You just decided to say it. Your behavior your blame.

Asclepias why this blame attitude, that sounds one way,
Where is the acceptance of mutual responsibility here?

What if PC were promoted as mutual responsibility instead of one sided projection of blame.
Don't you think that would make a difference?

There is no mutual responsibility in the causes of the shutdown. Someone is at fault and we can point to the event pretty easily. The cause is what first broke the protocol of conversation.

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

 

[Asclepias]

I know no one made you say that. You just decided to say it. Your behavior your blame.

Asclepias why this blame attitude, that sounds one way,
Where is the acceptance of mutual responsibility here?

What if PC were promoted as mutual responsibility instead of one sided projection of blame.
Don't you think that would make a difference?

There is no mutual responsibility in the causes of the shutdown. Someone is at fault and we can point to the event pretty easily. The cause is what first broke the protocol of conversation.

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, this is how PC can fail if it becomes a blame game.
You answer your own question by example, Asclepias
Very good!

We arent talking about choices. We are talking about causes. You would cause the shut down. We know because prior to your comment we would be talking and afterwards we wouldnt be.

This sentence makes my "unpc" alarm go off.
The conflict between you can cause both of you to go off on each other and cause the shutdown.
It takes two people to express a conflict,
and it is not your fault you do not see or say things the same way.

The conflict between you and dilloduck is not fair to blame on either of you.
If you both keep working to address it, you will overcome this conflict,
and will avert a shutdown. You are both adept people and I support you in
finishing this through and not shutting down. Blaming it on dilloduck gets the buzzer from me.
Out of bounds, foul shot, not a hit.

I'm not blaming the conflict. I'm blaming the person that first broke the protocols of conversation (PC) for the shutdown.

You set it up where it's not about mutual responsibility for change, you start the count at a place
where YOU can blame the other person first. You don't consider the greater process
where both people learn and grow together so the changes are mutual and equal.

Now, if you start the process at "what does it take to have an honest open equal dialogue
between liberals and conservatives, Christians and nonchristians, theists and nontheists"
and leave it open to all sides to bring in their standards, grievances, issues, conflicts and experiences
of what works and doesn't work to form a solution,
you might get a better response and conclusion that is fair to all people, as to what kind
of process works and doesn't work and why.

I don't see any progress or insights gained by just saying "you messed up first and shut the process down"

From my understanding and experience of what makes a correctional process work,
it's more like, DESPITE the mistakes on both sides, we both listened and tried to correct
those and move forward, tried to understand each other's points, and reach an agreement.

That process will work with or without PC as a tool in it.

But the path you are on with "first person to call out the other person wins"
seems to fail whether you are trying to use PC or a CDZ or flame thread, that is not going to work
period but is asking to shut the conversation down by blaming it all on the other person.

Now, if you are saying dilloduck was trying to blame you first to shut it down,
that is mutual. You are both playing the game of first one to call out the other wins.

The way you could win is if you don't play that game, but keep working together.

I want to see you both win, because the changes in perception would prove to be mutual.
Both sides have to give and take equally to embrace where the other is coming from.

If you haven't done that for dilloduck yet then you haven't gone full course with the whole process yet.

 

[dilloduck]

Asclepias why this blame attitude, that sounds one way,
Where is the acceptance of mutual responsibility here?

What if PC were promoted as mutual responsibility instead of one sided projection of blame.
Don't you think that would make a difference?

There is no mutual responsibility in the causes of the shutdown. Someone is at fault and we can point to the event pretty easily. The cause is what first broke the protocol of conversation.

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

 

[Asclepias]

There is no mutual responsibility in the causes of the shutdown. Someone is at fault and we can point to the event pretty easily. The cause is what first broke the protocol of conversation.

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

 

[dilloduck]

Again, this is how PC can fail if it becomes a blame game.
You answer your own question by example, Asclepias
Very good!

We arent talking about choices. We are talking about causes. You would cause the shut down. We know because prior to your comment we would be talking and afterwards we wouldnt be.

This sentence makes my "unpc" alarm go off.
The conflict between you can cause both of you to go off on each other and cause the shutdown.
It takes two people to express a conflict,
and it is not your fault you do not see or say things the same way.

The conflict between you and dilloduck is not fair to blame on either of you.
If you both keep working to address it, you will overcome this conflict,
and will avert a shutdown. You are both adept people and I support you in
finishing this through and not shutting down. Blaming it on dilloduck gets the buzzer from me.
Out of bounds, foul shot, not a hit.

I'm not blaming the conflict. I'm blaming the person that first broke the protocols of conversation (PC) for the shutdown.

You set it up where it's not about mutual responsibility for change, you start the count at a place
where YOU can blame the other person first. You don't consider the greater process
where both people learn and grow together so the changes are mutual and equal.

Now, if you start the process at "what does it take to have an honest open equal dialogue
between liberals and conservatives, Christians and nonchristians, theists and nontheists"
and leave it open to all sides to bring in their standards, grievances, issues, conflicts and experiences
of what works and doesn't work to form a solution,
you might get a better response and conclusion that is fair to all people, as to what kind
of process works and doesn't work and why.

I don't see any progress or insights gained by just saying "you messed up first and shut the process down"

From my understanding and experience of what makes a correctional process work,
it's more like, DESPITE the mistakes on both sides, we both listened and tried to correct
those and move forward, tried to understand each other's points, and reach an agreement.

That process will work with or without PC as a tool in it.

But the path you are on with "first person to call out the other person wins"
seems to fail whether you are trying to use PC or a CDZ or flame thread, that is not going to work
period but is asking to shut the conversation down by blaming it all on the other person.

Now, if you are saying dilloduck was trying to blame you first to shut it down,
that is mutual. You are both playing the game of first one to call out the other wins.

The way you could win is if you don't play that game, but keep working together.

I want to see you both win, because the changes in perception would prove to be mutual.
Both sides have to give and take equally to embrace where the other is coming from.

If you haven't done that for dilloduck yet then you haven't gone full course with the whole process yet.

Wrong -----this is a debate--a discussion. I am NOT calling anyone out. I am responding to posts. I am participating here even if something is said that offends me. If you are going to assume the role of mediator at least get it right.

 

[dilloduck]

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

I never said I could read your mind. It took YOUR thinking to assume that. You simple will not take responsibilty for your own thoughts or feelings. Until you do that you will always be a victim.

 

[Asclepias]

Again, this is how PC can fail if it becomes a blame game.
You answer your own question by example, Asclepias
Very good!

We arent talking about choices. We are talking about causes. You would cause the shut down. We know because prior to your comment we would be talking and afterwards we wouldnt be.

This sentence makes my "unpc" alarm go off.
The conflict between you can cause both of you to go off on each other and cause the shutdown.
It takes two people to express a conflict,
and it is not your fault you do not see or say things the same way.

The conflict between you and dilloduck is not fair to blame on either of you.
If you both keep working to address it, you will overcome this conflict,
and will avert a shutdown. You are both adept people and I support you in
finishing this through and not shutting down. Blaming it on dilloduck gets the buzzer from me.
Out of bounds, foul shot, not a hit.

I'm not blaming the conflict. I'm blaming the person that first broke the protocols of conversation (PC) for the shutdown.

You set it up where it's not about mutual responsibility for change, you start the count at a place
where YOU can blame the other person first. You don't consider the greater process
where both people learn and grow together so the changes are mutual and equal.

Now, if you start the process at "what does it take to have an honest open equal dialogue
between liberals and conservatives, Christians and nonchristians, theists and nontheists"
and leave it open to all sides to bring in their standards, grievances, issues, conflicts and experiences
of what works and doesn't work to form a solution,
you might get a better response and conclusion that is fair to all people, as to what kind
of process works and doesn't work and why.

I don't see any progress or insights gained by just saying "you messed up first and shut the process down"

From my understanding and experience of what makes a correctional process work,
it's more like, DESPITE the mistakes on both sides, we both listened and tried to correct
those and move forward, tried to understand each other's points, and reach an agreement.

That process will work with or without PC as a tool in it.

But the path you are on with "first person to call out the other person wins"
seems to fail whether you are trying to use PC or a CDZ or flame thread, that is not going to work
period but is asking to shut the conversation down by blaming it all on the other person.

Now, if you are saying dilloduck was trying to blame you first to shut it down,
that is mutual. You are both playing the game of first one to call out the other wins.

The way you could win is if you don't play that game, but keep working together.

I want to see you both win, because the changes in perception would prove to be mutual.
Both sides have to give and take equally to embrace where the other is coming from.

If you haven't done that for dilloduck yet then you haven't gone full course with the whole process yet.

I didnt make the person break the rules of conversation. They did that on their own. They made a choice to offend instead of adhering to the protocol of conversation. How can I blame myself if someone calls me a dodo head because I disagreed with them?

 

[dilloduck]

^ YIKES alive, Asclepias ^
If you were a mediator, you would all fail the minute someone made a mistake, a foul. Really?

As skilled as you are, I urge you to seek formal training and certification in mediation and conflict resolution.
You would learn how to use your talents and diplomacy correctly, but this isn't it.

Throwing people out of the game on the first foul is no way to play baseball.
You'd be a great umpire or coach, but nobody would get past the first bat with you ending the game on the first technicality.

Gee whiz, for someone as gifted as you are, I can see why you haven't tapped your full potential yet
if you are stuck on step one, getting over the fact that people are emotional and imperfect.

We are dealing with human beings here.

This is why liberals pushing political agenda through govt get accused of
"not understanding human nature"

Honey you gotta work with it, because all people are human.

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

 

[Asclepias]

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

I never said I could read your mind. It took YOUR thinking to assume that. You simple will not take responsibilty for your own thoughts or feelings. Until you do that you will always be a victim.

You didnt say the words and thats why I said implied. When you presume to tell me what I think you are in fact pretending you can read my mind.

 

[Asclepias]

Its just an observation. If I was a mediator I would attempt to keep the conversation going by asking the person that broke the rules first if they could see why the other person would be upset.

I agree we are dealing with humans and that they are emotional. That is why I say conservatives dont understand human nature. They actually think that things like micro aggressions to full blown bigotry is something to "get over" instead of eradicated. I shouldnt have to build a shield or fence between someone I am attempting to reach an understanding with and my self.

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

Yep.

 

[dilloduck]

Rules ? Protocol for conversation ? Where can I see them ?

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

Yep.

I would have never in a million years guessed that you would take offense if someone said they would read your mind. Do you expect everyone to know that about you ?

 

[Asclepias]

You work them out with the person you are speaking with. Feel free to write them down as they come up during conversation. The only problem is that this sucks for lazy people. You have to start the process over with each new person you meet.

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

Yep.

I would have never in a million years guessed that you would take offense if someone said they would read your mind. Do you expect everyone to know that about you ?

I'm not going to fall over and roll up into a ball or something. Its the unmitigated gall that someone would really think they could read my mind.

No I wouldnt expect anyone to know that. I would expect them to consider that its possible.

 

[dilloduck]

Where have I broke them in this conversation. What did I say that you found offensive ?

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

Yep.

I would have never in a million years guessed that you would take offense if someone said they would read your mind. Do you expect everyone to know that about you ?

I'm not going to fall over and roll up into a ball or something. Its the unmitigated gall that someone would really think they could read my mind.

No I wouldnt expect anyone to know that. I would expect them to consider that its possible.

Then you may as well make out a list of all the things that are going to bother you and pass them out BEFORE you converse with anyone because ANYTHING is possible.

 

[Asclepias]

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

Yep.

I would have never in a million years guessed that you would take offense if someone said they would read your mind. Do you expect everyone to know that about you ?

I'm not going to fall over and roll up into a ball or something. Its the unmitigated gall that someone would really think they could read my mind.

No I wouldnt expect anyone to know that. I would expect them to consider that its possible.

Then you may as well make out a list of all the things that are going to bother you and pass them out BEFORE you converse with anyone because ANYTHING is possible.

Not really. I can point out along the way what is offensive or not. There is no way I can predict all scenarios before hand.