lemm.ee

0 points

1 year ago

If I’d known you’d be this pedantic, I’d have said from the start, I just thought it goes without saying - all harm has to be perceived to be known at all, doesn’t it? And can our senses not deceive us, either simply through illusion or misperception, or more deeply through our intellectual biases?

report

[ - ]

Lightor@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

It’s not pedantic lol. You said all offenses cause damage. You said they are inextricably linked. That’s not just a common term thrown out there in day to day convos, it has a clear and purposeful meaning. I said the two can exist seperately, you said they couldn’t, and now you’re saying they can. You’ve contradicted yourself.

Harm is measurable, you said being offended means its damaging. Those are your words yet you’ve still not told me how eating with your elbows on the table causes damage to anyone. It can offend, so where is the damage?

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

You said all offenses cause damage.

We won’t move anywhere until you stop lying about this.

report

[ - ]

Lightor@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

I’m lying? I think you just don’t like being held accountable for the things you say because it makes it harder for you to back-peddle.

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.

So I guess I need to break it down and explain what you said back to you. Inextricably linked means they are impossible to separate, they are together forever and always. Now you said it is linked to “it being damaging.” You say in this very statement, very clearly, that all offenses are linked to being damaging. I’m not lying I’m just confronting you with what you said as you try to back-peddle and shift the narrative by introducing things like “perceived harm” instead of damaging like you originally said.

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

There you go. Proof i didn’t say being offended causes harm! Why on earth would i even have said that? Earlier you were claiming i said all offence was caused by harm, no idea why you switched them.

Also, what does damage do, my friend? When you are damaged, it harms you. And you can perceive harm anywhere if you’re warped enough.

Let me make this very simple. When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero. In programming terms, the offence variable comes in a data container that also contains a damage variable. The damage variable does not have to be greater than zero.

Are you done?

report

[ - ]

Lightor@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

There you go. Proof i didn’t say being offended causes harm!

Jesus dude, you are really trying to dance to the point of me needing to break it down, ok here we go.

They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.

So someone being offended is inextricably linked to something. Ok, that part I hope you get, I mean you wrote it. Now what is it linked to. It is linked to “the fact of it being damaging”. Now what is it? It is the offense. So restated the sentence would be: “the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of the offense being damaging”. Now if the offense is damaging it would cause harm, by your very own words: “When you are damaged, it harms you”. So lets put this all together. Someone being offended is linked to them being damaged by that offense, which means that would experience harm.

When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero.

No and no. People can get offended by something that causes no harm to them. A person can get offended that I fly a certain teams sports flag, that causes zero harm. Also zero is the absence of anything, so it is not an amount.

In programming terms, the offence variable comes in a data container that also contains a damage variable. The damage variable does not have to be greater than zero.

Ok, now I love this. I’ve been in software engineering for over a decade so lets look at this. I would say if you have a container with 2 variables, then in this case one variable would be null, which is the absence of value, not 0 value like you stated. If a variable has null value it has no reference to the heap, meaning it is nothing. So in that situation, the “offense” container would have only 1 value, offense, alone and by itself without damage.

Are you done?

I mean, that’s up to you. I can keep explaining to you how you’re wrong in a buncha different ways if you like.

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

The float would be 0, dude. No need to change its type. Even in common language we do this. “How many mls left in the jug?” “Zero.”

I don’t get why you don’t get this. Yeah, being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of damage. But you can be mistaken about the damage! And thus are offended by zero damage.

report