Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (54346)	9/3/1999 11:57:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<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.

To: Ilaine who wrote (54346)	9/3/1999 4:06:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I did not make any such analogies, nor did I call it a loosening of standards. When you called Americans more uptight than the rest of the world, I mentioned that we do not eat dogs, which I thought showed the limits of using foreign standards to judge our society. When someone said that breast were used for nourishing infants, I mentioned urinating in public to show the limits of the "natural function" argument. I have not mentioned public intercourse at all. And I referred to a general loosening of standard of dress and decorum, which may be a good or a bad thing...