From: usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message   
   , David   
   Friedman  writes   
   >In article ,   
   > Helen Hall  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In message   
   >> , David   
   >> Friedman  writes   
   >> >At a slight tangent to the general discussion, I suspect one of the   
   >> >things going on is the clash between two different attitudes to certain   
   >> >sorts of interactions.   
   >> >   
   >> >Imagine that A and B do not have a close relationship--aren't lovers,   
   >> >roommates, siblings. A does X, something which, under ordinary social   
   >> >rules, he is permitted to do. B responds with "don't do that, it hurts   
   >> >me/makes me unhappy/ ...  ."   
   >> >   
   >> Then A shouldn't do it. Full stop.   
   >   
   >Even if what A is doing is arguing that the political opinion C has just   
   >expressed is mistaken? That C has stated false facts? Those are things   
   >that might well make B unhappy, either because B agrees with C or   
   >because B doesn't like other people disagreeing.   
   >   
   >Everyone has a veto over what everyone else says?   
   >   
   Depends whether you want to remain friends or not, doesn't it? This is   
   where "agree to differ" comes in. Besides, that's not what you implied   
   with your previous post.   
      
   Helen   
   --   
   Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)