1600 Penn (great show, btw) had an episode where people picketed the White House for the environmental policies. Through a series of hijinks, these people got a

1600 Penn (great show, btw) had an episode where people picketed the White House for the environmental policies. Through a series of hijinks, these people got an audience with the President to express their concerns. Once in there, it becomes a cacophony as some argue for public transit, others argue to corporate responsibility, etc. They had some "thing" in common, but each had much different ideas about what really brought them there. So, I find true your statement that even within subgroups, there is disagreement over an offense's legitimacy. Yet, we as flawed humans still seek objective punishment for others's offenses, even when we don't personally ascribe to claiming those offenses for ourselves. This to me is the most interesting part of all of this, that everybody has a ready-made opinion about what thing should happen to these people involved even though the original offense was 100% subjective. This brings up some interesting questions: 1) Can one really be offended by hearing a story about a subjective offense from someone else, and thus pass legitimate judgment? If so, what is the real offense - the original act, or merely what the act represents. 2) If the true offense is about what the act represents, then does passing judgment on the offensive party appropriately handle the situation? 3) If an offense is a subjective thing, then does it need to be personal, and directed toward the offendee in order to be legitimate?