Everyone has the "right" to be "appalled" at anything. Does that right inherently justify actually being appalled?
Which is more appalling: someone attempting to substantially alter someone else's intellectual property or the owner of the property putting a stop to it?
If I wrote "Romeo and Juliet" and some theatre somewhere wanted to perform it altered as "Romeo and Joe" would the performers have the "right to be appalled" if I said no and put a stop to it? If I wrote a violin concerto and an orchestra wanted to perform it with an electric guitar soloist instead of a violinist would the conductor have the "right to be appalled" if I said "No. That's not what I wrote and you're not going to do it"?
Why is the father's being "appalled" justifiable in this situation?
"Why is the father's being "appalled" justifiable in this situation? "
Darn good point. The military has released a "sexual harassment" radio spot that asserts, essentially, the intent of the "offender" doesn't matter; if the "victim" feels offended, the "offender" is guilty.
That's just nuts. When I was a kid, if you complained about something another kid said, you were most likely to be told, "Oh, he's just teasing you. Don't be such a baby."
People sometimes get their skivvies all in a wad about stuff that doesn't warrant it. Instead of telling them not to be so thenthitive to triva, now we cater to them and pillory whoever they're complaining about.
It's a nasty tyranny in the making.