No, you're supposed to clarify what you meant, because you associated what I said about myself to being incapable of empathy, which I find somewhat offensive. Generally people also apologize if they make an insulting comment to someone, intentionally or unintentionally. Don't play the "oh, I'm above this stuff" game, because that just makes you come off as arrogant and disengaged.

Note that you've also completely ignored my comment about you misreading my point in the first place, and have failed to address my commentary about how making sweeping generalizations is detrimental to discussion.

Because to go back to your main thrust, bullshit like that is just as unhealthy a mindset in relation to discussion as limiting your contributions to low-content affirmations or condemnations. Possibly worse, given those simple yeas and neas don't often get threads locked.

 

This.

Everyone has a right to their own opinions, now whether they should share them is another matter entirely.

in the end the best we can do is agree to disagree.

 

I'm supposed to do something? You feel you're entitled to that?

You're offended? How many people have you allowed to offend you?

You want an apology? You feel you're entitled to that as well?

I've ignored something? You feel you're entitled my my addressing that topic?

And when you don't get what you want, how do you react? Do you let it go, or does it make you frustrated? Are you even happy when you do get what you want? Or does it eventually fade and then you need something else to make you happy?  

 

One of my favourite sayings. It's very telling when someone refuses to "agree to disagree." Shows you just show selfish they are, and how much they depend on others for approval. Approval that will never come. Tragic really.

 

I do feel entitled to that, actually. Not out of arrogance or self-righteousness or whatnot, but because a mature, reasonable, rational discussion is based on an idea of perceived equality and courtesy between parties. If one party isn't capable AND willing to be respectful of another as a person, then what hope can that person have of their opinions and reasoning being respected? And if they have no hope of their case being accepted, observed, and discussed with respect and openness, what's the point of having a discussion at all?

At it's core, that's really the difference between a discussion and an argument: that in a discussion both parties must be open to other views, and to the idea that their own views will change or develop as a result. In an argument, its each side just asserting their opinion or reasoning, and it will almost inevitably become antagonistic and circular. The parties in a discussion can communicate and grow as a result, the parties in an argument are either looking for a fight or an echo chamber.

So that's really the question here, I suppose. What is this, Brave, a discussion or an argument? In a discussion, I would expect (or at least hope) that you would have said something along the lines of "that's not what I meant, sorry if I offended you, this is the point I was trying to get across", and the discussion would continue, either along the original line of discussion or along this new branch. In an argument, the avoidance, restatement, and linguistic reparte would continue until that branch of argument completely derailed the discussion at hand.

Speaking for myself, if you were unwilling to clarify your point, or apologize if the offense was intended, I'd probably conclude you were a rude (or at least tactless) person, and it would colour my perception of, and likely my reaction to, subsequent posts of yours in the thread. I imagine I would conclude that you were not willing to consider what I had to say, and my resulting statements would (if I deemed it worthwhile) be phrased more for the purposes of presenting my case to the "audience" than to you directly. Whether or not I would stop posting in the thread would depend on its content, but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't "shift the goalposts" in terms of the level of acquiescence I expected if an apology was given, especially if there was no real intent for offense in the first place.

Now, if you were/are intentionally playing the devil's advocate for the purposes of philosophical dissection and probing, that would be fine as well, but that's generally the sort of thing a person lays out at the beginning of a discussion, as it drastically changes the context, and will have a massive effect on how people perceive your statements.

 

LOLWHAT?

 

If what other people are feeling goes against my principles, I say fuck their shit.

Oh wait...