Intent does(n't) matter

[Random832]

I didn't call anyone out. I actually don't even remember who it was. I could do a search on my posts to find out, but that would be playing into your hands in your clear attempt to portray me as coming into this with a grudge. I'm actually more interested in how/whether the principle applies to the 'middle ground' (stuff like blogs where the original post is much more prominently displayed than any clarifications that may come up in the comments section) than stuff like this forum or chat rooms.

[The Great Hippo]

I could do a search on my posts to find out, but that would be playing into your hands in your clear attempt to portray me as coming into this with a grudge.

Spoiler:

I'm actually more interested in how/whether the principle applies to the 'middle ground' (stuff like blogs where the original post is much more prominently displayed than any clarifications that may come up in the comments section) than stuff like this forum or chat rooms.

Oh, in that case, I don't see how it's any different at all. Besides, you can go back and edit blog posts. This underlying notion applies to all mediums of language; I don't think that the medium changes the circumstances in any particular drastic way - beyond the fact that written mediums give you a greater opportunity to choose your words carefully (and those words are carved into stone, so there'll be less quibbles over "What I actually said was...").

[Random832]

I could do a search on my posts to find out, but that would be playing into your hands in your clear attempt to portray me as coming into this with a grudge.

Spoiler:

So what's your problem anyway?

Did you think I was talking about you? You never made the argument I was talking about, so I don't get why, if so.

(Explained to me in PM) sorry for the misunderstanding

[SpazzyMcGee]

"Intent doesn't matter"

when the goal is veangance, not justice.

Putting a muderer who had the intent to kill in jail is beneficial to society because that person is likely to commit muder again. Someone who accidentally killed someone is far less likely to kil. If negilgence is the reason someone died then the offendant should be punished according to the severity of that negligence, not necessarally the effect. If death was shearly by chance (like bumping into someone on the street causing them to slip on a banana peel that blew off the top of a garbage can) then there is absolutely no reason to punish as that person would be just as likely to "murder" someone again as any random person in the courtroom.

[Aetius]

But, in our society, there are still effects, whether we can blame you, or your intentions are good. In our society, for example, trans people are very maligned in the media, in the news, among many people etc. If you take the example of the transsexual on Jerry Springer. Another "I'm telling my man I'm a man" special probably isn't going to have a major effect on society. But, it's another data point about how trans women aren't really women, about how it's ok to react with violence and rage if your wife comes out to you, and often that trans women deserve what they get. Jerry Springer, and Fox, they're not intending to make trans women more ostracized. They're just making "good TV" as they would say. They're playing into cultural memes and sensationalizing trans people even more. The effect, on trans people like me? It's just one more data point for the cis people of the world to talk about when they meet me for the first time. It's another "oh, so like those guys on jerry springer". It's another example of people who are like me being shown as horrible people, getting beaten, yelled at, and being unloved. these hurt. They're pinpricks on the psyche, but still it's there.

In this example it is the intent of the Jerry Springer producers to portray trans folk a certain way in order to garner ratings. You are holding them responsible for that intent, saying it's an irresponsible thing to do. This isn't an example that supports the notion that intent doesn't matter.

If, for example, there was a news program that was genuinely interested in doing an intellectually honest exploration of the life of a trans person, but through luck of the draw happened to pick someone who was very poor representative and ended up hurting the public image of trans persons, is that an equivalent situation to Jerry Springer? "Intent doesn't matter" would say yes because both end up putting out negative portrayals of trans persons, but I don't think that passes the smell test. There would be a very real difference between the two programs, largely derivative of the intent of the producers.

[JBJ]

Avoiding offensive or discriminatory statements is like the board with a nail in it. Easy to use, hard to misuse, but has a limited effect. Statements that contain discriminatory language but have the intended purpose to the opposite are like a grenade. It has a greater effect, but can also cause collateral damage. Once again, not endorsing that it should be a free-for-all with everyone lobbing grenades around, but it is an effective weapon when used correctly. I fully acknowledge that the statements can cause harm, but I think one of my goals in creating this topic was to show how it's possible to avoid being caught in the blast. Ignoring intent is like ignoring the person throwing the grenade. You're going to get caught in the blast. Acknowledging intent at least gives you a chance to get out of the way.

But isn't it possible to gain the benefits you're talking about by dismissing intent as irrelevant to your ends but simultaneously understanding its utility to arrive at your means? I understand that you (a hypothetical you) is concerned about intent, so I can treat you accordingly; however, your intent is irrelevant to me insofar as much as arriving at my goal is concerned - I'm only interested in your intent as it applies to ending abuse. That is, the only reason I care about your intent is because you care.

I started to say no, but I discovered a technical flaw in that answer. Yes, it is possible to obtain those benefits by dismissing intent if, and pretty much only if, communication could be perfected and precisely targeted. You see, I am operating on two principles. One - that words can be weapons. Everyone has these weapons and it's not possible to take them away (excluding some form of censorship, which I'm not comfortable with). Since everyone has these weapons, as a general rule we should abstain from using them. The second principle is that communication is imperfect. Despite our best efforts, we all occasionally let off a stray round. Recognizing intent can benefit those who could be harmed by a particular weapon to get out of the way. It also assures them that they weren't being targeted and that the risk of another misfire is minimal.

As for the benefits of using them, I'm not sure I can fully articulate that concept just yet. It's along the lines of: there are people who use their weapons recklessly, or even intentionally, without realizing the power they are wielding. If, as a method of demonstrating how powerful they are, we can set off a few bombs and be assured that no one will get hurt, it could act as a wake up call for them to be more careful.

[G.v.K]

Anybody who wants to argue that intent doesn't matter has a significant and growing body of science to deal with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

It studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on.

Firstly: noone's saying that context is irrelevant. That would be a plainly stupid thing to claim. Also: emphasis mine in the quote, inferred intent is certainly important. But people in different contexts can and will infer different intent, and this inference can be independent of the actual intent of the speaker.

We bring to the conversational table certain heuristics which are explicitly about the 'intent' of the speaker - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grice%27s_maxims

But these are irrelevant to the question at hand... they're specifically about how a speaker should behave to minimise misunderstanding, not how a listener should behave. It would be folly for a listener to assume, even as a heuristic, that every speaker will be truthful, precise, relevant and clear.

The question is, given a speaker who doesn't follow those maxims, and says something imprecise and ambiguous, does it matter what they actually meant to say? When it comes to looking at the effects of them saying it, whether a statement is harmful or not, it doesn't, particularly. To use JBJ's example, a person who says "aren't you just precious?" meaning it at face value, and a person who says "aren't you just precious?" meaning it sarcastically, said to the same person, in the same context, and without any cues in the message itself as to which meaning was meant, would result in the same response, and would have the same effects. So, for all useful purposes, it's the same message.

why is all the emphasis on the speaker and none on the listener? and why are we assuming a malicious speaker and context?

this thread seems to be concentrating on 'public' contexts where some kind of offence or some kind of harm is involved. that's fine, but let's be clear about it. personally, I would try to avoid such scenarios. if i suspected somebody of continually intending offence I would simply not associate with them. the law exists as a final recourse where matters of offence and illegality can be judged.

Grice's maxims apply to everyday communication between a speaker and a listener. in everyday conversation both parties follow these maxims until one has reason to suspect the other is not. in the case, it's civil and polite to give the other party the chance to clarify if you have reason to suspect they are not following the maxims.

it seems to me that some people are really trying to have a political discussion around control of 'public discourse'. but that seems to me to be a different topic.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

in everyday conversation both parties follow these maxims until one has reason to suspect the other is not.

Huh? When you say "follow," do you mean "should follow"? Because I don't think it's necessary to suspect another person of violating one of these maxims to start doing so yourself.

[G.v.K]

in everyday conversation both parties follow these maxims until one has reason to suspect the other is not.

Huh? When you say "follow," do you mean "should follow"? Because I don't think it's necessary to suspect another person of violating one of these maxims to start doing so yourself.

the maxims are proposed as a kind of heuristic we use in conversation. these are a model in a similar way to how linguists model the meanings of the words that are in general use.

certain people may not follow the maxims just like certain people may not understand the common meanings of some words.

whether or not we 'should' hold certain meanings or follow certain heuristics seems to me to be a different question. i'm still not sure if that is a moral or political issue.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The article you linked states that the maxims "are only meant to describe the commonly accepted traits of successful cooperative communication." They are inapplicable to communications where intent is expressed poorly, or where the intent is not cooperative (if I intend to deceive you, for instance), so they do not show that intent matters beyond situations where determining intent is a goal of all parties involved.

I think it would help to focus this discussion by agreeing on what type of mattering intent is or is not doing. I can identify at least three different interpretations that seem to be leading this thread in different directions:

1) Intent matters or does not matter for interpretation.
2) Intent matters or does not matter for meaning (itself a term with problematic definitions).
3) Intent matters or does not matter for effects subsequent to interpretation.

These three concepts (and any others that I've missed) are related, but so far I've seen little discussion of the relationships between them, and especially little of those between number three and the others. Rather than continuing to be frustrated that various people are talking about various things in this thread, perhaps we should clarify what we intend for this thread to be about.

[G.v.K]

The article you linked states that the maxims "are only meant to describe the commonly accepted traits of successful cooperative communication." They are inapplicable to communications where intent is expressed poorly, or where the intent is not cooperative (if I intend to deceive you, for instance), so they do not show that intent matters beyond situations where determining intent is a goal of all parties involved.

actually, the reason you know that intent is expressed poorly or is uncooperative is precisely because you are using these maxims to evaluate the speaker's utterance.

in a similar way, if a particular word was mispronounced, you know that because you have a phonetic inventory of correct sounds for English and phonological rules for their combination.

i don't understand your points 1, 2 and 3. in any case, modern linguistics will tell you that meaning creation involves a multi-stage process including phonetic, phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic interpretation. there are no absolutes here. there are conventions and those conventions can be subverted, often deliberately.

i don't believe we are talking about linguistics here. i believe we are talking about one of either morality, law or politics.

[dedalus]

I've got to admit, I'm failing to see how you can talk on such a broad context as 'importance' without bringing up the question, 'importance to what'.

Consider the following situation: you have two people in separate rooms. One of them has two buttons, and is told that pushing one will give the other person a chocolate, whilst pushing the other will give the first person an electric shock. In reality though, it's actually the other way around. The first person presses the button to give them a chocolate, and leaves them writhing in pain. Is the first person to blame for this?

More importantly, what if the fact that the two buttons were mixed up was a complete mistake?

The point is that the first person didn't intend to hurt the other person, so we can't attach any blame to him for the action, but we'd still expect him to apologise for the action, and if he was put back in the room and told to press a button, this time to press the right one. And so, the first time it is forgiveable, but it's still expected that you say sorry for the fact you DID cause the pain, because you're not accepting the blame for doing it by saying sorry. Of course, if you then go back into the room and press the same button again, any apology you're making starts sounding increasingly fake.

Also consider the scenario here of if the first person fully intended to hurt the second, and then used the 'oh they told me the wrong buttons' as an excuse.

It's important to consider this because, from the second persons perspective, nothings changed. So the point to be made here is that no-one can fully garner your *true* intent, and thus, if I'd been shocked multiple times, and then the person came around and said 'sorry, it was all a mistake, I meant to give you chocolate', I'd be wondering whether this really was the case. Especially if I didn't know the person that well, and I'd been shocked before by people in the same situation where they really had mean to shock me.

So basically, in any of these situations, if you said something that someone else took offence to, then apologising doesn't mean accepting the blame for them being hurt if that wasn't your intent. However, it's still important to apologise, because it signifies that you know that the other person is hurt. And if you're going to sit there saying 'oh I didn't mean to hurt you, therefore I'm not in the wrong', well... That's just going to make you sound pretty fake. And above it all, if what you say does hurt people, and you've been told this in the past, don't keep saying it, because you know now the effect it's going to have on them, and this means that by continuing to say racist/sexist/phobic stuff regardless of whether you mean it removes any negating effect your actual intent has upon the situation. You KNOW that you're doing something that's going to hurt people, you KNOW that you're pressing the button that's going to give someone an electric shock, and if you come out the second time and say 'oh hey, sorry, I swear they told me this one would give you chocolate', then you're just flat lying and we both know it.


Edit: Just for the record, the hypothetical situation is pretty much exactly what happens in real life. Every time you say something derogatory or discriminatory you hurt people, regardless of whether you intended upon doing it, and every time you don't, though you don't straight out give them something nice, because you've overall reduced the number of times said person cops nastiness it effectively counts as doing so. (Note: I'm not saying I deserve to be thanked every time I don't say something discriminatory, because this should be the norm, but on a relative scale because on average there is >0 discrimination in the world, being completely non-discriminatory is relatively slightly good rather then relatively completely neutral).

[G.v.K]

saw this on Australian tv last night. it's long but very interesting and relevant to this topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVsF9a-PcMA (first 15 minutes or so)

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/200 ... ite=sydney (full transcript)

people might know Julian Morrow from The Chaser, a tv show with the deliberate intent to push the boundaries of taste (there's heaps of their stuff on youtube).

he made two very interesting analytical distinctions as relates to media, intent and offense:-

a) difference between primary audience, who deliberately and freely 'consume' the media product, and secondary audience who only hear about it when it becomes controversial.

b) three categories of people who 'dislike' the product: 1) people whose feeling are genuinely hurt; 2) people who are offended and outraged; 3) people who just don't like it but take no real offense.

Morrow's point is that if we allow the secondary audience and/or category b2 to dictate the terms of freedom of expression, we will stifle creativity and free speech.

furthermore, in a liberal democracy, we must expect that we ourselves might fall into category b2 but that our outrage and offense should not trump the ability of others to speak freely.

Morrow argues that guidelines which govern content should be aimed only at protecting people in category b1 i.e. those who suffer directly.

[dedalus]

No-one is saying that you're losing your right to free speech... Whimsical Eloquence just made a very good description on the right to free speech here. The point being that just because something is offensive doesn't prevent it from being said. However, you've got to realise that group a do exist (I'm not completely sure what you mean in group b; assumably it's people who just get outraged that 'such a thing was said') and if you're going to do something that you know is going to put a lot of people in group a, like making racist jokes on an internet forum, then you might want to reconsider exactly why you're doing it; if you're doing it simply for the sake of making the joke, then it's not going to achieve its purpose of humouring someone because they'll take offence to it instead. And more importantly, when you're on a forum, we can't tell the difference between you making the racist joke because 'oh hey, this is funny but totally not true', and 'I hate <race> and I'm going to disguise my hatred under humour'.

One of the main reasons that comedians get away with stereotyping and the etcetera under the name of humour is because we can be sure most of the time there's no intent behind it. So going back to the scenario of the room, if we have a button saying 'hurt XYZ people but give everyone a cookie', then we know the comedian might press that button with the purpose of handing out the cookie, and chances are the joke has been made in such a way that the hurt it dishes out isn't that large (hence why comedians usually make racist jokes directed at themselves). However, we can't quite be sure that you're not simply jamming that button because you have a conscious urge to cause harm to XYZ people, and more importantly chances are that you haven't fully considered exactly how much hurt you're going to be dishing out to the people that aren't hurt. So if we introduce a variable knob, that decides the level of hurt and the tastiness of the cookies (and the two aren't directly proportional to each other); someone who's a professional comedian has had plenty of time playing around with the knob to know how to get the best tasting cookies with the least amount of hurt, but you don't, and you're rarely taking everything into account. Chances are you might make tasty cookies but cause so much pain that no-one who's been given them really wants to eat them, or you might cause a lot of pain and make terrible tasting cookies, and it's unlikely you'd know how to tell the difference. And just as importantly, we can't tell whether you're only trying to make awesome cookies or if you're just in it for causing pain (or both), and when you make terrible tasting cookies and then say 'oh, sorry, bad batch' with plenty of people writhing on the floor, and go back and do it again, then you're sounding even more disingenuous.

[G.v.K]

it is very difficult to know who is genuinely hurt and who is just offended.

so it's a balancing act. do we want to balance in favour of free speech or in favour of not hurting people's feelings?

personally, i'm more in favour of free speech. that's because I value creativity and new ideas and I almost never get hurt or offended by something a stranger says or does, especially on an internet forum where i take it for granted that there are teenagers all over the world who like nothing more than writing the most offensive thing they can think of just in the hope that somebody will get upset.

[Griffin]

On Subjective harm vs. Objective harm. Okay, I know its been a few posts since this was brought up, but I think it was an issue that should be resolved and wasn't, really.

Put simply, if the harm depends on someones interpretation, than it can be considered subjective. Whether or not the "harm" is changeable is just evidence of its subjective nature (not proof, but not irrelevant in the absence of other evidence). Most instances of "harm" are actually a combination of both. Earlier, it was mentioned that calling transgender female "he" was damaging, regardless of the intent. The harm is based completely on interpretation - if it was interpreted differently, it would not be harm. In situations like this, intent IS often important - because knowing the intent can change the interpretation of the parties that have been harmed (for the better, or the worse). Any harm that is done by communication is always, by default, subjective - because it required two actors to have an effect, and can easily have multiple interpretations.

As an example of some harm that is partially objective/partially subjective, take a doctor giving a patient a shot. There has been an abundance of scientific evidence that telling a patient it will hurt actually makes it hurt more. Peoples expectations effect the harm that was done.

Back to intent:
Anyways, there are multiple examples in real life where intent matters, simply because communication is imperfect. And not just intent, but clarification and context. If context matters, then intent matters, because intent is part of a messages context. Its obviously more important on the personal level, with people we know and can talk to, because we can act to clarify intent before confirming are suspicions as to the content of a message.

But I think the primary reason intent matters is because none of us knows everything about the audience of our messages, or about the communicators of messages that come to us. We all, always, act with imperfect information, about others, about ourselves. Our "intent" is essentially to convey a given message as best we can based on the information available to us. New information allows us to re-interpret the messages of others, and allows them to refine their messages, which changes the impact of those same messages.

Intent matters, because discovering intent on the part of an audience can change the harm a message deals. It is not the only thing that matters, obviously, but it has an impact (if only because we, as an audience, often assign it an impact), and thus it matters.

On Free Speech:
I think the right to offend is a central tenant of free speech, and will defend it. So I'm definitely in favour of free speech. But I'm also in favour of treating complete douches like complete douches. Just because your free to do something doesnt mean your actions don't have consequences, for you and others.

[dedalus]

it is very difficult to know who is genuinely hurt and who is just offended.

so it's a balancing act. do we want to balance in favour of free speech or in favour of not hurting people's feelings?

personally, i'm more in favour of free speech. that's because I value creativity and new ideas and I almost never get hurt or offended by something a stranger says or does, especially on an internet forum where i take it for granted that there are teenagers all over the world who like nothing more than writing the most offensive thing they can think of just in the hope that somebody will get upset.

To be honest, it's rarely ever a balancing act. Most communication on the internet can go on without actually insulting anyone; we manage to do it all the time here. And usually if someone is offended as opposed to being personally hurt then it's quite often because they're trying to defend someone who isn't going to take the personal line and say 'this is offending me'. For example, when I newly joined up to the forum I made a jocular reference to rape (can't remember exactly what, I think it was of the 'university is raping me' type. Someone pointed it out, I'm not completely sure whether they were actually hurt by the reference, but I don't think they were. However, chances are that a rape victim who read that wasn't going to pick a fight with me, because they didn't know me, and I could just have easily turned around and said 'fuck you I can say what I want' as I could've apologised (as it happens I did the second). So we need the people from group b to point out that 'hey, saying that isn't a good idea' because people from group a often won't. Of course, some people have been known to be overzealous in being offended, and that's something to take into account, but that doesn't mean you should take everything said by someone form group b and treat it as 'someone overreacting to a joke'; if someone expresses offence, consider why they were offended and reconsider whether you should've written it in the first place.

To come back to my personal example, after I made the joke, I apologised, because even though I didn't intend to cause harm to those people, the harm was still done. And I now don't make rape jokes on the fora. If someone had suffered because of what I said and then tried to sue me, they would be in the wrong because I didn't intend to harm. However, just by apologising I'm not taking legal responsibility for any harm caused, I'm recognising that the harm may have been caused and it was caused because of me. It doesn't cause me any problems to say 'hey I'm sorry', and I don't think that rape jokes should be on the fora, plain and simple, regardless of intent (and if you read this, now you know, and you are to blame if you keep making them).

And yes, there are trolls. We ignore them, and hope they will go away, and their posts get deleted and they get banned. And for good reason too. And seriously, just because YOU don't get hurt by something said over the internet doesn't mean the same thing applies to everyone. Chances are you've never been raped. And I'm not completely sure about your demographic either, but you may never have been subject to discrimination or abuse because of race, religion, gender, creed or colour. Maybe you have a stronger moral character then most; but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite for being a part of an internet forum.

[General_Norris]

^Then is black comedy bad? Honest question.

[dedalus]

That's a complex topic, and needs to be addressed more specifically. Comes down to audience, comedian and the joke itself. But most comedians don't just tell racist jokes.

[Random832]

Comes down to audience

In these days of camera phones, the audience is always (potentially) the whole world.

[G.v.K]

it is very difficult to know who is genuinely hurt and who is just offended.

so it's a balancing act. do we want to balance in favour of free speech or in favour of not hurting people's feelings?

personally, i'm more in favour of free speech. that's because I value creativity and new ideas and I almost never get hurt or offended by something a stranger says or does, especially on an internet forum where i take it for granted that there are teenagers all over the world who like nothing more than writing the most offensive thing they can think of just in the hope that somebody will get upset.

To be honest, it's rarely ever a balancing act. Most communication on the internet can go on without actually insulting anyone; we manage to do it all the time here. And usually if someone is offended as opposed to being personally hurt then it's quite often because they're trying to defend someone who isn't going to take the personal line and say 'this is offending me'. For example, when I newly joined up to the forum I made a jocular reference to rape (can't remember exactly what, I think it was of the 'university is raping me' type. Someone pointed it out, I'm not completely sure whether they were actually hurt by the reference, but I don't think they were. However, chances are that a rape victim who read that wasn't going to pick a fight with me, because they didn't know me, and I could just have easily turned around and said 'fuck you I can say what I want' as I could've apologised (as it happens I did the second). So we need the people from group b to point out that 'hey, saying that isn't a good idea' because people from group a often won't. Of course, some people have been known to be overzealous in being offended, and that's something to take into account, but that doesn't mean you should take everything said by someone form group b and treat it as 'someone overreacting to a joke'; if someone expresses offence, consider why they were offended and reconsider whether you should've written it in the first place.

To come back to my personal example, after I made the joke, I apologised, because even though I didn't intend to cause harm to those people, the harm was still done. And I now don't make rape jokes on the fora. If someone had suffered because of what I said and then tried to sue me, they would be in the wrong because I didn't intend to harm. However, just by apologising I'm not taking legal responsibility for any harm caused, I'm recognising that the harm may have been caused and it was caused because of me. It doesn't cause me any problems to say 'hey I'm sorry', and I don't think that rape jokes should be on the fora, plain and simple, regardless of intent (and if you read this, now you know, and you are to blame if you keep making them).

And yes, there are trolls. We ignore them, and hope they will go away, and their posts get deleted and they get banned. And for good reason too. And seriously, just because YOU don't get hurt by something said over the internet doesn't mean the same thing applies to everyone. Chances are you've never been raped. And I'm not completely sure about your demographic either, but you may never have been subject to discrimination or abuse because of race, religion, gender, creed or colour. Maybe you have a stronger moral character then most; but that shouldn't be a pre-requisite for being a part of an internet forum.

it seems to me that meaning is almost always negotiable and so is intent. you gave a good example of a case specific to an internet forum where meaning, intent and offense were sorted out by the people involved.

typically, guidelines and moderation seem to be required where meaning cannot be negotiated eg. in 'one-way' media like television, radio etc. i think some of the people arguing that 'intent doesn't matter' are really saying 'we need stricter guidelines and moderation of one-way communication'.

some others seem to be saying that we need whole new conventions around communication. funny thing is, communities of people came up with their own conventions all by themselves without any guidance from above. and there are cases where imposition of 'standards' from above is simply rejected by the community eg. Germany's new spelling rules from several years ago.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Oh, is this the part of the thread where we conjure up phantom proposals of official regulation? Who shall do the Godwinning?

actually, the reason you know that intent is expressed poorly or is uncooperative is precisely because you are using these maxims to evaluate the speaker's utterance.

But I don't know if a person is uncooperative or communicating poorly without knowing that person's intent. It is incredibly difficult for me to determine if someone is lying to me, or doesn't speak English well and turned a phrase inside-out from hir intention, or doesn't really want to talk to me but is merely affirming me absentmindedly until I go away. In these situations, I can only apply the Gricean maxims if I have direct knowledge of that person's intent, but then of course the Gricean maxims are not the proper tool for determining intent; nothing outside of divine intervention could convey intent to me except by interpretation of the message itself.

And even if I manage to root out true intent and weigh it on Grice's scales, and it does not balance the utterance, so what? All I would have shown is that the intent of the speaker was absent from hir utterance, as has been my contention throughout this thread.

As for my three "points," they were not points at all, so I daresay that you haven't understood them. And I dare say it again if you have missed this thread's conversation on linguistics. But, to restate that section: I was pointing out the relativity of "importance" and the verb "matter" and trying to reign in the diffusive discussions in this thread that have proceeded from our different interpretations of these words (for we clearly cannot be all in disagreement and yet all have a correct sense of these words' intent). That list was a non-exhaustive summary of those discussions.

In other words, I was pointing out what dedalus then did much more clearly: How can we say that intent matters, or does not matter, without any defintion of the considerations for which intent might matter?

The "intended message" exists as a concept in the speaker's mind. The formulation of words, symbols, gestures, etc... is representative of that concept. In the speaker's mind they are identical. In other minds (where an identical concept may or may not already exist) those same words and symbols combine to form the same concept. In that respect they are not distinct. At least in the sense that any two identical items are not distinct. It depends on how far you want to extend the definition of distinct.

Where they can become separated is in the listener's mind when those words or symbols fail to form the same concept. They may form a different concept entirely. The chances of this happening are heavily influenced by the choice of words or symbols but can be mitigated by considering intent. Once that concept forms, there is nothing to exclude it from changing. Indeed, even if the concept initially formed as the speaker intended, it is possible for it to change as well. That's a risk inherent with ideas.

(emphasis mine)

You are still working with ideas that are at once bound and unbound from their signifiers, even in the same minds. Which is it going to be?

It seems to me that your, erm, intent in your first post is to show that intent is often an important consideration in communications — for example, that if we are planning to play Halo at a certain time then we should clarify a common timezone. I would agree with this, of course, but right now you seem to be arguing that intent is the defining substance of a communication. At various points in that claim, I object.

[Le1bn1z]

Does intent matter?

I think that the Common and Civil legal systems have it just about right.

It doesn't really matter in terms of material damage done. That's why if you do something and it causes harm to someone else, you're still responsible for helping them out. For example, if you mess up when you're driving, and unintentionally hit someone, legally you're on the hook for the damage you cause them (even if insurance ends up picking up the bill on your behalf.)

We are all responsible for our actions, whatever our intent, but here, only so far as the consequences extend. If one was genuinely trying to do good, to the best of their ability, and messed up, they need to clean up the mess but aren't morally culpable.

Intent does matter in the assigning of blame, however, and is what leads to punitive decisions by the courts. If you were trying to hurt someone, or did not try sufficiently to not hurt them, society and/or the victim (depending on how you look at it) have a right to 1.) defend themselves through corrective action, taking means necessary to discipline you and correct your behaviour 2.) defend themselves through deterrence, punishing you to deter others from likewise committing similar acts 3.) in some ethical models, they have the right to vengeance. You harmed them, and deserve harm in return. Mostly, though, its a defensive reflex to show that neither you nor others can attack with impunity.

For example, a shopkeeper accidentally shorts you $5.00. He ought to pay the money he owes you, but shouldn't be punished for a small mistake.
Someone signs up as a baby sitter, but doesn't pay the children any attention, only checking on them a couple of times, and not securing dangerous substances or areas. If something happens to the kids, that baby sitter is both responsible to make things right (pay for medical bills and to replace all the flowers the kid ate) and may be culpable morally and subject to punishment (a fine or, depending on the degree of harm or negligence, something more.)
Someone smashes up your house on purpose, they should pay to fix it and go to jail.

I don't see how this model could really draw that much criticism. The three possible levels of causing a calamity (honest failure, negligent failure or deliberate harm) encompass all the possibilities.

[Dark567]

...
I don't see how this model could really draw that much criticism. The three possible levels of causing a calamity (honest failure, negligent failure or deliberate harm) encompass all the possibilities.

In general I pretty much agree with this. The question I have is that if you have no moral culpability(and somehow we are 100% that we know it) for an action, should you really be required to pay damages? It seems if you have no moral culpability that in reality the action should be considered random or arbitrary, there for one would have to pay for the damages.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

There's moral culpability, and then there's responsibility. You don't need the former ("You were out to ruin us from the start!") to have the latter ("You did that drawing disaster.").

[Dark567]

There's moral culpability, and then there's responsibility. You don't need the former ("You were out to ruin us from the start!") to have the latter ("You did that drawing disaster.").

One could argue that all responsibility is moral responsibility, and you have no responsibility for consequences of your actions that are not immoral. Hell, I can't think of anyway to define responsibility that doesn't involve morality.

[G.v.K]

actually, the reason you know that intent is expressed poorly or is uncooperative is precisely because you are using these maxims to evaluate the speaker's utterance.

But I don't know if a person is uncooperative or communicating poorly without knowing that person's intent. It is incredibly difficult for me to determine if someone is lying to me, or doesn't speak English well and turned a phrase inside-out from hir intention, or doesn't really want to talk to me but is merely affirming me absentmindedly until I go away. In these situations, I can only apply the Gricean maxims if I have direct knowledge of that person's intent, but then of course the Gricean maxims are not the proper tool for determining intent; nothing outside of divine intervention could convey intent to me except by interpretation of the message itself.

And even if I manage to root out true intent and weigh it on Grice's scales, and it does not balance the utterance, so what? All I would have shown is that the intent of the speaker was absent from hir utterance, as has been my contention throughout this thread.

i think you are confusing two different situations - 'everyday' communication (where the maxims apply) and a legal situation which implies that communication has irrevocably broken down and one party is suing another.

Grice's maxims are not measurement tools. they are conventions that are followed in a certain communicative context. in daily, face-to-face communication, i'll bet you can make very good 'guesses' at other people's intent and the better you know the person the better your guesses will be. but these are not empirical proofs, they are just conventions you automatically follow when communicating and intent is built-in.

if you later want to empirically 'prove' intent, then you will need to gather evidence as a court would do. that is a totally different context. the communication has broken down and the maxims do not apply. one party thinks the break serious enough to warrant legal action. intent is no longer a matter of convention, it becomes a matter of proof and culpability.

[dedalus]

Quick question: if we take any situation where someone says something that offends someone else, then it comes under one of three categories:

1. You didn't think that it would offend.
2. You thought it might offend, but didn't intend to offend, and thus continued.
3. You intended to offend.

Now, of the three, obviously in case 1 you wouldn't have held off from saying it anyway, and we're not considering case 3. So the point is, are you arguing that someone from case 1 shouldn't have to apologise, or that someone from case 2 should be treated different to someone from case 3?

[JBJ]

I see a few people have brought up intent in a legal sense. I think everyone is pretty much on board with the same concept of intent in legal terms, but are misapplying it to the topic at hand, or only using one instance as a support. In legal use, intent may or may not matter depending on the type of law in question.

For statutory laws, intent does not matter. If you are driving 80mph in a 50mph zone you are just as liable whether you meant to speed or not. Same thing for contractual law. Whether or not you intend to violate a contract doesn't matter, the other party can enforce the terms of the statute/contract without considering consent. It's worth noting that the other party can still consider intent and use discretion when enforcing the contract/statute. However, they have no obligation to do so.

For tort law and criminal law, however, intent does matter. Those sections of the law deal with two issues:
1) Defining the nature and severity of the offense
2) Determining the responsible party

For criminal and tort law, one cannot exist without the other. Intent is a requirement for determining the responsible party. Negligence or recklessness can satisfy the intent requirement in the absence of conscious or malicious intent.

Of course, we are not talking about intent in the legal sense. We are talking about intent in the communication sense. If we are going to use the same terms and principles, we need to decide which category offensive communication falls under: statutory/contract or criminal/tort.

For statutory/contract principles to apply, there would need to be some standard definition that would apply to everyone. If you say "X", then you are guilty of violating the Communication Contract^TM. To the best of my knowledge, there is no society-wide Communication Contract^TM.

That's not to say some venues or media outlets don't have their own. By using their facilities or resources you agree to not violate their terms and conditions. Prime example, the rules for SB: These Rules are SERIOUS BUSINESS. Statutory example: The FCC has regulations for broadcast content. Again, it is only when you use those public resources that you agree to abide by those statutes. So for anyone to say that intent doesn't matter they should be able to point out the relevant contract or statute.

Applying then to criminal/tort principles: Criminal/tort cases have to have an injured party. Those claiming that a statement is offensive are in a sense the injured party. They can't just claim that a statement is offensive without the injury, otherwise we're back to statutory/contract. If there is an injury, it follows that there was a responsible party. In making the case they have to both define the injury and show intent.

Where communication doesn't fit is in the venue and evidence requirements. Legal cases take place in a neutral setting and proof is measured either by the preponderance of evidence or by the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Most disputes over communication take place privately between two parties or in the court of public opinion where there is no neutrality and evidence is hard to establish.

Without a neutral setting or rules for evidence, the "outcome" of a dispute isn't binding, but that doesn't mean that the disputes shouldn't attempt to be resolved by the same general process, which would require that intent be a consideration.

So to conclude, communication can fall under either category depending on where or how the statement was made. If the communication violates an established contract or statute, the statement can be in the wrong without actually causing injury and intent doesn't have to be a factor. If a statement doesn't otherwise violate a contract or statute, then it can't be considered wrong or harmful until the injury and intent have been established.

[Jessica]

For statutory/contract principles to apply, there would need to be some standard definition that would apply to everyone. If you say "X", then you are guilty of violating the Communication ContractTM. To the best of my knowledge, there is no society-wide Communication ContractTM.

So to conclude, communication can fall under either category depending on where or how the statement was made. If the communication violates an established contract or statute, the statement can be in the wrong without actually causing injury and intent doesn't have to be a factor. If a statement doesn't otherwise violate a contract or statute, then it can't be considered wrong or harmful until the injury and intent have been established.

This is the part I have some issues with.

You say there is no social contract (which, can be debated but it is true there is nothing written down), then you say that something can't be hurtful until intent is established. Which means that people can't get hurt if they don't know the intent of the actions, and aren't hurt if you don't intend it.

This is provably incorrect, simply by talking to people. It's actually quite easy to hurt someone with words unintentionally. And even if my intent is not known by them, they can still be hurt by me.

Thus, that last bit is incorrect.

Does that mean there is a social contract then? I would say there are meanings which are culturally based which do have a specific meaning given the social structure. Essentially creating a social network that we all use. Language, in fact, requires a framework to operate. A shared knowledge base from which meaning can be derived. Is there a contract between person A and B? Not in a legal sense, but in a sense that both A and B have a mostly shared knowledge base from which to pull language from.

This language base contains words, phrases, memes which can be offensive. Examples of shared words include "cunt" in America. there are also words, phrases, memes which are modified by the experience of the people who use them, the historical context of the word, the etymology etc.

Essentially, there are things one can say which may not seem offensive to the person who said it, but in the knowledge base of another, is very offensive.

If we say that the whole of the culture includes the common knowledge bases of many different disparate groups, you can conclude that while your personal knowledge of something may be lacking, that knowledge can be found commonly in the culture. Thus, regardless of intent, or personal knowledge of a problem, the common offensive language is still passed on. And there is harm.

Thus, in terms of words one chooses, there can be harm, without intent. There can be injury, and there can be wrong doing, without knowledge. In fact, we can use a term from the legal system (ignorance is not a defense).

[JBJ]

You say there is no social contract (which, can be debated but it is true there is nothing written down), then you say that something can't be hurtful until intent is established. Which means that people can't get hurt if they don't know the intent of the actions, and aren't hurt if you don't intend it.
...
Thus, in terms of words one chooses, there can be harm, without intent. There can be injury, and there can be wrong doing, without knowledge. In fact, we can use a term from the legal system (ignorance is not a defense).

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but it cannot be applied to your argument. You went back to arguing that there is a social contract. Ignorance of a contract is a valid defense. You cannot enforce a contract where the other party didn't consent. Therefore, you cannot claim harm without establishing intent.

No, I don't believe there is a social contract with respect to communication. There are just too many variables. Communication Contracts^TM can exist between individuals and groups, but only so far as they agree on the definition of terms. And technically, there doesn't have to be anything written down. Implied contracts can exist whenever there is a meeting of the minds. The important thing there is "meeting of the minds". Both parties have to agree or have a history of similar agreements or behavior.

Essentially, there are things one can say which may not seem offensive to the person who said it, but in the knowledge base of another, is very offensive.

To use your personal example from the last page. When someone refers to you as he, but was aware that you are trans and prefer feminine pronouns, that person is in violation of your implied social contract. You both already had a meeting of the minds. You are justified in claiming harm and the other person is culpable. No need to establish intent.

Now, if someone who never met you, had no idea that you were trans, and had no clue as to your gender identity referred to you as he, can you honestly claim harm? No contract was previously established, and negligence or recklessness can't be reasonably established.

As long as we're on personal examples, the same thing happens to me all the time. I am a straight male with a common male first name. My last name, however, is a common female first name. I am very often referred to as a female by people who haven't met or spoken to me because they parse my last name as my given name. Does it irritate me, sure. Can I claim injury? No. Not without considering intent. I either let it go for a one time correspondence or clarify it for future communications. If it happens after clarification, then I can claim injury without having to establish or consider intent.

This language base contains words, phrases, memes which can be offensive. Examples of shared words include "cunt" in America. there are also words, phrases, memes which are modified by the experience of the people who use them, the historical context of the word, the etymology etc.

Discussing the pervasive meaning and offensive potential of words can't really be accomplished without going into detail about specific words or phrases. I don't want to do that in a discussion about intent. It's fair to say that there are a handful of words/phrases/memes that could be pervasive enough in their meaning to satisfy a "meeting of the minds" for a significant portion of the population. Even then, there are often enough alternate definitions or meanings that you can't assume everyone will interpret it the same way. Unless the speaker has a history of similar behavior where it would be reasonable to find a statement offensive, it should be assumed that no Communication Contract^TM exists and that intent should be considered before a claim of injury can be justified.

[Jessica]

Now, if someone who never met you, had no idea that you were trans, and had no clue as to your gender identity referred to you as he, can you honestly claim harm? No contract was previously established, and negligence or recklessness can't be reasonably established.

Yes. I can claim harm, because I AM HURT. It does hurt me when someone I don't know walks up to me and says "hello sir". I look like a woman, I dress like a woman. I act like a woman, and yet I'm still sir'd. It hurts. It cuts right to the heart of the issue. I may say I'm a woman, but people don't believe it.

And the example you give is not equivalent. As someone who is male, and cisgendered, being considered female for a moment is a momentary nuisance, but it doesn't bring your gender into question. It isn't someone, whether wittingly or unwittingly casting doubt on who you are in the world. It's just annoying. For me, being called he does exactly that. and thus, it hurts.

When I correct them, they are at fault. I would love an apology but it doesn't really matter. It still hurt. but, rarely do I get one. Often I get corrected and told "no, you're a guy." or "don't worry about it" or any other dismissal, or continuation of the issue.

So, yes. I AM HARMED.

The same can happen in many other instances, especially where one person holds social power over another. As a male, you hold social power over women. As a heterosexual, you hold social power over homosexuals. in these instances, even if you don't mean it, accidental statements, or propagation of memes can hurt the people you have power over. Because, while it doesn't matter to you, it still matters to other people.

And that is the reason why I continue to say intent doesn't matter in these instances. Because, as someone with power over others, whether you want it or not, you can hurt people with that. It's like the kid who grows up too fast and doesn't know his or her own strength.

[JBJ]

Now, if someone who never met you, had no idea that you were trans, and had no clue as to your gender identity referred to you as he, can you honestly claim harm? No contract was previously established, and negligence or recklessness can't be reasonably established.

Yes. I can claim harm, because I AM HURT. It does hurt me when someone I don't know walks up to me and says "hello sir". I look like a woman, I dress like a woman. I act like a woman, and yet I'm still sir'd. It hurts. It cuts right to the heart of the issue. I may say I'm a woman, but people don't believe it.

I emphasized a pretty important section there. If you look, act, and dress like a woman I'd say you pretty well established your gender preference. I'm sorry that people do that, but it doesn't dismiss intent. You have a pretty solid case for establishing negligence, but you can't dismiss intent entirely. Did you consider that possibly that person's only experience with trans people were cross dressers, who while looking and acting like women preferred to retain their male identity?

[Jessica]

No. And I don't care. I get he'd on the phone, when I say my name is Jessica and I have a deep voice. It happens all the time. And it makes sense that they do, because ignoring "jessica" is easy in the face of the evidence of "deep voice = male".

But, and here's the part you're not understanding, it still hurts. It can hurt less. In the same way a pin prick hurts less then a knife. But, stepping on a pin still fucking hurts. and being pricked in the arm, leg, hand 20, 30, 40 times a day, 5 days awake, for 8 hours a day doesn't make me a happy person.

And yes, they might not realize that they're doing harm. And someone might seriously think it's correct to say he to me, because they were told to, and no one told them otherwise. They may think it's the nicest thing. Like during halloween when people think "oh what a nice costume" in their minds and then think that "he" is correct since it's a costume. Even then with more than enough reason for them to doubt my gender identity, and more than enough reasons for them not to be blamed, it still hurts. It fucking hurts a lot. It rips my heart out being called he to my face. It rips my resolve and my desire to be human.

So, yes. It still hurts, no matter what reason, what intention, what ever the person though before hand. I'm getting hurt by this.

[dedalus]

JBJ, above everything, anything you do by accepting that even without the intent you still might have hurt Jessica by calling her a guy isn't going to cause you loss or harm, or even inconvenience above a level of having to think and understand exactly where she's coming from, and consider your words so that you don't do it again. So what's the harm in it? Secondly, if you know that something you say is going to hurt someone, and you're not intending to hurt them, then surely you can phrase it in a more appropriate way? You're effectively claiming the right to be lazy over other peoples right to feel safe. The point where intent matters is that after you apologise and say 'it won't happen again' then you've gone a long way in fixing the situation, and hopefully that can help to heal some of the hurt you've caused. So good intentions do matter, but they only matter after you've realised the negative effect in the first place, and one could almost say that if you're not prepared to say sorry you don't have those good intentions because you care more about your right to not have to apologise over someone else's welfare. To go back to the example I used earlier; if someone's been sitting in a room, pressing a button that's giving you an electric shock, and then comes out and claims that he didn't intend to shock you and therefore he shouldn't apologise to you, then he obviously doesn't much care that his actions caused you to be hurt.

So to summarise: does it matter that intent matters? If you have no bad intent then there's no reason to not apologise. And if you're going to insist that you should be allowed to say those words, then I'd say the level to which I believe your true intent will continue to drop, because it's not too hard to say things without causing hurt to other people.

More importantly, exactly what do you think that you need the right to say in front of people to whom it will cause offence that you can't ever phrase so that it won't hurt people? Surely you're not pushing for the right to continue to use masculine pronouns to describe Jessica when you know full well she's a girl... because I can't quite see how it's possible to do that without meaning harm.

[Lord Aurora]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

tl;dr: Actual tort concept that is highly relevant and shows that in the Real World, intent is only vaguely relevant.

[JBJ]

JBJ, above everything, anything you do by accepting that even without the intent you still might have hurt Jessica by calling her a guy isn't going to cause you loss or harm, or even inconvenience above a level of having to think and understand exactly where she's coming from, and consider your words so that you don't do it again. So what's the harm in it? Secondly, if you know that something you say is going to hurt someone, and you're not intending to hurt them, then surely you can phrase it in a more appropriate way? You're effectively claiming the right to be lazy over other peoples right to feel safe. The point where intent matters is that after you apologise and say 'it won't happen again' then you've gone a long way in fixing the situation, and hopefully that can help to heal some of the hurt you've caused. So good intentions do matter, but they only matter after you've realised the negative effect in the first place, and one could almost say that if you're not prepared to say sorry you don't have those good intentions because you care more about your right to not have to apologise over someone else's welfare. To go back to the example I used earlier; if someone's been sitting in a room, pressing a button that's giving you an electric shock, and then comes out and claims that he didn't intend to shock you and therefore he shouldn't apologise to you, then he obviously doesn't much care that his actions caused you to be hurt.

So to summarise: does it matter that intent matters? If you have no bad intent then there's no reason to not apologise. And if you're going to insist that you should be allowed to say those words, then I'd say the level to which I believe your true intent will continue to drop, because it's not too hard to say things without causing hurt to other people.

More importantly, exactly what do you think that you need the right to say in front of people to whom it will cause offence that you can't ever phrase so that it won't hurt people? Surely you're not pushing for the right to continue to use masculine pronouns to describe Jessica when you know full well she's a girl... because I can't quite see how it's possible to do that without meaning harm.

Dedalus, I really couldn't understand your first sentence. Did you say that I was calling Jessica a guy? The sentence kind of runs on, so I'm not exactly sure if you were, or if you were just confusing my reference to her example. It seems like in your last sentence you were accusing me of wanting to do that. If you were, re-read and reconsider.

As to the rest of your post, yes, I think that intent does matter. When someone claims that they were harmed there has to be a responsible party. Unless the statement contradicts some established agreement, intent must be a consideration.

I don't like the sound of "If you have no bad intent then there's no reason to not apologize" because that leads to an apologetic society where the default response is to give in to any claim of harm. I am skeptical by nature. I don't automatically assume that someone claiming harm is actually harmed unless there's good reason to believe, just as I don't believe that any person who makes an offensive statement did so with no bad intention. I believe it is worth the effort to try and find out.

Your button shock experiment is a bad example. You're omitting the 3rd party that told the button pusher that he was handing out chocolate. That is the responsible person. If that 3rd party intentionally told the button pusher that a shock button handed out candy then you've just shown intent. If the 3rd party honestly got the buttons confused, then he was negligent which as I stated before satisfies intent. Harm was caused. There was a responsible party. Intent was a factor. Thanks for helping make my point.

Edit - L.A. - the Eggshell Skull doctrine still shows intent is relevant. Negligence satisfies intent.

[BlackSails]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

tl;dr: Actual tort concept that is highly relevant and shows that in the Real World, intent is only vaguely relevant.

Except thats really an exception, much like the felony murder rule.

Its intent that seperates murder from manslaughter and fraud from error.

[dedalus]

Re: Thought experiment;

But I've gone through the different positions where the 3rd party is or isn't responsible for the shock, and shown that to the person being shocked, if they don't know who shocked them it doesn't really matter who takes the blame. Assumably it's the responsibility of the 3rd party to apologise as well, but we're not concerned with them right now.

When someone claims that they were harmed there has to be a responsible party.

So there are three parties in this game again then; the environment that caused such a remark to have a negative impact, the person who made the remark and the person who felt hurt. But you're neglecting another factor; the knowledge that such a remark would cause hurt. And I would argue that the knowledge makes you responsible rather then the intent, because you know it's going to happen and you continue to do it.

I don't like the sound of "If you have no bad intent then there's no reason to not apologize" because that leads to an apologetic society where the default response is to give in to any claim of harm. I am skeptical by nature. I don't automatically assume that someone claiming harm is actually harmed unless there's good reason to believe, just as I don't believe that any person who makes an offensive statement did so with no bad intention. I believe it is worth the effort to try and find out.

But people don't simply turn around and claim that what you've said hurt them because they feel like it. And if they keep doing so, then you can figure it out and that's a different case entirely; dealing with liars. I'm pretty sure that simply because they've claimed harm, and you can listen to their side of the story, you can generally work out whether or not you've wronged them. And once again, it doesn't hurt to say sorry. If anything any decent person should be erring on the side of caution because it means you don't further offend them by saying 'oh you're just faking it, you're not truly hurt'.

And I'm not saying you ARE calling Jessica a guy, I'm using it as an example of something that offends someone. I've yet to see an example where you offend someone and shouldn't apologise.

[G.v.K]

Re: Thought experiment;

But I've gone through the different positions where the 3rd party is or isn't responsible for the shock, and shown that to the person being shocked, if they don't know who shocked them it doesn't really matter who takes the blame. Assumably it's the responsibility of the 3rd party to apologise as well, but we're not concerned with them right now.

When someone claims that they were harmed there has to be a responsible party.

So there are three parties in this game again then; the environment that caused such a remark to have a negative impact, the person who made the remark and the person who felt hurt. But you're neglecting another factor; the knowledge that such a remark would cause hurt. And I would argue that the knowledge makes you responsible rather then the intent, because you know it's going to happen and you continue to do it.

I don't like the sound of "If you have no bad intent then there's no reason to not apologize" because that leads to an apologetic society where the default response is to give in to any claim of harm. I am skeptical by nature. I don't automatically assume that someone claiming harm is actually harmed unless there's good reason to believe, just as I don't believe that any person who makes an offensive statement did so with no bad intention. I believe it is worth the effort to try and find out.

But people don't simply turn around and claim that what you've said hurt them because they feel like it. And if they keep doing so, then you can figure it out and that's a different case entirely; dealing with liars. I'm pretty sure that simply because they've claimed harm, and you can listen to their side of the story, you can generally work out whether or not you've wronged them. And once again, it doesn't hurt to say sorry. If anything any decent person should be erring on the side of caution because it means you don't further offend them by saying 'oh you're just faking it, you're not truly hurt'.

And I'm not saying you ARE calling Jessica a guy, I'm using it as an example of something that offends someone. I've yet to see an example where you offend someone and shouldn't apologise.

i think you're confusing issues of morality with issues of law.

in Australia at least, vilification laws place the burden of proof on the complainant and there are things such as the 'reasonable victim' test to ensure that complainants are not acting spuriously. those are examples of legal issues.

i can think of heaps of examples where it would be acceptable to offend somebody eg. if somebody really thinks it's great to throw a baby off a high-rise building, i wouldn't mind offending them.

when you talk of a 'responsibility' to apologise, I think you really mean it woud be good and proper to apologise. i probably agree. but i'm not aware of any laws against being an asshole.