---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@springyzone wrote:

---

We are talking here of a vintage swap card with a golly from Rupert Bear. It is probably not going to be bought for a child but a collector.

---

I wasn't talking about that at all, I was responding to a much broader post.

 

You also didn't address my last line - the one that said "just because people don't see the harm something causes, doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm". 

 

On that note, if someone tells you something causes them harm, you can't debate that, you can either choose to believe and respect it, or... not.

 

---

I guess it is a philosophical discussion in a sense then.🙂

Granted that just because people don't see the harm something causes, doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm, or that if someone feels something is harmful to them, we can't debate that that is a genuine feeling they have.

On the other hand, we have, as you mentioned earlier, a situation of extremes. For example, we have chameleon's example where someone took exception to the word mute.

There is no doubting that the person felt the word was harmful.

But what is doubtful is if most other people did. 

So we come to the question of what path do we take, as there will never be a situation where 100% of people agree.

And we also have to question if the word mute itself is  considered evil by the woman. Is her stance that it can only be applied to people & not objects or is it that a disability must never be alluded to at all? that aspect we don't know.

I suppose my concern is that I know attitudes change over time but I feel that at the moment, there are forces at work to ensure that what are minority views in many cases are enforced on the majority.