SJF, what makes you think I was talking about you? Self-important, much? Your brand of feminism isn't radical; it's a gravy-train riding exercise.

Fractelle, please explain how I have bullied anyone here, or anywhere. If you feel less than adequate to respond to things I say, it simply reflects your own estimate of your capacity, not my intent to silence you or "bully" you. If you feel threatened, it is entirely your own affair, for I not only wish you no harm, I have no way of doing you harm if I did. And it is still not my intent to silence or somehow coerce you.

I note that you constantly claim that sort of claptrap to avoid responding rationally to the rational points raised against your POV. I always give my reasons for my statements, feel free to contradict them if you can. To do otherwise is as weak as ...well, you get the drift.

As a free man, I have the ability not only to choose to be offensive, but also to choose to be offended.
If a small child says to me: "Oh thou fool" should I be offended, or should I just think the child is severely limited in the ability to discern complex nuances?
Allowing yourself to be offended is to give others the ability to govern your actions.
On the other hand, I think the most outstanding example of using the ability to be offended was that of Dr Mahatir, when he successfully turned the attention of the whole world from human rights abuses in his country by directing attention to the boorish remark of a loutish Australian PM.
I agree with CJ. While I hold (ad nauseum) to the ethic of reciprocity, if everyone is always unfailingly polite it just makes it that much more difficult to identify the assholes.

Grim I know I have 'offended' simply for expressing the following:

I am a feminist

I believe in the objectives of humanism

I support action for sustainable practices and a clean safe environment

I am an atheist

I also know that I have deliberately tweaked a few nerves here and there in order to reveal the a-holes on OLO.

One doesn't have to indulge in name-calling to offend – there are so many cleverer ways. But bullying is easy to recognise:

“Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.”

A-septic asked me to find examples of the above, I have taken the time to oblige his request.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8766&page=0#138708
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8688&page=0#138414
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8688&page=0#138425

Didn't have to look very far.

Fractelle:"Didn't have to look very far."

It might have helped your case if you'd looked further. None of the examples you've given contain abuse, ad hominem, or any kind of bullying.

What they do contain is simple humour, derogatory certainly, but surely better than the abuse to which they were responding. I quote the Pomeranian:"unlike you I have a good sexual relationship with my loving female partner" and "Hopefully you'll come to terms with your inadequacies one day" and "Antiseptic's antipathy towards women", all because I have the temerity to disagree with the proposition that women deserve to be treated better than men do. Apparently he has become so fond of humping legs he now regards it as a special skill.

Now, off you toddle and see if you can find something that actually supports your claim. Do try to concentrate this time, and ignore the snuffling coming from the Pomeranian.

Grim: << While I hold (ad nauseum) to the ethic of reciprocity, if everyone is always unfailingly polite it just makes it that much more difficult to identify the assholes. >>

Indeed, and Antiseptic is unfailingly obliging in helping us to identify at least one of them.

There is a lot of emotionally manipulative language in the original article and one suspects that the author is trying to protect a personal position that he is not entirely comfortable with. If he was secure and content with his life choices he would not need to try and silence those who challenge them. The expression of opinion is one thing but the desire to try and hurt someone by words is entirely different. The latter is clearly an act of aggression and should be responded to appropriately. Trying to limit the freedom of speech so that we avoid the risk of being hurt is not an appropriate response to aggression. It is the response of someone who does not know how to deal with aggression and who probably suffers bullies and aggressive people in many other ways in their life.

The laws for vilification are similar. The notion that one person can make someone else behave in a way that they do not want to just by what they say is a dangerous precedent to accept. Hitler may have stirred up hatred against Jews but each person who committed an atrocity against a Jew has to take full responsibility for their behaviour. He could not make them do what they did not in their hearts want to do for whatever reason. The problem was not what Hitler said but what thousands of other Germans did. Those who want vilification laws are not addressing the real problem. The real problem is how to deal with aggressive behaviour.

‘Offended’ is just another term for hurt. If you are hurt by what someone says then it is more than likely your problem. If they are trying to hurt you then that is another matter and their should be consequences for them in their relationship with you. Just because there are no laws does not mean that we are powerless to deal with aggression.