Question

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Let's say you know a person named "Mr. Z", and you also have a guy named "Mr. Y", who is your friend.  Mr. Z says something that upsets you, which is: "Oh yeah, isn't Mr. Y a sex offender or something?"   He offers no proof, other than his supposed recollection that Mr. Y does not want sex offenders to go to prison.  He offers no appropriate context or direct quotes from Mr. Y. 


So, do you have the right to be offended?  Or at least find Mr Z's comment distasteful in it's current form? 

[Oakvale]

It seems reasonable to assume that said Mr. Y is a nonce, yes. Who else would get worked up about sex offenders going to prison?

[politicus]

Let's say you know a person named "Mr. Z", and you also have a guy named "Mr. Y", who is your friend.  Mr. Z says something that upsets you, which is: "Oh yeah, isn't Mr. Y a sex offender or something?"   He offers no proof, other than his supposed recollection that Mr. Y does not want sex offenders to go to prison.  He offers no appropriate context or direct quotes from Mr. Y. 


So, do you have the right to be offended?  Or at least find Mr Z's comment distasteful in it's current form? 

Of course.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

It seems reasonable to assume that said Mr. Y is a nonce, yes. Who else would get worked up about sex offenders going to prison?

What if Mr. Y simply wanted them to be rehabilitated?  It's certainly not a mainstream argument these days, but does that really mean he should be labeled as a SO?  Plus, you have no direct quotes either, so you aren't 100% sure that whatever speculation offered is even correct.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Just because someone has a certain belief (regardless of how wrong it may be) it doesn't make them that thing. Unless there's solid evidence that this Mr. Y actually committed such a crime, you have every right to be offended.