Find a new cartoonist.

A better right is "the right not to take offense". It's better because it's a universal right that can never be taken away, only given away by people who choose to take offense at something that plenty of other people just laugh off or ignore.

Glen Campbell was more true cowboy than either of those clowns.

everyone takes offense at something - and that something might be different for everyone

something you might get deeply upset about might not upset me - but that doesn't mean i will belittle the offense caused by saying i can laugh it off why cant you?

if it causes you offense then clearly its something that matters and is personal to you - regardless of what anyone else thinks

those people who are suggesting that there is no offense caused because they themselves don't find it offensive are lacking any empathy

The cowboy is just as much a religious icon as American football. In other words, on par with the blue-eyed, blond, Teutonic Jesus of European folklore, and far more important than the Jewish guy who was alleged to throw a group of shameless peddlers out of the Temple.

I don't doubt you have a shrine to John Wayne.  Your post is obviously sarcastic and I'm not going to bother trying to engage you in conversation any further.

I don't think the OP made his case very well, but I'm in general agreement that a few small changes such as those he noted would have Erik running for cover. There is much in this cartoon that I would not want to represent my business if I were running the most popular chess playing site in the world with members from every creed and culture, race and ethnicity, rich and poor.

It has nothing to do with PC (which is mostly hooey, anyway), and has a lot to do with when and where it might be appropriate to deploy cultural and national stereotypes (ever?).

Ok, with that post you have redeemed yourself, but I am mystified as to how you posted while I had you on my blocked list.

There are those who take offense at anything and everything, who tell others "You shouldn't do this! You can't say that!" and trample on the rights of others, so that they never have to deal with anything that doesn't fit in with their view of the world. It's not that these things are very important to them, but they just can't be bothered to consider someone else's views, so they forbid them instead. As you put it, they "lack empathy" for those who are just living out their lives according to their own beliefs.

There is an old saying - you cannot cover the earth in leather, but you can cover your feet with it. Instead of trying to destroy everything that might possibly offend someone, we should learn to be more tolerant of others' points of view, and instead of immediately saying "this is offensive and wrong," try to consider it from other viewpoints and decide whether it is really intended to be offensive or not.

One should be considerate and careful to avoid receiving offense as much as giving it. Anything else is hypocritical.

We are talking about an image depicting a chess player in the guise of a deity of the third largest, and possibly oldest mainstream, religion in the world - next to a basket with severed heads in it

Therefore it has the potential to upset one seventh of the worlds population.

If it was a picture of people doing something anti-american i am sure a lot of people on here would be demanding it be removed and cursing those who defended it

I am not Hindu - it does not offend me directly - and as I have said - not much does offend me in reality - but I find anything that belittles anyones religious beliefs unnecessary and wonder why people are defending a person's "point of view" to draw something people might find offensive - but not the people who are proud of their very personal religious beliefs - beliefs which probably define the person they are - who we can probably safely assume have done nothing themselves to offend the cartoonist.

I don't think therefore that I am being hypocritical in this instance - you can throw obscenities at me until you're blue in the face - and I wont bat an eyelid - I have very broad shoulders - but whether its right to produce things like this cartoon with potential to upset a lot of people and then argue it's the cartoonist's right to express themselves freely ... that I find hypocritical - because his/her actions have the potenital to invalidate the rights of a lot more people than themselves

This is one of those arguments that cannot be won.

Nobody here is going to convince anybody on the other side of his point of view.

My view is the cartoon is (probably unintentionally) in bad taste. You shouldn't insult or offend because "freedom of speech" allows you to. Imagine one of the  players was German, and was depicted with swastikas or a Hitler moustache. I bet a great  many more people would be offended.

Westerners and even those in Africa will understand your Hitler remark and maybe some will use your analogy to see how a cartoon can cause offense.

1 billion Hindus in the world though - I wouldn't say a great many more people would be offended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

rooperi is actually Godwin ...

to prove his theory he has multiple usernames on thousands of threads and mentions Hitler at some point on each