Do you think things should be changed on the basis you were offended by it?
Asked by
Myndecho (
948
)
March 29th, 2009
I hear all too often people saying that they were offended by something and assuming it should be changed/stopped because they were so, as if that gives them more rights because they were offended.
I could be offended at a man swearing or two men kissing its doesn’t mean it should be stopped because I was so, but based on what happened, without logical reasons I will not take them seriously.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
7 Answers
…so, what are you asking?
Thanks for changing it to the form of a question. Um, no…unless it’s just not generally “socially acceptable” (obscene, etc., like gynecological exams on the steps of the capitol).
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)” might help
Most certainly, I don’t think that things should be changed simply because one person finds it objective. This is simply because everyone has things that offends them but that they don’t take offense to, thus EVERYTHING would be banned if everyone was allowed to get rid of one offensive thing.
Not to mention, things that are hidden or denied automatically become ten times more attractive and tempting to do. Banning such offensive things wouldn’t get rid of them, they’d just be moved underground or to other hidden places.
It is your choice to “not take [people] seriously” when they do things that offend you. I choose to enjoy or dismiss their offensiveness, sometimes appreciating it for challenging the social acceptance of such behaviour. To me, the sight of two men kissing is not offensive and thus does not taint my perception of them.
@dynamicduo
Then what about a lot of people were offended?
For an example a comedian said a joke (doesn’t matter what) and many people were offended should he be stopped from doing his act?
Or does that rely on what he said?
Just because a majority agrees on one thing does not mean it is the correct or best opinion. The majority of Germans supported Hitler passionately, for example.
It becomes a slippery slope very quickly when you start banning “offensive” things. I think this is why there is in general a lack of banned offensive things in both America and Canada.
Offense is a very personal thing. If we continuously change things just because someone is offended by it, we’ll continuously change things back and forth and never actually have a steady decision. So I’m offended by someone pulling out in front of me in traffic? What if they’re offended because I was driving in a way that made if difficult for them to change lanes safely? We have a problem since our two opinions are at odds with each other. So who decides wich offense should lead to a change and wich one should not?
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
