Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?

Umbran · Oct 29, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
Wut? 'Pinnacle of society'? Who the hell says? He's a man. Nothing more. Whatever BS you've decided to ascribe to him has nothing to do with that reality. You can expect all you want from him beyond what you'd expect from me - that's your business. Thing is, it's also totally unfair to him, to me and to you.

Socio-politically, no, he's not "just a man". He is a prince - that's a very specific position within his society. It comes with responsibilities.

If he abdicates his right to the throne, he's "just a man". If he wants to stay in that office, he takes with it all the burdens of that office.

Kramodlog · Oct 29, 2013

Umbran said:
Sure. But there's no right to not be seen as offensive, either.

That is covered by freedom of speech.

NewJeffCT · Oct 29, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
So what? He's just a man and anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. One of the very major things wrong with this world is all the extra crap we've decided to assign to people who are for whatever reason perceived as a station above us. That's wrongheaded. I'm not saying people don't see him as someone who's supposed to be better for whatever dumbass reason they've decided was good enough, I'm saying it's wrong to do so and, therefore, those silly notions shouldn't apply.
.

Sorry, just because you say it shouldn't apply does not mean that it does not apply.

It's something that has applied to humans for thousands of years. Public figures - be they politicians, kings, queens, emperors, or other celebrities - have different standards than the general public. If the Pharaoh of ancient Egypt tripped & fell down the steps of the pyramid and broke his neck, it's an event that affects the entire kingdom and most likely it would be news throughout the kingdom. If one of the slaves who built the pyramid tripped & fell and broke his neck, nobody but his immediate family would care.

NewJeffCT · Oct 29, 2013

goldomark said:
That is covered by freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means the government cannot makes laws restricting the freedom of speech. A private newspaper like the one Murdoch runs is free to outraged at Prince Harry if they want.

Morrus · Oct 29, 2013

What's freedom of speech to do with anything? Who's being denied that? Harry exercised his. The newspapers exercised theirs. People in this thread are exercising theirs. I don't get why it's an issue.

Kramodlog · Oct 29, 2013

NewJeffCT said:
Freedom of speech means the government cannot makes laws restricting the freedom of speech.

I do not see the mention of guberment.

A private newspaper like the one Murdoch runs is free to outraged at Prince Harry if they want.

And?

Kramodlog · Oct 29, 2013

Morrus said:
What's freedom of speech to do with anything? Who's being denied that? Harry exercised his. The newspapers exercised theirs. People in this thread are exercising theirs. I don't get why it's an issue.

Ask Umbran.

Morrus · Oct 29, 2013

goldomark said:
Ask Umbran.

Umbran hasn't mentioned it. You have, though.

Janx · Oct 29, 2013

Umbran said:
Sure. But there's no right to not be seen as offensive, either.

True as well.

I do believe a person should give courtesy to TRY not to be offensive.

But I also believe a person should TRY to assume that offense was not intended.

Thus, while Harry didn't appear to be trying to not be offensive, given that he didn't start rounding jews up and shooting them, we as the reciever of his message don't need to assume the worst.

To me, it's the fine line of being offensive vs. taking offense. With the latter being artificial and arbitrary in nature on the reciever's part, and the former being deliberately hurtful on the sender's part.

Dannyalcatraz · Oct 29, 2013

I do believe a person should give courtesy to TRY not to be offensive.

But I also believe a person should TRY to assume that offense was not intended.

While I agree, it is an unfortunate issue with being human: the emotional, limbic systems in our brains engage faster than our rational portions. In other words, we react, then rationalize.

The speed at which our limbic system reacts is one reason that negotiations training involves teaching would-be mediators to avoid the question "Why?"- it's a word almost magical in its ability to make parties revert to emotional positions, to start justifying themselves in their personal narrative- as opposed to logically thinking about the reasons for their assertions.

Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?

Umbran

Mod Squad

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

NewJeffCT

First Post

NewJeffCT

First Post

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Janx

Hero

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Similar Threads