Insulting people is never productive in any conversation or debate. I would consider someone saying "those ignorant fuckers" to be the sort of person who is, at least tentatively, hating or looking down upon that group of people. I will admit this sounds like the sort of stuff I do on occasion, but any person who goes into any debate or conversation with this attitude is being an idiot and an asshole. Assuming you are right and the other person is wrong, and assuming you are only there to only change the other person's opinion, never leads to a good conversation. That doesn't mean you can't assume you are right, it just means you have to be able to look at the other person, look at why they are assuming they are right, and try to attack and wear down at those points of view. A conversation with a conservative about global warming isn't going to go well if you just say "look! science shows that temps are going up!". People typically have a distrust of such information, and feel they are being fooled by a system set up to control them. You instead have to start a conversation as to why they have those feelings, and address them. Not just sit on a high horse and shout about how right you are. You should expect nothing but to be ignored in such a case. Anyone who cuts off a conversation because it is going nowhere typically just isn't good enough at talking to bring the conversation into a decent direction. Even the most fanatic people can be persuaded in the tiniest ways by a decent conversation, but it isn't something that comes out across a single debate. when you sleep with the wife of a married guy you indirectly increase that person's risk for diseases, increase the chances for issues between those two people, and indirectly state that you are fine with the actions of people when they sleep with other's wives. Including your own.What if you were having a discussion with a person who was wrong like, 100%, you-know-for-a-fact wrong. You try to correct them. They refuse to listen to you/misconstrue what you are saying, so you tell them they are wrong again, but more forcefully this time. They become petulant and angry because they're not used to blunt talk or being told they're wrong. You stand by your point, albeit with some colorful, somewhat polarizing language, and tell them to feel free to continue the discussion when they actually have valuable viewpoints and facts to back them up.
I mean, like, when I slept with that married guy, I didn't mean to hurt his wife, but I did.
So, what you are saying is that when you sleep with someone you shouldn't, even if you don't consciously intend damage to others, damage can occur across multiple vectors. In other words, the impact of one's actions matters even if the intent is not necessarily to cause harm. I doubt someone would sleep with a married man just to hurt his wife (although people are crazy, and it's probably happened at some point once or twice) and in fact the sleep-ee (as we'll call the woman in this situation) may not desire or consciously consider the impact to the wife at all. Depending on the person I'm sure there is also the potential for various degrees of guilt. Which is actually kind of an interesting reaction, to be honest, because the one breaking vows in this situation is the husband. We seem to agree that a single person acting in perhaps a selfish or heedless way (especially - although I'm sure those aren't the only limits) can cause "indirect" negative impact to others, even widespread or dangerous negative impact. If someone's actions can be understood to have a negative impact without a negative intent, then does it not also stand that someone's words can have a negative impact without a necessarily negative intent? To speak is to act. I posit that it is impossible to be fully aware of the ramifications of our speech or actions at any given time and that we all act in ways, from time to time, that cause negative impact without us having a negative intent behind them. The lack of a conscious intention to do wrong does not provide for a clean slate in which humans can move heedlessly and, when harm inevitably occurs, say "Well I didn't intend for that to happen, so you can't blame me." On a side note, I highly doubt someone helping a married person to cheat on their spouse would care very much about the sanctity of marriage as an institution in general. I would go further and say that being a party to cheating in the context of a marriage does not indirectly condone the actions of people who sleep with married people, but rather directly condones it. When a person does something it stands to reason that they are okay with doing that action, whatever it is - outside of course of situations such as blackmail (though one could argue that in the case of blackmail the person has decided that whatever they're being coerced to is worth their secret, whatever, not coming to light, and still has made the choice to condone their course of action). I think it's very possible a person might not have fully thought-through their actions and may later regret them, but in the moment of action they have decided what they are doing is viable. My coworker got hit by a car a few years ago. The lady driving sure as hell didn't intent to hit her with a car. That lack of intention did not impact the very real injuries and damages my co-worker sustained. I also feel that that lack of intention is in no way justification for the driver of the car not to pay those damages, etc. P.S. Trust me, married or not: if someone in a relationship is cheating, issues were there a long time before anyone's dick/pussy/sexual organs/[emotional cheating organ] got wet where it shouldn't've. P.P.S. The point about the whole theoretical-asshole-argument that got missed is that people can have the best intentions and still be total dickwads. Which is also lacking the intent to do harm does not obviate harm done. People have skewed viewpoints and often perceive things, actions, words, scenes, differently. A guy may consider himself a hero, saving the masses, when really he is wreaking havoc. You cannot absolve yourself of consequences by not intending to cause them. If, however, you really didn't mean for those consequences to occur, you'd act to correct them when you perceived them. You certainly wouldn't deny that they exist simply because you didn't foresee that they would come about when you made your initial action - be it to speak, or to move, or to act. If you call a person a derogatory name as a joke and they burst into tears, it being a joke doesn't mean their feelings aren't hurt. It being a joke doesn't mean you aren't responsible for that pain.when you sleep with the wife of a married guy you indirectly increase that person's risk for diseases, increase the chances for issues between those two people, and indirectly state that you are fine with the actions of people when they sleep with other's wives. Including your own
The important factor of words is that they drive action. A person speaking without hostile intent behind their words is both unlikely to act on them, and unlikely to repeat those words to the extent to create a culture or situation that encourages action. My point is that I can see why terms like "die cis scum" could be non-hostile and perfectly fine to say, but regardless of how much hatred people feel from it, if it is a message created from dislike, it is just as bad as any other. I think you would be surprised at exactly how much the sort of people who cheat would be also driven to hold the ideal that nobody else should cheat. Most people who cheat do so out of momentary lust or dislike of a current relationship, etc. Not out of dislike of monogamy. Regardless of this, by cheating, they open up the vector of "well they did it!" which slowly erodes away social laws. If enough people start cheating, it will become normal and regular to do. Hitting someone with a car is not akin to saying something online. And I am sure I wouldn't go around calling the person who hit your co-worker a murder or a monster because of the action, unless it was intentional. The only way that words that do not carry hatred behind them can be seen as such is through misinterpretation, or through certain "jokes" becoming so common that it becomes an undercurrent of how you act. And, honestly, the latter only tends to happen when there is some undercurrent of dislike or hatred. As to the former, I am not a fan of saying "you are responsible for how others interpret what you say", outside of when a person mistypes or misspeaks. I am not defending that sort of situation. The line is drawn when the literal words you say have a meaning that is directly harmful. You can't go to people saying "I fucking hate all of you" and later say you meant to say "love", and you are responsible for all the setbacks from that action. I am defending a situation where a person says something that is entirely and totally harmless in context, but is interpreted as hateful by those outside of that context. See: "die cis scum". Of course, my other point is that if you are typing "die cis scum" and you actually are doing so out of dislike or disdain for another group, than you are in the wrong.then does it not also stand that someone's words can have a negative impact without a necessarily negative intent? To speak is to act.
My coworker got hit by a car a few years ago. The lady driving sure as hell didn't intent to hit her with a car.
If you call a person a derogatory name as a joke