More and more I'm hearing people substitute "I find that offensive" for "I strongly disagree with you." It saves appealing to evidence and making an argument. If I find it "offensive," you have to stop doing what you're doing or saying what you're saying. If I disagree with you, I have to explain why.
There are odd results.For example, an Oregon woman was told by a judge that feeding bears was "stunning and offensive behavior" and so he told her to exit her home for three years http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/ woman_who_fed_bears_sentenced.html Maybe he meant that the behavior amounted to an offense which was clearly within the margins of an act defining what constitutes "chasing and harassing wildlife," the crime of which she was convicted? You can understand this case--feeding bears makes them dangerous to humans. I think, however, he was accusing her of violating behavioral norms in a manner that offended his sense of what is right.
In another case Miriam E. S. of Hillsboro was arrested in 2006 for keeping more than 150 rabbits in her home, and having others in her freezer. In court she pleaded no contest to a charge of animal neglect. She was ordered to avoid coming "within 100 yards of a rabbit" during five years' probation. Imagine the local police on patrol, "Jake, I've spotted a rabbit in that field...hit the siren, I think she's too close." On June 16 Miriam E.S. called a hotel worker to come fix the T.V. in her room at Homestead Studio Suites Hotel. He found more than a dozen rabbits hopping around and so called the police with alacrity. Miriam is now serving ninety days in jail. I was reminded of a house I visited in Peru wherein they kept guinea pigs for food, thirty or so running free on the dirt floor of the living space. No offense in Peru; "animal neglect" in Tigard's Studio Suites Hotel.
Meanwhile, I have been reading of all things, "The Historians' History of the World," which interest is explained by the fact that it was published by Britannica (see earlier discussion with Lawrence for details). They sure don't write 'em like this any more, "These Aztecs had been gradually growing in consequence since their first arrival in the valley. Decidedly inferior to the Tezcucans in culture, and professing a much more bloody and impure worship, they excelled them in certain qualities, and possessed, on the whole, a firmer and more compact character. If the Tezcucans were the Greeks, the Aztecs were the Romans of the New World." Fifth edition, copyright 1926. What on earth is a "firmer and more compact character," and how does one come to possess such a thing? What makes a more bloody worship "impure"? Are these descriptions "offensive"? To whom?
Carry on. David Ritchie, Portland, Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
