It's OK for you to be
offended by something without everyone knowing you're offended.
Anyone paying attention to campus life in recent years knows that America's colleges and universities are filled with pampered millennials who require «trigger warnings» if their tender sensibilities might be
offended by this, that, or the other idea or text.
But Ducatihero, can't you see how you've hijacked this conversation to become all about your being easily
offended by how people respond to you?
I am deeply
offended by everything that every religion has done to mankind, to the earth, to life in all its forms itself.
I'm not
offended by his intent, I'm offended at the use of an instrument of execution as a commemoration.
An understanding and reasonable individual would not feel disgraced or
offended by such a display of kindness.
Tallulah, as a Christian I can say with some certainty that most (not all) Christians would not be
offended by another faith symbol being placed at a memorial.
You all need to go the the deep dark jungles where there is nothing but leaves and then you won't be
offended by our free speach!
However, the argument has been presented that non-Christians should not be
offended by the use of the cross placed by a Christian because they (Christians) would not be
offended by the placement of a Star of David by a Jew or a crescent placed by a Muslim.
Seriously, it is a sad day when people start getting
offended by random acts of kindness.
@ Lauren: So, according to you, you would not be
offended by someone placing sybols of their own religion?
Frankly, if you do get
offended by it, I would want nothing to do with you, have little respect for you, and I would seriously question what kind of person you were to be so «offended» by an act of kindness and compassion.
I know that some will be
offended by that, but it's not my purpose to go into that here....
I don't understand why people would get
offended by it.
It is BECAUSE of the Nazi use of the swastika that most people WOULD be
offended by it's use on a memorial.
As yipeng posted, why can't we use different terms based on who we're talking about and who we're talking to — someone may be
offended by a term that someone else accepts without offense.
I encourage those who are worried /
offended by the crosses to take whatever they feel is more appropriate to the memorial and place it there along side the crosses.
As a Christian, if someone put up a Jewish faith symbol or Muslim faith symbol, or even a non-denominational symbol at my memorial or at one for a loved one, I would absolutely NOT be
offended by that.
What strikes one about the ubiquity of such religious artifacts is how rarely the devout are
offended by what they should regard as blatantly obvious assaults on their devotion.
So you should not be
offended by me comparing you atheists with baboons.
As I have already said, I have no idea what these victims» beliefs were, meaning I have no idea whether or not they would be
offended by crosses.
People need to stop getting
offended by such trivial nonsense.
Not all atheist get
offended by the «in god we trust» and the «swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and so help me god» or the «under one god» or the «god bless america».
He was a bit
offended by Jesus methods.
I'm not
offended by the word science but that's when I noticed how long the post was so I scrolled down to see the responses without reading it.
That is up to them if they get
offended by a loving rebuke.
Don't be
offended by these things.
It is just when problems are settled, books are finished on time, love is made with some rare finesse, that I get the sunny - sky blahs,
offended by the pointlessness of joy.
The petition says, «We, as Christians, are deeply
offended by the name Sweet Jesus.
Those who are
offended by the claim that horses or chimps or whales (OFD; also see OOTM 13, WM 49) deserve more respect than the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy usually resort to a type of question - begging which Peter Singer calls «speciesism»: the human fetus in the early stages of pregnancy deserves moral respect just because it is human.
This is to reach out to people who question their faith, not to antagonize, and if you are
offended by the sign, well, quite frankly, you're a tool.
Of course, many people were shocked and
offended by what Jesus says here.
As a Catholic, a parent and a grandparent, I am deeply
offended by the friar's comments.
It is a toss - up whether scientists or bioethicists will be most
offended by the way they are characterized in the book.
Don't get me wrong, I've been
offended by numerous articles before, but I think it's the penultimate disdain for logic and reasoning that really angers me about this article.
If you are
offended by the opinions of others, I recommend you stay away from public forums.
I was wondering if people would be
offended by the fact that the items were homemade and perhaps not of the best quality.
They were never believers, and being
offended by the Word (remind us of a certain parable?)
They surely need extra sensitivity training to insure that no group of people is
offended by their actions.
If you really object to, are
offended by, or simply think it's stupid then by all means make fun of people for blessing some I - beams.
(That their primary target is a cross is also evidence that it is specifically Christian faith that they feel so
offended by.)
But there was no one, apparently, that lost their eyesight by looking at it, or became depressed because there was a (shock) «Christian symbol» on the site... no one seemed to be
offended by it... those people just kept working, working to save lives, clean up debris, and rebuild.
Athiests do not have to be
offended by it, anymore than christians should be
offended by athiestic stupidity.
How sad that we lose sight of the 4 dead people and worry about whether someone was
offended by a film they themselves chose to see.
Do you see American Christians being
offended by this?
It tends to be the people of no faith, who are
offended by or have disdain for, those with faith.
So he is
offended by it, or rather from it he takes occasion to be offended at the whole of existence, in spite of it he would be himself, not despitefully be himself without it (for that is to abstract from it, and that he can not do, or that would be a movement in the direction of resignation); no, in spite of or in defiance of the whole of existence he wills to be himself with it, to take it along, almost defying his torment.
people may feel
offended by his name, but that doesn't justify it.
@Carrie, I think you are misplacing
offended by the cross for afraid of the cross.
no way am
i offended by a cross.