This week as we continue the discussion on what means can one hope to accomplish by criminalization, Feinberg addresses how offensive acts may also be criminalized. This is a contrast from last week’s reading where Mill said criminalization can only be used to prevent harm on others. By definition, Feinberg says he is offended when he is in a “disliked state,” contributes that position by the fault of someone else, and has the feeling of resentment towards the other individual. From my understanding from the end of that paragraph is you must have all three to be offended in his true definition of taking offense. Feinberg says that the disliked state of mind has to come from another party. It cannot be taken as an offense if it doesn’t reach (by definition of an offensive act) another party. This reminds me of a genuinely well-known definition of crime. You must have mens rea and actus reus to be a crime. There must be a mindset full of intent and the actual act (follow-through). Feinberg later goes on to say that there is no way, even from the evidence, that people should take offensiveness more seriously than harm. I got from that that harm is to be taken more seriously than offensiveness. Feinberg says that when a crime is both harmful and offensive, the punishment that follows should be severe. It does follow that the severity the punishment holds come primarily from the harm principle. The question now becomes what harmless acts make another so uncomfortable that legal protection may be warranted? The author now gives us scenarios in which to put ourselves into the experience to have a better understanding of what your own governance would find so unpleasant you would deem it offensive and wonder what legal protection would be in your corner. As regards to the story, I found only a few not offensive. Feinberg goes on to say how most of us are offended because it’s an assault on our emotions or emotional ability. Most of us are disturbed rather by that than an affront on our senses. He references the fingernails on the chalkboard again to show that an experience can be so unpleasant to make it barely bearable. He also makes the conclusion on the contrary that a person might be connecting (for example) odor from someone as an unwashed human-being and that’s entering more into the equation than just the odor. I found it interesting that Feinberg also states that there is no possible escape from such unpleasantries that often leads them into a convicted silence/depressive state.