Mark,
Though I guess I didn't state it right, my point was that we did do harm to them though not intentionally. While feelings and perceptions are transient, that does not make them unreal to the person who is having those feelings or perceptions.
It isn't that someone simply thought I hurt them, they were hurt by my actions or words because they misinterpreted my intent or meaning. Isn't it my responsibility to attempt to clarify my words so that they do not take offense where none was intended? Or should I just tell them that they are wrong in the way they feel about what I did or said and let it remain their problem? Or should I just try to justify my position and be done with it?
Or should I then intentionally attempt to hurt them and/or their feelings further by calling them stupid for not understanding me properly? Am I justified in doing that?
If you said something someone else misinterpreted, then of course you should clarify.
In my business, I see people take offense at things all the time, that were not "intended" to cause offense at all. Often, the "offended" party has difficulty understanding for any number of reasons, perceptions being one of them.
There are times that no attempt to clarify on the speaker's part could be successful - because there are times that the "offended" party has decided to be offended and has decided that what they heard is what was meant, and that's that (this would be the hard-headed listener!). Other times, a simple clarification results in everyone being happy. And other times, something in the middle happens, and both parties are "okay" with it.
Communication errors and misperceptions happen all the time. Who is the responsible party? Depends. In your example, the listener.
See, what I do is communication analyses, so that's what I would say in the cases you presented.
However, in the idea you asked for retaliatory communication - I've seen that happen too - everyone has of course. That's how fights start. While that's not what is the recommended course of action, it's what often happens.
And it isn't always the "reason" fights start.
Because in the analyses, it isn't necessarily a communication "problem" that is the source of the fight. Often, the communication is EXACTLY what was intended - as in the case of the hard-headed person. It can be exactly the case that the communication was PURPOSELY "misinterpreted" for the specific purpose of causing a disruption, anger, and problems.
This is often done so that later on, the "problem" can be easily blamed on a "communication misunderstanding", and not on the person truly at fault. The person who PURPOSELY decided not to accept the clarification, not to listen to reason, not to allow the person who originally did nothing to offend and meant no offense - because it puts the person in a power position or serves some purpose.
Communication and perception are quite complex, and your examples have intermingled the two.
And what if someone else jumps to their defense, am I then justified in shifting my wrath to them by alluding to what I perceive them to be saying or doing, though I know nothing more of their intent than the person who was offended knew of my intent in the first place?
Now, into the realm of "intent". This is quite a different area entirely, when we talk philosophically! There's an entire world of debate when the word "intent" comes onto the scene. If we are talking "communicative intent" in the specific example presented, I will take for granted that the people understand the situation and - therefore - communicative intent would be known. That is, one would know that the third party is in fact communicating for the purpose of defending the "offended" party.
That would be "communicative intent". Other intents would be subterfuge, and would have to be assumed by the first and second parties, and outside the purview of myself for this example, and therefore I could not analyze them.
As to your perceptions of their "intents", I would presume you mean beyond communicative intents. That would mean that you are making some sort of assumption that there are underlying mechanisms and desires on the part of the third party which are being met by this defense - and those are wholly YOUR own perception in the example. You are responsible for those perceptions, unless you have evidence that bears them out.
SB
