My dear E, I disagree with the assertion in your post that Neo did not make the analogies. He did not make them explicitly, I agree, he did not say, "breastfeeding in public is like urinating in public." However, the analogy was implicit.
The arguments went something like this (and I am paraphrasing):
"Breast-feeding in public is nothing more than the satisfaction of a baby's hunger, a natural urge and a natural act."
Neo: "Pulling out my wang and urinating all over the restaurant is merely satisfaction of a natural urge, too."
And he most certainly did say that breast-feeding in public is an example of loosening standards, explicitly, repeatedly. Which I don't think is tactful, and I do think is belligerent. Your opinion may vary, of course, but that's mine.
Neo comported himself very well in the argument, and doesn't need defending, but of course you have a right to defend him if you think he needs it.
I don't see how "naturalness" and "other-cultural acceptance" are fallacious arguments. They may be ineffective refutations of Neo's position, that women should not breastfeed in public because some find it offensive. However, the dog-eating argument was made by Neo in response to my comment that "Americans are weird." Thus, I would say that in that context, Neo's dog-eating argument was an ineffective refutation of my comment that Americans are weird. The cultural argument was a side-show.
Neo remains convinced that breast-feeding in a public restaurant is a breach of decorum. As decorum is in the eyes of the beholder, a matter of taste, it's impossible to prove that he's wrong in his belief. That he's in a distinct minority refutes his position that his belief is so widely held that it must control social behavior in the United States. |
