The art of being offended

[spamsink]

The art of being offended begins with the ability to establish objective criteria to tell when you're offended from when you're merely displeased.

Comments

[boris71.livejournal.com]

Who's said that? You have?

[spamsink]

That's right.

[boris71.livejournal.com]

I thought you were quite younger, my philosophically advanced friend ;-).

OTOH, one could theoretically say that being displeased is yet another level of being offended. Thus, your analysis would not apply ;-).

Notice, I am being no more than semi-serious.

[spamsink]

My rationale for the distinction is that being offended sometimes allows the offended party to file a lawsuit, as opposed to being displeased. If you claim that you're constantly offended to some degree, you're not helping yourself.

[boris71.livejournal.com]

My dear friend, SpamSink, why do you seem to have this strange fixation on lawsuits?

[spamsink]

Haven't you seen the Location line in my profile?

[cema.livejournal.com]

The art of being offended begins with being offended.

[spamsink]

How do you know you're offended?

[boris71.livejournal.com]

Methinks that the art of being offended begins with being offended enough times so as to start making valid inductive conclusions ;-).

[spamsink]

Still, how does one know that his/her displeasure has reached the necessary level? It is not like physical pain that causes certain physiological changes, after all.

[boris71.livejournal.com]

Since in general a human personality is not well-defined mathematical apparatus, usually such a decision is taken at random. One may even go as far as to claim that as time passes all potentially valid inductive theories one may build for oneself may be proved wrong.