zapatos

Sorry but I missed the point you are trying to make. Can you expand on it a bit?

You can't "draw the line". It is too complex. But while many of us seem content to make our best effort and accept something less than perfect, you regularly throw up roadblocks and seem to accept that if a perfect line cannot be drawn, then we should do nothing at all.

Yeah you could be right. Guess we'll have to wait for him.

I think a key phrase you are not taking into account is "at work". Similar to the example by Ten oz of things discussed on dates, there are some places where certain conversations should probably be avoided. Doesn't matter if you are speaking the truth or not, getting in an argument at work about climate change is likely not a good idea.

You are trying awfully hard to find some reason to accept offensive speech. I don't care to join your crusade. If you don't think sexism exists or don't care to help improve the situation for women because of bad players I accept your decision. I don't care if my efforts to improve things are 100% successful or not. I will do my best regardless of my shortfalls along the way.

What I do next is try to to be inoffensive and not support those who don't try to be inoffensive. And I don't look for ways to justify offensive language by suggesting that since it is impossible to be inoffensive all the time, then we should just accept the status quo and not try to improve things. It's very simple.

Because that is how things are done. If someone makes a claim they are expected to support it upon request. That ensures the quality of the discussion, and protects the speaker from being thought of as someone who makes things up.

I find it conflicted because you say you change your speech, yet you say changing your speech to meet changing social mores is going too far. I also find it conflicted because you think it is important enough that you will change your speech, but feel people's right to say what they wish is more important that asking them to be considerate of others. If your attitude was followed by all there would be no social pressure to limit racist or sexist language.

Perhaps, but perhaps you are sending mixed messages. So what is it? You change your speech, or changing your speech is going too far?

Have you been following the news? Heard of #MeToo? That is what is going on TODAY and as far back in time as you'd care to go. If we have to start with proving that sexism exists and has a negative impact on women today we'll have to do that in another thread.

That's what people seem to be doing as they ignore the historical context of sexism.

Sorry. "Stupid woman".

Yes. Everyone knows that. You seem to be telling us that as part of your defense of using the term "ignorant woman". No one is suggesting that no one can ever unintentionally be offensive. The problem I have is with those who KNOW it can be considered offensive to some, yet continue to defend its use because "you are too sensitive" or "it was proper English" or "not everyone knows what is offensive" or "it was factual". It feels to me that people who use such arguments are being obtuse.

Seriously? Did you state that because you feel that we are expecting everyone to be omniscient? MigL seems to either not know that the term "stupid woman" might be offensive to some (even though it's been stated about 50 times in this thread), or that because it is factual and a proper use of the English language that perhaps the person who is offended is a sexist. And now your defense of the terms seems to be a plea to ignorance, even though it's been stated around 50 times in this thread. If you don't care to modify your speech to avoid offending someone then don't. But don't act like you don't know some might be offended.

I don't think so (other than in extreme cases). I think it is taken as a sexist statement due to its historical use as such. Calling someone a dirty Jew may be both factual and a proper use of the English language, but due to history, it should surprise no one if the Jewish person who just finished gardening might take offense. That is why many of us simply avoid using some factual, proper English.

Here we go again...

If you are going to use the blindness of the test taker as a failure of IQ tests, then it is reasonable to use blindness as a failure of chemistry tests. In other words, it is unfair to judge the efficacy of IQ tests due to such physical disabilities of the test taker Therefore, my comparison was equivalent.

The same could be said for Chemistry tests. Just how well does a chemistry test judge the chemistry knowledge of the dyslexic, blind, person who never used a pen, etc.

I sincerely hope my doctor has an IQ higher than 90.

No, that is not even close to being the same. I can only guess you've never belonged to a church group.

Have you seen what is going on in America these days? As of December 2018, Congress has an 18% approval rating. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx Nothing cheap about using "politician" in a negative way.

You said "We use 'soul' to refer to a person without its physical body." But the example you provided referred to 'soul' as as part of the physical body. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

The thought has occurred to me. ""I could just jump!" But it is no different to me than any other thoughts. "Maybe I'll win the lottery!" or "I could go to Ireland for holiday this year." In your first post you refer to it as a "thought" someone might have. I have had the thought. In a later post though you refer to it as an "urge", which I've never had. I'd be surprised if most people have had the "urge" to kill someone.

If the poor soul died in the war, that makes it sound like the soul and the body are the same. Or at least that the soul is not independent of the physical body.

Can you please point out the specific portion of the rules you are referring to?