So, if someone tells you something you are doing is pissing them off, you don’t stop it but instead launch into a discussion about why they are wrong to be pissed off?
And we’re not talking about you. We’re talking about the other person.
You switched from being offended to being pissed off, which are two different ways to be.
But either way, just given what you said, there’s no telling whether the other person would be right to be offended or pissed off. Put another way, there is nothing inherently offensive or rightful-anger-inducing about telling someone they are wrong to be pissed off. In fact, in some cases I could imagine, it would be offensive not to tell them they’re wrong to be pissed off–if not telling them so indicates some lack of proper respect.
But not at someone telling you that you have a really tiny penis?
How so?
Someone telling me I have a really tiny penis is just being ridiculous. For one thing, who cares how big my penis is? For another thing, how would they know? Third, they are clearly trying to get a rise out of me* and why should I give them the pleasure**
*no pun intended
**ditto
Being offended requires believing someone does not have as much respect for you as they should; being pissed off does not require this.
No it does not.
That said, you seem to enjoy splitting hairs and think it means something.
I don’t so I’m going to check out a different thread.
Then we mean different things by “offended” I guess. I think mine’s the one closer to normal English usage, though. Can you think of a case where someone is offended without thinking someone has shown them less respect than they should? I can learn more about what you mean by the term if I have some such examples in hand.
Your comment about splitting hairs was utter bunk. You asked me to clarify the distinction between offense and pissed-offedness. If you’re going to call my response “splitting hairs” then the truth is just that you didn’t actually want me to clarify anything, and you don’t appreciate clarity in conversations.
Don’t ask for something then threaten to leave in a hissy fit when you get what you explicitly asked for.
That should say “has less”, not “has shown them less.”
Many people are offended by unnecessary fowl language, and that fits the m-w version of the word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offend
You may want to provide a cite where the denotation is limited to disrespect.
This seems like a strange example, since what makes foul language “foul” is its tendency to indicate a lack of proper respect.
When used among friends who don’t mind it, it’s not showing disrespect, and is at the same time no longer “foul.”
If someone sees the conversation between friends and is still offended by it, it is because they think the people aren’t showing proper respect (to what I don’t know)–but the offended person is wrong in this case.
Remember that the sense of “offend” relevant to this discussion is an attitude which one can take toward someone else’s actions.
So the “pain and discomfort” sense is right out. Feeling pain and discomfort is not an attitude toward an act, it’s a reaction.
Etc. various other senses.
IOW the kind of “offend” we’re talking about (if the OP’s issue makes any sense at all) is the kind where you could say “I am offended, and I am right to be offended because:”
If it’s just that you feel pain or discomfort, there’s no quesiton of whether you’re right to feel pain or discomfort. You just do.
About your dictionary citation: Skip past the entries and look at the synonyms. Every single one involves bad feeling at a lack of respect. The entries explicitly note this!
That, then, seems to be involved the central meaning of the term.
That may be your subjective opinion on the meaning but if you are going to drag a debate down to the meaning of words the burden of proof is on you.
Where are your cites, I can not find a single one that defines the word as narrow as you are positing.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offend
Are you callin’ me chicken?
[/quote]
I’ve given my arguments that the sense of “offend” I’m discussing is the one relevant to this thread.
The definitions you’re talking about are typically either examples of the kind of thing that would cause someone to think they’re being disrespected, or else are simply altenate senses of the term.
Dysgraphia can induce cackling from time to time 
I’ve given my arguments that the sense of “offend” I’m discussing is the one relevant to this thread.
The definitions you’re talking about are typically either examples of the kind of thing that would cause someone to think they’re being disrespected, or else are simply altenate senses of the term.
[/QUOTE]
So it was improper for me to be offended when my boss made a sexist joke?
I should have been some other emotion?
Cool your jets. First, why don’t you explain why we should treat Mormons more seriously than we treat practitioners of voodoo?
BordelDeMerde made an astute case of why it is that practitioners of voodoo is not taken seriously. But I asked why should it be that they are.
This was your analogy originally, Morgenstern, and I think it is a fairly good one. Posthumous baptisms are like voodoo dolls, incapable of affecting the intended target, yet potentially offensive and downright silly. Why should we take those silly people seriously?
I eagerly await your response, and fully intend to justify my broad assertions (probably in its own thread so as to not clutter this one). I will do that once you answer my question of “why we should treat Mormons more seriously than we treat practitioners of voodoo?”