this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
2369 points (97.0% liked)

Comic Strips

12477 readers
4741 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
2369
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Perceived harm is something like I thought you stole from me but you didn't. Real harm is you stole money from someone and you now have that money.

These are both perceived harm, because you saw (perceived) money missing. You were just wrong in the first instance. All harm that offends us has to first be perceived by us in order to offend us. And since our perceptions can deceive us, we can mistakenly think an action is harmful.

I've said this a million times.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

These are both perceived harm, because you saw (perceived) money missing.

No they are not lol. One actually happened and is real damage, the other is a misconception. One cased actual damage (lost money), the other case they did nothing wrong. You perceived the money was gone, then it actually was. That's the actual damage. With that last part there is no damage for the offense to be linked to, you would be referencing something that doesn't exist. You have trouble understanding that, which is the same reason you have a problem understand the difference between a value of 0 and null. One exists with no value the other doesn't exist at all. I mean would you say I lost money because someone stole it, or would you say someone stole my money? You would say the latter because that's the actual case, you perceived something and confirmed it was reality. A perception can't take things from you, a person can. If your whole stance is every offense can cause a perceived harm that doesn't even exist, well then like I said, there's easier ways to say that. Such as, not every offense causes actual harm or damage. You called me out for trying to hard to not use 0 when I was talking about null, even though those things are extremely different. And yet here you are trying to act like all damage, perceived and actual, are all the same.

All harm that offends us has to first be perceived by us in order to offend us.

Jesus, yes, if you want to be so pedantic to the point of everything we ever experience is perceived. But there are things that cause actual damage and things that don't. You thinking I stole money doesn't mean there is any damage, me actually stealing money causes damage.

we can mistakenly think an action is harmful

Yes, so there might not be actual harm. So not every offense causes harm I don't know how to explain it any simpler. You can be offended in a situation where there is no actual damage done. How hard is that to understand? And in that situation, there is no damage driven by the offense because there is no actual damage done. There is a cause with no effect. There is nothing for it to be inextricably linked to, there is nothing to link it to at all, it doesn't exist. It's not that it exists with a value of 0, it doesn't exist at all. It is null, void, non-existent.

I’ve said this a million times.

And I've explained the flaws in it a million times.

Listen dude you said you were done, just be done with it and move on then. Don't keep engaging with me and then bitching about engaging with me lol. You can keep saying the same thing and I'll keep explaining why it's not accurate. How many times you wanna go around that circle is up to you. You keep setting em up, I'll keep knocking em down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No they are not lol. One actually happened and is real damage, the other is a misconception.

That's what i fucking said. Why did you cut off the part where I said that, and pretend I wasn't aware of this?

you were just wrong in the first instance.

This is outright lying by omission. We agree on this fact, yet you're pretending otherwise in order to troll me.

People feel emotions based on misperceptions all the time. Happy because we thought we heard our significant other's car driving home, but it was someone else. Sad because we thought we heard them crying, but they were laughing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That’s what i fucking said. Why did you cut off the part where I said that, and pretend I wasn’t aware of this?

Because you constantly contradict yourself. You do say "And since our perceptions can deceive us, we can mistakenly think an action is harmful." So, there is no harm. So, an offense didn't cause harm. So, you agree with me?

We agree on this fact, yet you’re pretending otherwise in order to troll me.

I'm not trolling I'm trying to keep up with your distinctions between real damage, perceived damage, no damage, and 0 damage. You seem to be creating new metrics and measurements constantly to fill gaps in your logic.

People feel emotions based on misperceptions all the time. Happy because we thought we heard our significant other’s car driving home, but it was someone else. Sad because we thought we heard them crying, but they were laughing.

Yes but FFS look at what you said. You said offense is inextricably tied to damage. Not perception of damage, not feelings, damage. Damage means there was actual damage done. You feeling like there was damage done doesn't mean there was damage done. You feeling like I stole money doesn't cause damage. So you being offended doesn't mean there is damage at all, in any sense. Me and another adult can be alone in a room and they can get offended I say "fuck" in front of them, that causes no damage at all to anyone. There is no harm at all. It is a single word that has no impact or real meaning. They are not damaged or harmed by me saying a single word. By your logic they would be damaged in some way, what way would they be damaged in?

Edit: I'ma go ahead and enjoy the rest of my day since I just wrapped up work. If you wanna keep going back and forth feel free to have at me and I'll respond tomorrow.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have to perceive damage to be offended by it. And you can be mistaken in perceiving it. And that doesn't actually deal damage. I've said this before. You keep arguing for no reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You have to perceive damage to be offended by it.

Perceiving means nothing, stop trying to change your stance lol. 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." The fact of it BEING damaging, not perceived as damaging. There can be no damage at all, meaning there was an offense with no damage.

And that doesn’t actually deal damage. I’ve said this before. You keep arguing for no reason.

Because you contradict yourself constantly because you've realized that what you said makes no sense so you've taken this new "perceived damage" angle in order to save face.

You said an offense is linked to the FACT OF IT BEING DAMAGING. The fact. Of it being damaging. If something is damaging it causes damage. That's how that works. It something doesn't cause damage it's not damaging. So if an offense happens and it's damaging, like you said, there would be damage. Full stop.

Stop trying to weasel out of what you said lol.