Does the Pope sh1t in the Vatican? Offensive?

[flobadob]

I said this the other day to someone and they took serious offense at it. I have said this loads of time sort of as a joke based on the two different sayings, "Is the Pope Catholic" and "Does a bear Sugar in the woods". Admittedly that was the first person to take offense but I was shocked at their reaction. Seriously, does anyone else find that an offensive thing to say?

[Joolee1980]

Ah, the wonderful technology of the internet. What a relief it exists, without it we would not have this thread.

Perhaps a new saying should be "Do ABers talk smirking sniggering sh*t?"

[flobadob]

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

[Vagrant]

I've found that Catholics are offended when I refer to the Vatican as 'Popetown'

[mike11111]

"Do ABers talk smirking sniggering sh*t?"

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

Oh it does! A good example of alliteration, if I may say so.

[mike11111]

" I've found that Catholics are offended when I refer to the Vatican as 'Popetown' "

Neither are they particularly chuffed when one refers to His Holiness as "Old Redsocks" ( à la Ian Paisley)

[andy-hughes]

Can't agree with you on this one JJ.

You cannot excuse yourself from offending someone by saying you didn;t mean it - it doesn;t work that way.

If i walked up to you in the street, put my face six inches from yours, called you a chuffing bag at the top of my voice, and then smiled and said i didn;t mean it, would you smile back and say "That's perfectly OK then ..." and go on your merry way? i doubt it.

As adults we have a duty of care and responsibility to each other, and trying to add insult to injury by inferring that other people are worthy of offence because they don't share flobadob's sense of humour is simply not a proper way to behave.

[rojash]

"You cannot excuse yourself from offending someone by saying you didn;t mean it"
That's true. But your analogy is terrible. It would be reasonable to assume that someone would take offence at the behaviour you describe, but it wouldn't occur to me (and I'm sure to many others, including Catholics) that a mere statement of the obvious would be offensive.

[jomifl]

Isn't it strange that people can be offended or shocked by somebody saying something that is obviously true and using language that is not offensive. For example many catholics would be shocked if it was suggested that the pope had ever indulged in self abuse. It would in fact be extremely unusual if he hadn't at some time. After all he didn't know that he would become pope so couldn't have known that he could not possibly indulge in self abuse.Even stranger as he is gods representative on earth and thus semi-divine and infallible he is beyond criticism and those qualities appear to be retrospective.

[ludwig]

I don't think someone saying 'I find that offensive' should automatically warrant an apology from the alleged offender. People seem to think they have some god given right to go through life without ever being offended by anything these days.
It's become like a magic phrase that you can use to get other people to change their behaviour to suit your own sensibilities however strange or unreasonable.

I think the following response is equally as valid as an apology - 'Look, I honestly didn't set out to offend you, but now that I have, I don't particularly care'.

A bit rude or unreasonable perhaps? Well maybe or maybe not depending on the circumstances. If you went into a pub and someone asked you to leave because you were black and they found black people offensive, would it be appropriate to apologise and leave? I don't think so. Or if someone said told you couldn't call your teddy bear a certain name or wear a certain piece of clothing or any other perfectly reasonable behaviour.
Obviously it's a bit of a grey area this, but I just think that sometimes the fact that 'offence' is caused should be seen as the offendees problem, and no-one elses.

[naomi24]

^^ I agree absolutely.

[RATTER15]

an offence is only an offence when taken!!

[andy-hughes]

Rojash - my analogy was deliberately extreme in order to add wieght to my argument.

i think what we need to strive for here is the middle ground.

There are people who walk around saying self-rightious things like "I believe in plain speaking ..." and using that as an excuse to be rude to people.

Similarly, ludwig's approach of giving an apology with the first half of a sentence, and then taking it away with the second, does seem rather unhelpful.

If you judge each situation individually, it is possible to apologise on one occasion, ignore on another, argue your case on another, and so on.

A blanket catch-all response infers a lack of thought and consideration, and that helps no-one.

[ludwig]

// Similarly, ludwig's approach of giving an apology with the first half of a sentence, and then taking it away with the second, does seem rather unhelpful. //

I wasn't meaning to imply any hint of an apology in the first half of that sentence Andy, just a statement of facts.
To avoid any confusion, let's leave my recommended response as this: 'I don't particularly care'.

[jomifl]

If you don't intend to offend someone there is no problem with apologising when you do so inadvertantly. If you do intend to offend someone then you should not apologise

[flobadob]

Ratters comment reminded me of something my brother used to say when we were younger. If you told him he was being annoying he'd say "Don't take offence, take a gate".

[overthetop]

The OP asked "Seriously, does anyone find that an offensive thing to say?". I simply responded that I did find it deeply offensive. I did not ask for an apology, nor do I offer one. We are all entitled to our opinions.

[123everton]

I don't find it offensive, it transcends religion this kind of sensibility, threaten to make a burger out of someone elses sacred cow, and hear em scream.
It tickles me when that happens, if you like the prson then were right to apologise it was only a joke.