No, we are trying to get you to understand that there are much better ways
to express your argument than by invoking an analogy that offends a large
group of people.

Here's the scenario, should you decide to halt all communication that
offends
some people.

The whole world goes silent from lack of all human communication. WHY?

All advertisements must be taken out of public view, as smoking cigarettes
angers the anti-smoking crowd, meat products anger p.e.t.a.-types, wood
products anger earth first! types, etc;

All books must be taken off the shelves, even the oldest literature offends
some moralists... religious books offend athiests and pagans. Secular
books offend christians, etc.

All music must be taken off the airwaves and recorded music products
must be taken off the shelf... as rap offends those who've been
victimized by violent crime, religious music offends seculars, pagans
and athiests, etc.

Alcohol must be taken off the market to avoid offended MADD.

I could continue this ad nauseum but I think the point is pretty clear.
If YOU want to live in that world, go right ahead and censure everything
you say and carefully make sure you are not going to first offend
everybody. The utopian socialists will LOVE you for it. I, however,
will not. Ever. Are we clear?

Clint
KB5ZHT