While one should never strive to offend, even in 'the salon', and generally speaking the most insulting comments are the basest, loosest, least reasoned additions to the conversation, trying to weed out all possibility for offense castrates the conversation. But don't fight that immature conclusory statement with "how rude! you have offended me!". It proves little. Fight back with "your argument is conclusory, poorly constructed, and relies only on stirring up the emotions."
I would love to see where I said that one should respond that way. There is a huge difference between being offended and saying, "How rude! I'm offended!"
Regarding how you believe I should respond: someone who would argue at such an immature level would never be swayed by any argument, no matter how well crafted, because they have demonstrated their minds are closed. My experience has been to engage them at all is to, ultimately, sink to their level or concede by default, because I will grow tired of it long before they do.
Just because I personally think something is rude, it doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean I put, in giant neon letters, "HOW RUDE!" in their comment box. I don't lobby Blogspot to remove their blog. I don't post, on my Facebook, "No one read this blog!" But I'm allowed to think it is rude, and dismiss the argument as uninformed, closed-minded, and offensive, and go on about my day, right?
Also, BettyDraper's point about neutering and sterilizing language is one that I completely agree with, and it's not a support specifically for 'insulting terms'. It's a recognition that any time you start to place significant limitations on how intellectual discourse occurs, you stifle thought, creativity, reaction, counterreaction, and all the things that drive us forward.
Here is the quote in question:
Neutering opinions and sterilizing the language we use so that no one has to suffer that ultimate tragedy, "being offended," is such a misguided and anti-intellectual aim. Adding layers of disclaimers to personal essays and blogs lest the unwary visitor feel the sting of having his or her belief system questioned in coarse terms? Frightening and discouraging.
The bolding refers to the part of the quote I actually disagreed with, because I think she makes two different points here. I happen to think that disclaimers, when there is reasonable expectation of offense, or deliberate inclusion of offensive material, help protect discourse. One of the reasons people still have the right to produce material reasonably considered offensive is that these disclaimers (or ratings, or stickers, or whatever) exist.
In the OP, the person in question did not just post a link to his blog. He posted with a message asking his friends to read and leave comments. A small description("about religion") would not have harmed his intellectual freedom in any way, but it would have prepared the OP and, perhaps, allowed her to make a more informed choice about what she was reading.
Perhaps what it comes down to for me is this: I think everyone, everywhere, at any time, has the right to say, or think, or write, or sing, or do anything they want to do at all, within the bounds of the law and societal custom. But I don't think I have to see it, read it, hear it, or witness it in any way, and I find it rude when I am forced, or tricked into, doing so.
(I understand the OP wasn't tricked into clicking the link, but I believe we have moved beyond the OP a bit into more abstract territory.)
Edited to add: I agree with Duckie that we have a few points going on, and I'm sorry if I muddied those waters. I don't think posting a link without a disclaimer on FB is rude, per se, but I think if you can take the time to write, "Hey, everybody, please check out my new blog and leave a comment," you could also take the time to post, "It's about religion, though, be warned!" But apparently I'm in the minority there, so I'll just call it my preference, and I don't think it is stifling for me when I do it.