Does the term "cutting" bother you?
Options
Replies
-
-
While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
lol I know for a fact that members with those names have had friend requests sent to them by anorexics
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
And we can just rename them with non offensive names like Marge and Ethel.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While we're banning the word cutting, we'd better ban people naming their kids Ana and Mia at the same time
And we can just rename them with non offensive names like Marge and Ethel.
Ohh, good idea. And Esther. And Harriet.
Can we get rid of Maverick as a name while we're at it? It just makes me LOL (no offence to anyone here who has named their son Maverick
) 0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
Why would the first party even bother? They would find another party to talk to and leave second party by the spinach dip, all by themselves.
No one likes a whiner.0 -
I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me.0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
What if I'm offended by the second party taking offence to everything I say?0 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me.
ditto that....
I'm starting to wonder if OP is studying debating or philosophy or the like...
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
What if I'm offended by the second party taking offence to everything I say?
Figure that out and you get a Nobel Peace Prize.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me. ditto that....
I'm starting to wonder if OP is studying debating or philosophy or the like...
Nope. Good guess though. ;-)0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
Thinking about this, as a Trekkie, I'd be offended if I was speaking to someone who held themselves out as a Star Trek fan but wanted to be called a 'Trekker'. As the term I relate to is the more commonly used and accepted term, their adoption of a slightly different and- evidently in their opinion - superior term by which to identify themself, I would say in that situation I would be the legitimately offended party and would thus become person B in that scenario.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
Why would the first party even bother? They would find another party to talk to and leave second party by the spinach dip, all by themselves.
No one likes a whiner.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »I'm not mentally ill, so words do not bother me. ditto that....
I'm starting to wonder if OP is studying debating or philosophy or the like...
You give him way too much credit.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Hold on, by that logic, the most precious, easily offended person in the world ought to have everyone cater to their preciousness because to do otherwise would be disrespectful? And to not do so would put you in the wrong?
That's not how the world works. Joss forbid it ever starts to work that way.
Forgive me, I'm trying to parse that. Yes, and yes. The second party wants to have a conversation without being offended. If the first party wants to continue after the first offense and not continue offending, it will change its terms to be non-offensive. If it doesn't change terms then the second party will continue to be offended. For example the first party uses the term "Trekkie". The second party tells the first party that "Trekkie" is offensive and that they prefer "Trekker". The first party can continue using "Trekkie" and the second party will be offended because the first party doesn't respect the values of the second party. Or the first party can change to "Trekker" and not cause offense to the second party.
Why would the first party even bother? They would find another party to talk to and leave second party by the spinach dip, all by themselves.
No one likes a whiner.
This, but also - there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You have to, at some point, expect people to take control of their feelings and not expect others to cater to them. It's part of being an adult. Being offended is a choice.
Anyway, the worst words out there in the world are musk/musky.
Nuh uh. The worse words are Panties and puss/infection
It gives me the creeps when men or women say 'panties'
0 -
i'm cutting a fart reading this0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions