<<<Analogizing breast-feeding in public to eating dogs, urinating
in public, sexual intercourse in public, etc., and calling it an
instance of loosening standards isn't "tactful", my man.
There are some, and I am one, who would call it "belligerent.">>>
That is an unfair characterization of what Neocon did, Cobe. It implies he said something along the lines of "Breast feeding is like eating dogs or urinating in public."
What essentially happened is that Neocon was engaged in a dispute in which it was argued to him that the reason (one of them) breast-feeding in public was not inconsiderate was that it was a natural function. Also, an argument about what other cultures find acceptable was made.
In such a circumstance, it is quite rhetorically proper, and intellectually respectable, and not belligerent, to point out other behaviors that are also natural functions that are, nonetheless, not acceptably done in public; and to point out that just because something is acceptable in another culture doesn't make it so in ours.
It is a narrow use of one aspect of similarity between nursing and sexual intercourse and eating dogs for the purpose of addressing a particular claim on the part of your opponent.
One is allowed, in argument, to point out the logical fallacies of one's opponent.
It is a logical fallacy, and maybe more than one, to use "naturalness" and "other-cultural acceptance" in support of a position and get indignant when your opponent points out the logical fallibility of your argument by citing some of the many exceptions to it. |
