Would you Adam & Eve it ?

[electric*mayhem*band]

First it was the Robertson's Marmalade Golly that caused some people to be mortally offended, now poor old Betty Boop has come in for criticism.

Every one has a right to be offended, but for such a simple thing as a cartoon character, why can't they just reach for the smelling salts and move on.

I'm offended by One Directions's music, but no one listens to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/betty-b​oop-bus-sevenoaks_n_7770838.html

[upthecreekyetagain]

I love the MD's reply to the complaint 🙂

"Despite you not liking the Betty Boop on the bus this only underlines to me that the cartoon has worked as a marketing tool."

"The carton Betty Boop has been around since the 1930s and was designed as an upbeat cartoon animated sex symbol of the depression era to cheer people up."

"We have had the trade press covering the launch with the headline 'This is how it's done', so we would not be looking at redesigning soon, but would possibly use other cartoons in the future."

"Would you and your daughters prefer Jessica Rabbit?"

[Anonymous]

People should lighten up a bit. Next they want Donald Duck to wear trousers.

[fallen-archie]

Don't agree H, Donald should keep his pecker to himself!

[023mjc]

How rediculous. Some people are just not happy unless they have something petty to whine about. The PC brigade would be better employed if they put their energy into one of the really important things going on in the world.

[electric*mayhem*band]

Maybe the lady in question should get out more. I suggest a trip to her nearest town or city centre on a Friday or Saturday night, for instance. If a scantily clad Betty Boop affronts her morals, that experience should give her an apoplectic fit.

[bankhaunter]

I once saw someone say "There are more X than there are half naked girls in Doncaster on a Saturday night."

I've been in Doncaster on a Saturday night and there are an awful lot.

[malacandran]

---

@023mjc wrote:

How rediculous. Some people are just not happy unless they have something petty to whine about. The PC brigade would be better employed if they put their energy into one of the really important things going on in the world.

---

The PC brigade have no idea what's really going on. They're well-meaning, but completely thick.

[lambsy_uk]

Do people really have the right to be offended? Is this written in law that we all have the right to choose to take offence at anything? I very much doubt it!

[jd.linklater]

More Twitter outrage, this time about a lighthearted comment from Peter Alliss. Gosh these people are a bit precious aren't they.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-apologises-for-sexist-remark-by-commentator-peter-alliss/ar...

[electric*mayhem*band]

Yes people have the right to take offence at something they see or hear. They have a moral right. But this right written in law ? Are you for real ? What a ridiculous statement to make.

They are perfectly entitled to take umbrage at anything which they feel offends them, the same entitlement that you appear to have at other people's opinions, something which you seem to voice with monotonous regularity.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@electric*mayhem*band wrote:

Yes people have the right to take offence at something they see or hear. They have a moral right. But this right written in law ? Are you for real ? What a ridiculous statement to make.

They are perfectly entitled to take umbrage at anything which they feel offends them, the same entitlement that you appear to have at other people's opinions, something which you seem to voice with monotonous regularity.

---

Are you sure you are OK?, you seem to want to make a big issue out of things I say even though I've not said what you appear to think I have!

I believe I asked a question rather than make a statement, that is what the questionmark was there for, although I accept I gave an opinion when I said "I doubt it"!

So you say they have a moral right, so who affords them this right?, are we all agreed they have a moral right? Surely if it has been agreed upon it must be written in law!

You claim they are entitled, where does this entitlement come from? To be entitled it has to be bestowed upon you and so again one would expect law to be involved, otherwise people just feel perhaps they should be entitled without actually having this supported in any way!

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.

If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people."

Salman Rushdie

[electric*mayhem*band]

So you say they have a moral right, so who affords them this right?, are we all agreed they have a moral right? Surely if it has been agreed upon it must be written in law!

You claim they are entitled, where does this entitlement come from? To be entitled it has to be bestowed upon you and so again one would expect law to be involved, otherwise people just feel perhaps they should be entitled without actually having this supported in any way!

Is this a passage from 'Alice in Wonderland' or Gilbert &Sullivan's 'Trial by Jury' ? The only thing that makes any sense in your pontification, is the quote by Salman Rushdie.

Oh, and yes I'm fine. Thank you for asking. How about yourself ? You appear to be rather uptight about something. Have an early night is my advice.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@electric*mayhem*band wrote:

So you say they have a moral right, so who affords them this right?, are we all agreed they have a moral right? Surely if it has been agreed upon it must be written in law!

You claim they are entitled, where does this entitlement come from? To be entitled it has to be bestowed upon you and so again one would expect law to be involved, otherwise people just feel perhaps they should be entitled without actually having this supported in any way!

Is this a passage from 'Alice in Wonderland' or Gilbert &Sullivan's 'Trial by Jury' ? The only thing that makes any sense in your pontification, is the quote by Salman Rushdie.

Oh, and yes I'm fine. Thank you for asking. How about yourself ? You appear to be rather uptight about something. Have an early night is my advice.

---

Well if Salman's quote makes sense you will appreciate that no one has a right to be offended!

I am well thanks.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The vast majority of laws are restrictive in nature.  The general assumption is that individuals are free to do what they want unless there is a law stopping them from doing so.

There is no law that says I can eat fish and chips on a Tuesday but I most certainly have a right to do so.

As far as I am aware there is no law that says I can't be offended by whatever I may select to be offended by.  De facto I have a right to be offended and equally the right not to be offended

[lambsy_uk]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

The vast majority of laws are restrictive in nature.  The general assumption is that individuals are free to do what they want unless there is a law stopping them from doing so.

There is no law that says I can eat fish and chips on a Tuesday but I most certainly have a right to do so.

As far as I am aware there is no law that says I can't be offended by whatever I may select to be offended by.  De facto I have a right to be offended and equally the right not to be offended

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

So is there a social convention or ethical theory that offers the right to be offended?

[bankhaunter]

You can have the right to be offended but not the right not to be offended as that suggests others don't have the right to offend you.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

You can have the right to be offended but not the right not to be offended as that suggests others don't have the right to offend you.

---

I have as much right to not be offended by the actions or words of another as I do have to be offended by them - that is my choice.  This right does not impose a duty on another to behave in one way or another.

As with the analogy I made earlier over eating fish and chips - I have the right to make my own decision.

Freedom of choice is a long established social convention and is the ethical core of a free society, to answer Lambsy's question.  In general laws and legal conventions restrict those rights to choose in specific cases but there is no law in this country that I am aware of that restricts my right to feel resentful, annoyed, (definition of offended), or indifferent, (i.e. not offended), about the behaviour of others.

[bankhaunter]

or indifferent, (i.e. not offended), about the behaviour of others.

I'm with you now.

Usually when people think they have the right not to be offended, they mean the action that offends them should be prevented.

[aernethril]

It'll be Popeye next - he's too stereotypical of a over-muscled, dirty ol tar.

Probably someone will want to see him in pink tights swinging his handbag at Bluto who's in a nice suit, with Olive Oyl working in construction.